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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007 Wayne Keyser Master Film Handler Posts: 272 From: Arlington, Virginia, USA Registered: May 2004 posted 03-21-2005 05:53 PM                     A long time ago (about 1969) I saw a demo of an "artificial" 3-D system - basically, each frame was projected for the left eye while the next frame was projected for the right eye. Still shots appeared flat, but any shot with motion presented something the brain interpreted as 3-D (the numbers don't add up on paper, but the brain got the impression and that's what counted) - always wondered why someone didn't give it a commercial shot, because it would work with even the oldest film from the library, but the bottom line (I guess) is that 3-D is a gimmick AT BEST and doesn't add enough (more than gimmick value) to any film to make it a better experience.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-21-2005 08:40 PM                    quote: Wayne Keyser 3-D is a gimmick AT BEST Other than "3D causes everyone eye strain and headaches", THAT is probably the second biggest myth about 3D. Again, after sitting through thirty five features in 3D, I can tell you that 3D is not all about gimmicks. Several of the movies that we watched had one or two gimmick scenes and a few had no gimmicks at all, but the 3D was still there, and the shows were a real treat to see. If anything, the gimmick at this point is "You can't do THIS at home!" ... Which is EXACTLY what this industry needs right now. Just my further two cents.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 03-22-2005 03:41 AM                        I saw the demo at ShoWest. George Lucas, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez and James Cameron were all there and they said it was really great and the future of moviemaking and all that. Peter Jackson appeared virtually (in 3D) too. He seemed to have lost weight and threatened everyone with "The Hobbit" in 3D. As if he hadn't already raped Tolkien enough!!! Anyway, the demo was OK, but I wasn't blown away by it. The 3D effect is quite good, but I could still see a lot of double imaging. The 3-dimensionalized material, among it the first minutes of "Episode IV", and another clip from "T2" which featured the Governor of California, was OK too, but again, I wasn't blown away by it either. The 3-dimensionalized clips had a "paper theater" quality to it. By that I mean that there was a certain depth of room to the pictures, but while some objects were in the foreground and some in the background, they all appeared themselves to be flat, like animated paper cutouts arranged at various distances from the viewer. Rodriguez and Cameron said their next movies were going to be in 3D and they were thinking about release schedules which would bring the movies to 3D-capable (i.e. digital) theatres earlier. But I don't believe them.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-22-2005 04:32 AM                        3D is a gimmick. And one of my hobbies is taking 3D photographs. They are cool, but I can't expect people to wear glasses to look at all of my photos. Only the gimmicky photos. I watched a movie in IMAX 3D once and it made everything seem so small because things had depth. The screen lost it's "big-ness". Until they perfect holographic displays, then 3D will not be ready for prime-time. For right now I place it with "Q-Sound" in the gimmick department. By the way I think I edited a 10-minute sequence in 3D once.  |  IP: Logged Kyle McEachern Expert Film Handler Posts: 165 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 03-22-2005 04:42 AM                 I'll second the comments about good 3D not being tiresome on the eyes. Some features that aren't shot in good quality can start to strain the eyes after 30 minutes, but Polar Express and all of its 101 minutes wasn't a problem at all, and most people walked out of the theatre without a single complaint. It was a very "smooth"-feeling 3D, easy on the eyes. Not only that, but when done right (Which PE also did), it brings a great addition to it. Shots that were fast-moving, following one of the train tickets as it "flew" under the train and around a snowstorm were incredibly well-made and sucked you into the film far more than it would have if it was 2D. It turned an otherwise "okay" movie into a great experience that drew huge crowds for weeks on end. It may be a "gimmick", but it works and brings an incredible "dimension" (ooh, bad pun) to the films it's added to, if done right. Gimmicks aren't always bad things. Just the bad ones.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 03-22-2005 09:46 AM                    one reason for this is all because the eye has to consentrate harder on what it is looking at..therefore causing the eyes not to blink as often as they should. When I saw a couple of Imax 3D movies a few years ago I did not encounter any eye strain when watching them. Of course they were only 45 mins. long but I did watch two back to back with the intermission.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 03-22-2005 02:07 PM                     Thank God I don't have to walk around all day every day looking at things in 3D.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 03-22-2005 02:16 PM                        quote: Adam Martin Thank God I don't have to walk around all day every day looking at things in 3D. That's why Phil wears that eye patch!  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-22-2005 02:36 PM                     It's the story damn it! It's the story stupid! Which would you pay for?... Angelina Joli naked in 3D reading the phone book? or... Angelina Joli getting beaned by the phone book, and her cloths falling off? One has a story and the other is just special effects.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 03-22-2005 05:44 PM                     Interesting that you bring up Angelina Jolie ... I was watching the extra features on Tomb Raider the other night and damn! she is *so* not hot when she's not made up.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-22-2005 06:26 PM                     quote: Michael Schaffer By that I mean that there was a certain depth of room to the pictures, but while some objects were in the foreground and some in the background, they all appeared themselves to be flat, like animated paper cutouts arranged at various distances from the viewer. Wasn't the IMAX 3-D conversion process they were working on way back in the 80's (early 90's?) create a similiar effect. I think they rotoscoped out each individual object using a computer and then were able to place them on a plane with 15 levels, so the images would be indifferent Z space from each other, but would remain flat themselves.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 03-22-2005 06:49 PM                     Most actors are flat nowadays anyway.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-22-2005 06:53 PM                     I can think of some actress's that are not  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-22-2005 06:56 PM                    The ghosting everyone is talking about seeing is likely caused by the particular technique being used. I'd love to see these demos in polaroid double interlock ala IMAX or even 35mm. 3D can be gimmicky, but it isn't necessarily. In a lot of the films at the 3D fest, when the main actor / actress would make their first appearance in the film, the audience clapped and sometimes cheered. For Kiss Me Kate, the audience applauded after EVERY single musical number. Kinda silly when you think about it, but at the time, we felt like we were watching a play, so applauding felt natural. 3D adds something to the experience when done properly and makes everything seem more real. As far as wearing the glasses and that being a hassle, well, I wear glasses anyway. So, clipping a $12.00 pair of polarized lenese to the front of my glasses was easy for me, and I didn't even notice I was wearing them.  |  IP: Logged Charlie Frisby Film Handler Posts: 58 From: Guymon, Ok USA, org. from DFW Registered: Dec 2004 posted 03-23-2005 08:01 PM                     I have a feeling George Lucas will probably freeze his head like Disney, and once ILM has the power, he will be a film hating Cyborge from a hell, far far away. 3d is a novelty. 3d is a gimmick. 3d can be cool, but it is still a novelty. I want holographic 3d, not some over rated eye candy and optical tricks. Holograms will impress me, Jaws 3-D 2 will piss me off.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.