Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D Coming back to film?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 3D Coming back to film? (Page 12)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22 23 24

Author

Topic: 3D Coming back to film?

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-30-2009 08:14 PM

quote: Karl Borowski
I'm not being a troll, just pointing out that you can't bitch about TECH 3D and DLP RealD both unless you have some legacy theatre or super-expensive 4K facility within an hour's drive of your home.

#1 - You are being a troll and you will eventually be banned from this site for it. Then you will proceed to bitch elsewhere about how this site doesn't matter anyway and how it is full of blowhards (or other insulting word of your choice) that talk about the most useless things.

#2 - You are saying that someone has no right to complian unless that have experienced something better. That is bullshit. If that were the case, technology would never improve. Think about it.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-30-2009 08:31 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
You are being a troll and you will eventually be banned from this site for it.

There's only one person you could be talking about, Joe. Is Karl STILL here? Jesus!

Fortunately, since I installed my '[remove_karl_borowski@film-tech.com]' application I had a friend write for me, I no longer have to put up with his inane bullshit.

Ahhhh...it's just heavenly on FT lately. Sorry for all you other guys who still have to put up with him.

And Karl, since I'm quite positive you have no friends, let alone a friend who could write such a script and apply it to me...

[fu]

| IP: Logged

Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009

posted 11-30-2009 08:38 PM

Who is following whom across threads?

While technology tends to improve, recently the trend has been to make all things cheaper, easier.

It is no more realistic to bring back '50s technology than it is to bring back the Apollo program.

Bitching about something, arguing for an improvement is one thing. Bitching about all of the current technology out there, both film and digital, arguing for IMAX 3D (coming in at a whopping $60-80K U.S. per PRINT), '50s 3D film Technology, and 4K dual projection is just silly.

The 4K is the only thing I can see catching on ( I LOVE IMAX though!), but not before I see this current 3D trend dying out. It has a long shot chance of success with "Avatar," but even that looks like a dead-on-arrival.

And Joe, seriously, who is trolling? I don't post a snide, negative comment, to everything you say. Sometimes you are very witty, other times you're just puerile and naive. I am having a disagreement between Mark, anyway. If you have similar issues with 3D, now is your chance to chime in and voice them, not just to discount me out of principle.

I wish you would extend me the benefit of the doubt that you had a bad first impression of me, instead of just needlessly discounting everything I have said, and say. I'm sorry, I don't take too kindly to people solely owing to their seniority status.

Do you really see the world in Black and White like that? And anyway, speaking of your seniority, you probably do have enough that, if you tried, you *could* get me banned from here. I may have said some things that have crossed the line of civility on this forum, but I chalk that up to being a passionate person. I argue that you can not, in good faith, see past all of the worthwhile contributions I have made here owing solely to your own personal misgivings towards me.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 11-30-2009 08:38 PM

quote: John Wilson
Is Karl STILL here? Jesus!

Yes, my son... [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-30-2009 09:05 PM

Karl, please dial your passion down a notch. Nobody here is interested in your unnecessary drama.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-01-2009 12:25 AM

By the way, Karl has changed his location to "Sulking in GameFAQ Forum." That's grounds for banning right there, isn't it?

I would miss him though. Arguing with him is so easy.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2009 12:53 AM

Who?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-01-2009 01:06 AM

Somehow I doubt he did that because it is just too funny.

Anyway, although I do have a divine influence over all that happens, I do not need to use it to get Karl banned. He's more than capable of doing it on his own. John, do you have some sort of anti-Karl Firefox plug-in?

Back on topic: Mark, I know what you mean by the out-of-phase stuff. One eye switches first on the scene changes. It is very, very slight, but it is there. But there is no way the common plebe would ever notice. They don't notice 4:3 pictures stretched to 16:9 or even Flat movies running with a scope lens.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-01-2009 02:01 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
By the way, Karl has changed his location to "Sulking in GameFAQ Forum." That's grounds for banning right there, isn't it?

Yup. Bye bye Karl.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2009 02:22 AM

KA-CHING!

Thank goodness you did that, Brad. My email was being swamped with requests for my anti-Karl plug-in. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-01-2009 05:09 AM

Joe, you're absolutely right that they don't notice it. But it may explain why some get a head ache or otherwise can't deal with 3D and aren't sure why. I'm just lucky that I can discern what it is that I'm seeing. I used to think RealD was "flickering" but eventually it dawned on me what it was.

I took my wife to see House of Wax in dual strip 35mm and she thought it was great. Then I took her and her sister to see Nightmare Before Christmas 3D, and they both hated the 3D effect (so did I). We eventually left because it was so bad. I convinced her to give it another try with Toy Story and she thought that was good. We recently saw Christmas Carol in IMAX digital 3D, and that looked good to her too. I thought it looked much better than RealD, but sometimes the eyes looked a little off to me. So I don't know what that's about. Overall I enjoyed it a lot better than RealD.

I'm sorry to whoever is left that hasn't been banned (by the way... bye, Karl) who thinks I'm just complaining, but the projectionist in me wants to jump out of my chair and go fix something every time I see a problem with the picture and that's a bitch to turn off!

Jack seems to think the over/under thing will look worse to me than RealD. I respect his opinions greatly, and he may be right. I'm eager to see it for myself.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2009 08:55 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
there is no way the common plebe would ever notice. They don't notice 4:3 pictures stretched to 16:9 or even Flat movies running with a scope lens.

True dat.

This is truly a mystery to me. How it it even possible that people can watch distorted images like that and not seem to even notice, or if they do, not even be botherd by it (which is worse, I think)? Yet, there it is. There's a PhD thesis in there somewhere -- is there something missing in the frontal lobes of the majority of the populous? Seems to be, and I guess that's a good bit of luck for Mr. Exhibitor, eh?

They sit there and don't seem to notice that PEOPLE IN THE PICURE ARE FUKIN STRETCHED (me screaming at my nephews). They just laugh at me. I get no respect.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-01-2009 10:12 AM

They've been well trained by their flat screen TV's [Wink]

When I go visit my parents it drives me nuts that they watch TV shows in the wrong ratio, but in their defense, it is a pain for them to adjust from 4:3 to 16:9. I would think the tv should take care of that automatically (I still have a TV tube, what do I know?)

You will see the same effect ON tv though. I've often watch cable news shows where they have the guest on a wide screen monitor squished, but when they cut to the direct feed he is in the correct ratio.

The evil overlords want us not to care. Beware.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 12-01-2009 10:38 AM

I was considering asking Karl if he was a RealD stockholder, but maybe that's too subtle an insult for him.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Jack seems to think the over/under thing will look worse to me than RealD. I respect his opinions greatly, and he may be right. I'm eager to see it for myself.

While I've got issues with the shutter phasing on RealD, too, I just don't think most booths have the technical clout to be putting on over/under shows.

Forget the light issues, and forget the lens adjustments... simple things like starting in frame are ways that this is just asking for trouble, but I like Steve's idea of putting something in the magenta layer as a guide; it's a good start. The question is-- given that even modern color film is processed with silver halides and that there is usually some latent silver left in the image, would markings in the SDDS or even optical soundtrack area affect the pickup of the sound?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-01-2009 03:42 PM

Ever notice that CNN stretches ALL of their web video for no reason? Everything they offer is 4:3 but for some reason that have little 16:9 video windows. I don't know if the actual cable channel is the same way since I refuse to pay for TV programming.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22 23 24

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.