Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007

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 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 03-23-2005 10:57 PM

Jaws 3D was a gimmick film. Dial M For Murder wasn't.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 03-24-2005 11:23 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
When I was a teenager, I could not get all the way through "Friday the 13th Park III in 3D" without taking off the glasses and rubbing my eyes.

That's because it probably wasn't set up correctly. None of my screens had that problem.

If you're getting headaches, your eyes are being pulled apart. It has to be absolutely perfect or the whole thing's wrong.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-24-2005 11:30 AM

Friday13th was a difficult one as there were two different camera lens systems used and during the film there were some shots that had vertical misalignment

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 03-24-2005 11:51 AM

quote: Charlie Frisby
3d is a novelty. 3d is a gimmick. 3d can be cool, but it is still a novelty.

Charlie, that's what they said about sound and color.

Why is seeing an image the way you see life 24/7 a gimmick? You see 3D all the time, you just are so use to it (it is so NATURAL) that you don't even realize it. Just cover one eye and you'll realize it immediately.

As for wearing the glasses, when I was 10yrs old and saw THE HOUSE OF WAX and my dad complained he didn't like having to wear them "just to see a movie," I thought, "damn, in order to see that incredible 3D, I would wear a 100 pound space helmet."

How wussy can someone get....whining about wearing practically weightless glasses as the price to pay for being able to see 3D?!!! But then I guess there would be people who would complain if they had to wear glasses to see color.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-24-2005 04:19 PM

Even if well set up, 3-D can cause headaches to those people with severe astigmatism.

More often than not though, Tim is right, they were not properly set up or the operator was 1/2 out of frame.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-24-2005 05:21 PM

quote: Frank Angel
Why is seeing an image the way you see life 24/7 a gimmick? You see 3D all the time, you just are so use to it (it is so NATURAL) that you don't even realize it. Just cover one eye and you'll realize it immediately.

In everyday life, the focal plane and convergence point of your eyesight stays aligned to one point. You're not doing that when you watch a 3D movie. Your eyes stay focused on the screen. That's not natural.

Another thing that occurs is odd spacing between the two different cameras recording the 3D image. Lots of 3D movies I've seen tend to look sort of tiny. I agree with Joe Redifer's comments about 3D really taking away the sense of scale in an IMAX movie. The screen doesn't seem giant anymore. The "paper theater" effect is another problem.

The IMAX 3D process is by far the most convincing 3D process I've seen, but it's still not quite there in being totally realistic in the 3D effect. I have to wonder if the screen being a fixed focal object for viewing is a factor in this.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 03-24-2005 05:40 PM

quote: Gordon McLeod
Friday13th was a difficult one as there were two different camera lens systems used

It wasn't all Marks 3Depix?

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-24-2005 05:42 PM

It was done with two different sets of the marks system as it was in the process of becoming arrivision3d

| IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-24-2005 05:47 PM

I think the main problem with most 3D films is that they overuse the 3D effects (objects flying into the auditorium, fast flythroughs) rather than go for realism.

In the same way sound can be used as a gimick (with constant surround and base effects)

| IP: Logged

Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 03-25-2005 03:27 AM

This particularly is why I think Polar Express in IMAX 3D worked nicely. The whole approach to the directing and cinematography were never geared around the foresight that it would be presented in 3D. Because of this, there were no real "gimmicky" things. Instead, the "realism" just let you experience the world by encompassing you into it rather than "throwing" it at you.

If they DID anticipate the 3D, its strength might have been in knowing that most people wouldn't see the 3D version, so it still had to be visually interesting without it. This balance worked.

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 03-27-2005 06:07 PM

From Screen Daily:

quote:
Imax to release 3-D live action films within a year
(Requires registration)

Tim Dams in London 04 February 2005 04:00

Imax is developing technology which will allow it to convert traditional 2-D live action films into 3-D features – and is in discussions with Hollywood studios about releasing its first 3-D feature within the next year.

“Imagine, for example, if films like Star Wars or Harry Potter were in 3-D,” said Imax co-chairman and co-chief executive Richard Gelfond. “We think this could have enormous potential at the box office.”

Gelfond said that Imax had recently made strong advances in the technology which allows it to convert live action films into 3-D.

The company has recently enjoyed huge success by remastering animated feature Polar Express into 3-D. The bfi London Imax said yesterday that it has taken $1.2m for the film – recording its highest ever admissions for one month in its five year history during December 2004 with the film.

Gelfond was speaking to ScreenDaily.com before presenting footage of the new technology to the industry and press in London last night (February 3).

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 03-28-2005 01:57 AM

As much as I would reserve judgement on this 2D to 3D conversion process, I can't imaging that the result will come anywhere near what real 3D looks like. My gut feeling tells me it will be akin to converting black and white into pseudo color and converting mono into pseudo stereo. We all know how far from the mark those all fall. It simply goes against what we all know as the universal rule of physics: you can't make something out of nothing. If it isn't there to begin with, it won't be there after the "process." The best you can hope for is trickery. Granted, sometimes trickery can work pretty well, but enough not to be distracting, that will be the acid test. If I see a bunch of layers of images which are all moving in their extracted planes but are still 2D (how can they be otherwise?), it sure will be distracting to me. That 2D look where objects in different depths, it can also happen in real 3D, but only when the scene is shot incorrectly with cameras too widely spaced; it is not inherent in the 3D process. I bet it will be inherent in this conversion process.

But as I said, I'll withhold judgement (sort of) until I see it.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Duvall
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-28-2005 02:48 AM

I was there and saw the demo. They ran portions of TOP GUN, EPISODE II and IV and LILO AND STITCH in 3D using NuVision 60GX shutter glasses. The image amazing. Episode II was stunning and felt very "real" and seeing the first half of reel one for A NEW HOPE was like sitting in the theatre in 1977 all over again. The gimmick factor was not an issue. There was no eye strain whatsoever. From what I saw, it looks like they got it right.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 03-28-2005 02:01 PM

It still seems like the time would be better spent making NEW movies in 3-D instead of faking it out of older ones, though most movies shot in 3-D thus far have been pretty awful (though I will admit to going to see "Spacehunter" before "Return Of The Jedi", which were out at the same time, because Spacehunter was in 3-D and Jedi wasn't!)

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-28-2005 03:05 PM

i, too, fail to see the sense of mucking with old 2-d features to release them in 3-d. sure, it might make some commercial sense, just as a sequel will have a ready-made audience regardless of any merits it might have in and of itself. but it doesn't make aesthetic sense. the relation between the elements in a 2-d composition is fundamentally different from that of those in a 3-d one.

just as with releasing a silent film with sound, an academy film scope, or a black and white film in color, there is some novelty gained, but unless the whole is substantially reconceived from scratch, it just won't work right.

carl

| 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

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.