Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
JLFJR wrote: We just need to get the environmentalist wackos out of the way
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
"Moving seats that vibrate, twist, turn and lurch along with the action, smells wafting, wind blowing and rain falling"Yay....can't wait until the new TMNT movie & they are running through the sewers. They probably capture the smell from that place near the Wingate.
ALUmnus wrote:Here is Screen Rant's 20 Most Anticipated Movies of 2011, in reverse order. It's basically all fantasy, scifi, and comedy, but a bunch of stuff I'm looking forward to.MOvies Im looking forward to in bold
http://screenrant.com/2011-most-anticip ... 779/all/1/
Apollo 18
Paul
Conan the Barbarian
The Muppets
Fast Five
Your Highness
Super 8
The Hangover Part ii
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Sherlock Holmes 2
Sucker Punch
X-Men: First Class
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Cowboys & Aliens
Green Lantern
Battle: Los Angeles
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollow
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
ALUmnus wrote:Here is Screen Rant's 20 Most Anticipated Movies of 2011, in reverse order. It's basically all fantasy, scifi, and comedy, but a bunch of stuff I'm looking forward to.And to that lets add Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I
http://screenrant.com/2011-most-anticip ... 779/all/1/
Apollo 18
Paul
Conan the BarbarianThe Muppets
Fast Five
Your Highness
Super 8
The Hangover Part ii
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Sherlock Holmes 2
Sucker Punch
X-Men: First Class
Transformers: Dark of the MoonCowboys & Aliens
Green LanternBattle: Los Angeles
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollow
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
ATrain wrote:And to that lets add Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part Ii hope that's sarcasm.
flamesfan30 wrote:No, it really wasn't (however, I won't be attending any midnight showings...I can do without the annoying teenage girl crowd...and their moms). Personally I thought New Moon had an amazing soundtrack, and the movies are produced well. I would also like to state that I am in no way attracted to Robert Pattison or the character Edward Cullen.ATrain wrote:And to that lets add Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part Ii hope that's sarcasm.
twilight =
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
ToTheLeft wrote:because accepting anything less than the best is, as Vanilla Ice would say, a felony
BJWilliams wrote:I think highly of the guy just because he is more of a man than most of you jackwagons
RubberMallet wrote:Apollo 18Saw Battle: Lost Angeles and I really liked it. Was sort of expecting something SUPER cheezy but it wasn't that bad. I recommend it! I liked the fact that the aliens weren't 'invincible' like in some movies where it seems that even a full auto clip from an M4 can't stop em. At least these guys you could kill!
The Muppets
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Cowboys & Aliens
Battle: Los Angeles
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
the ones i care about.
thor and CA are only intriguing to me, i assume they'll be bad though.
ALUmnus wrote:Teeheee....Awesome.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... nce-member
[youtube][/youtube]
LUnpretty11 wrote:PH, your BJ skills impress me.
The Hangover 2 was very funny, but not on the same level as the original.This. It's almost the same exact movie, but set in Thailand and with a few "twists". I still enjoyed it though.
BJWilliams wrote:No we arent talking about keeping it on the "down low", we are moving now to the boys who simply are tasked with stopping the OTHER team from scoring,
NG33 wrote:Exactly. You knew where it was going, but still enjoyed the ride. I'd probably have rated it just as highly as the first one if the release order was swapped. It was very funny, but definitely derivative of the first.The Hangover 2 was very funny, but not on the same level as the original.This. It's almost the same exact movie, but set in Thailand and with a few "twists". I still enjoyed it though.
LUnpretty11 wrote:PH, your BJ skills impress me.
- By Sly Fox
Back to Henderson, I follow the Aggies after payin[…]
- By LU Armchair coach
Any LU Armchair coach baseball fans wanna chat abo[…]
- By flamehunter