The EGO speaks... I just threw up in my mouth.........

[ugafan]

The rules are clear, I'm afraid, when it comes to any Nazi analogy, in any context...

I have to call you on "Satyric" - this usually relates to a Greek goat-like woodland creature (as in a Satyr). To be 'satyric' means to have the characteristics of a satyr, for example: " that satyric, lecherous, horny old man".

Perhaps there should be a Godwin's type law for the use of ancient Greek mythological creatures. :happy:

satyr. it's what's for dinner.

sorry, i couldn't pass over the opportunity to tell that joke. :cheesy:

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I still say 3 D is in its infancy

It is a technology that will blow our mind as it matures

 

[roxics]

I still say 3 D is in its infancy

It is a technology that will blow our mind as it matures

I want to agree with you. But let's think about this for a minute. What is 3D? I mean 3D movies aren't really 3D. True 3D is the ability to move around an object and see it from various perspectives. 3D movies require you to view them straight on because there is only one camera and you have to stay where that camera is. Shift yourself a little and the whole thing goes boom. It's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of physics.

It's like those movie rides where if the movie and motion aren't perfectly synced, people are getting sick. So until we have bullet-time-like camera setups filming every scene, 3D is never really going to be 3D.

 

[Kholi]

Godwin's Law has been played, close the thread.

Why do people reckon 3d makes the movie more realistic? Avatar was about as unrealistic looking a movie as you are likely to see. The 3d does not represent the actual 3rd dimension we see in real life. It looks like flat cardboard cutouts layered on top of one another. There is no realistic sense of depth, say like when you see a close up of a face you dont see the face receding as it curves away from you (as you would see depth in real life) - rather you see a flat face layered on another flat layer behind it.

Without calling Cameron's personality traits into play here, I will say that if I close my eyes, and just begin to imagine what 60P in 3D looks like, as long as it's shot in 3D and not post converted, it's going to be an experience that probably rips one's brain to pieces pleasantly, if all things in production are equal. I can't wait to see it flourish or fail, personally.

Part of what he's doing is attempting to keep the theatrical experience alive. I'm not old, well I am old as hell, but I may be old-fashioned when I say that I believe movies were made to be experienced on a larger-than-life scale.

People should be consumed by the image and the sound, and the atmosphere of being brought together in one place and shutting their brains off to indulge.

3D, ticket prices, technology in general are a way of keeping the machine alive as long as possible, before home theater and the internet completely destroy it.

Sorry if this comes off as nostalgic and, please, don't think that I do not realize there's also a money ploy behind this. Everyone knows it, it's not like there's anything new to be said about it. Just like everyone knows "Hollywood can't come up with new ideas..."

What an irritating diatribe, that.

 

[Nektonic]

Part of what he's doing is attempting to keep the theatrical experience alive. I'm not old, well I am old as hell, but I may be old-fashioned when I say that I believe movies were made to be experienced on a larger-than-life scale.

People should be consumed by the image and the sound, and the atmosphere of being brought together in one place and shutting their brains off to indulge.

3D, ticket prices, technology in general are a way of keeping the machine alive as long as possible, before home theater and the internet completely destroy it.

I agree with your overall sentiment. I just don't see why it seems that the discussion is always so polarized between the two extremes of:


:grin::2vrolijk_08:OMG! I just got a major boner from the 3D movies, let's go whole hog 3D

versus

3D is poo I hate it and wish it would die! :kali::nads:



Not that you are saying this Kholi, just that the overall debate seems to go in that direction a lot.

 

[Postmaster]

I still say 3 D is in its infancy

It is a technology that will blow our mind as it matures

That mantra is around for more than 10 decades.
3D - or more precise stereoscopic cinema - flopped several times since the last 100 years.
I don´t know if you can call that infancy, or rather beating a dead horse every time the "home experience market" comes with something new, like TV, color TV, VHS, DVD or BluRay.

I think the reason is, that the stereoscopic effect doesn't add anything to a movie.
First they added sound, than color and that was great.
But even on the oldest 2D, mute, black & white flicks you can already tell whats in the foreground, and whats in the back.

I can see stereoscopic movies as a special format like IMAX, but as a mainstream ore future standard? No way.

Frank

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I want to agree with you. But let's think about this for a minute. What is 3D? I mean 3D movies aren't really 3D. True 3D is the ability to move around an object and see it from various perspectives. 3D movies require you to view them straight on because there is only one camera and you have to stay where that camera is. Shift yourself a little and the whole thing goes boom. It's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of physics.

It's like those movie rides where if the movie and motion aren't perfectly synced, people are getting sick. So until we have bullet-time-like camera setups filming every scene, 3D is never really going to be 3D.

It's called "video games" and I'm sure playing GTA would be AMAZING with stereoscopic glasses on a 50" HD screen and a proper sound system.
I'm sure also that gamers would spend the kind of money on glasses an experience like that would bring to them.

But watching movies at home or in the theater that way just seems forced, and if you leave a theater saying "The 3D effects looked good", something important must have been missing from that film.

 

[maranfilms]

What James Cameron wants and what is reality are two different things right now. Granted I respect the guy as a filmmaker and tech nut. But I think we're in the middle of a paradigm shift. I can't quite make it out yet, but on one end there are these ultra high budget 3D films and on the other are these small youtube movies. I'm not really sure where home theater stands in all of this. It seems like a lot of people have gone out and bought a 40" LCD tv and that's the end of it. I don't even really hear anyone talking about surround sound like everyone did in the 90's.

It also seems like more people are spending time in front of their computer than their TV's these days. I'm not sure people are even wanting to make the room in their homes for a proper 3D home theater setup.

Even my own movie watching habits have changed. I watch most stuff on my 24" computer monitor these days via netflix or digital download. I don't even care if it's not HD. If the movie is truly epic and enticing I'll go to the theater to see it. I don't really have any desire to bring 3D home. I don't have the money or the space for a big enough screen to make desirable.

Of course, what do I know? I could be wrong.

I have a feeling eventually 3D will take off and people won't mind wearing the glasses. But that's only going to happen when we're all walking around wearing augmented reality glasses that also take the place of our TV's, cell phones and computers. At that point I could look at any wall in my house and have an instance 90" 3d home theater. But that's at least 15-20 years away.

+1, yup, good post.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I agree that I don't think it adds to the story, so movies which are story driven won't benefit and I feel it will be more of a distraction. Movies like Avatar which don't really push storytelling anywhere do benefit as the immersion into the world was great. I enjoyed the movie in 3D and thought that part of it made it worth seeing at IMAX. I think the reason there is so much polarization is

1) Avatar - GREAT implementation of 3D.
2) Tron Legacy - Could have cared less if it was 3D. Saw it both ways and it didn't add anything to me.
3) Alice in Wonderland - HORRIBLE implementation of 3D.

My experience so far has been, hmmmm, not really worth it for all the extra cost. Maybe in 3 years when The Hobbit comes out, we'll see if it is any better.

The interesting thing about video game consoles is developers are using the 3D glasses to allow two people to play on the same display but not see each other screen (which is brilliant) but I REALLY feel sorry for someone without glasses sitting around watching

 

[Jon Starr]

That mantra is around for more than 10 decades.
3D - or more precise stereoscopic cinema - flopped several times since the last 100 years.
I don´t know if you can call that infancy, or rather beating a dead horse every time the "home experience market" comes with something new, like TV, color TV, VHS, DVD or BluRay.

I think the reason is, that the stereoscopic effect doesn't add anything to a movie.
First they added sound, than color and that was great.
But even on the oldest 2D, mute, black & white flicks you can already tell whats in the foreground, and whats in the back.

I can see stereoscopic movies as a special format like IMAX, but as a mainstream ore future standard? No way.

Frank

I think the key is the technology. Yes we've known how to sort of get 3D to work in the past, but not to the degree that Avatar has. There's still a few steps to take, but it may be as simple as what Jackson is doing by increasing the frame rate.

Unfortunately Producers only see in black and white. They don't see it as a developing technology and wanted to ride on the success of Avatar. They didn't see the need to develop or better the technology. This unfortunately has tarnished the image a bit.

I've always been teetering on this debate. I'm a bit with J.R. Hudson, but I also see it as a bit pointless and the problems with viewing it.

 

[Postmaster]

I think the key is the technology. Yes we've known how to sort of get 3D to work in the past, but not to the degree that Avatar has. There's still a few steps to take, but it may be as simple as what Jackson is doing by increasing the frame rate.

I can´t see any difference or development in technology between Avatar and 3D amusement park rides of the 80s.
Both used polarized glasses. But at those 80s rides, they used two 70mm projectors, so the resolution and brightness is blowing Avatar out of the water.
Contemporary 3D is rather a step backward and of lesser quality.
The 3D effect is the same, there is not much technology can do. It is not getting more 3dish than 100 years ago.

Frank