|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007
|
|
|
Charlie Frisby
Film Handler
Posts: 58
From: Guymon, Ok USA, org. from DFW
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 03-31-2005 08:38 PM
To Frank "the tank" Angel
Basically, my feel is that when color came out people freaked out, but since then improvements came in to place, and i would never be one to stop the evolution for the movies (as if i could). I remember my first 3-d movie was Nightmare: freddies Dead, and I thought it was pretty cool. But it had a huge cheese factor. Cheese is fun sometimes, but I'd probably hate to watch Phantom Of the Opera in 3-d.
Lets just call it an evolution of film. It's not quite DVD, but its better than VHS. Lets call it Lazer Disk.
And I still wait till the day we have 3-d holograms.
That will rock.
Oh and Mark J. Marshall mentioned if they LucusFilm Would re render a bunch...
I'd put money on it, the dvd ep I and II where re rendered and touched up before release. They remodeled Jaba for the dvd, and actually remodeled more than you would notice unless you watched the movies side to side.
Lucus will probably re-re-re-release Star Wars until it has no original film anymore. For a company with the word film in it, he seems to hate it. he has to keep his title of "State of the art blah blah blah " Basically he would paint over the same painting everythime a new brush, or color of paint comes out.
Sad thing is I am the fool with Digital Re mastered, Special Edition, and Dvd versions of star wars. I get the same birthday present every 5 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-04-2005 03:41 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
What's that supposed to mean? Do you work for the government or something?
You're right, it was a very fast & poor spew of words & no explanation.
It's just the number I'm familiar with batted around everywhere in textbooks treating it generally & by optometrists, like about 10% of the male population is colorblind.
http://www.calpoly.edu/~lfreberg/p430mini.htm
'Don't feel badly if you can't see SIRDS images. Approximately 5-10% of the population is "stereoblind."'
This one's very interesting;
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/arts/design/16remb.html
"Ten percent of the population is stereoblind, Dr. Livingstone said."
The writer decided on a cool project of trying to isolate from self-portraits physical features (causes of stereoblindness which have no physical signs couldn't be done that way, of course) which would preclude stereo vision (like strabismus), & saw that Rembrandt had a wonky eye. The writer is a professor of neurobiology whose area of study is visual systems at Harvard Medical School, she might know where the number comes from.
http://www.mit.edu/~jpfautz/masters/background.html
"In addition, a significant percentage of the population is stereoblind; a survey of 150 students at M.I.T. showed that 4% could not use stereopsis and that 10% had great difficulty in perceiving depth in a random dot stereogram. Somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 people are stereoblind (Yeh, 1993). Other details and difficulties in presenting stereoscopic images are treated by Edgar and Bex (1995), Hodges and Davis (1993), Lipton (1991), Robinett and Rolland (1992), and Wann, Rushton, and Mon-Williams"
That's interesting because of a couple of things: They give a figure from a previous study that "Somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 people are stereoblind", & their little MIT survey came up with "4% could not use stereopsis and that 10% had great difficulty in perceiving depth in a random dot stereogram." So even discounting if their statistical populations can be applied to the larger population, there's a huge numerical disparity between "4% could not use stereopsis" & 10% had great difficulty in perceiving depth in a random dot stereogram." So there's a reduction in effectiveness in stere vision in a good size chunk of the population that's not stereoblind.
The references to the 70s study suggesting up to 30% are stereoanomalous
www.phys.uu.nl/~vanee/vanEe2003.pdf
match up with that. I'd never heard of "stereoanomalous" before,
"(i.e., have a deficit in stereopsis)"
www.ijsselsteijn.nl/papers/IEEE_TCSVT_2000.pdf
matches pretty well with the MIT student survey that there's a LARGE population difference between stereoBLIND & stereoDON'TDOMUCH.
So with that around 30% of the population which is steroanomalous, having a deficit in stereo vision, that's around 30% of the population that don't get much out of 3D movies, & 30% of the population that's likely not to give a rip about 3D movies. It's a much larger percentage than just 10% of the male population is colorblind. Colorblind people at color movies are probably not missing as much as stereoanomalous people at 3D movies, & color movies aren't as dependent on color for marketing as 3D movies.
Edit:
I just remembered that there's a growing population of stereoblind people *above* that segment. A lot of people *choose* to give up stereopsis with monocular contact lenses. Instead of getting bifocal glasses, which have a lower part of the lens for viewing near subjects & the upper part of the lens of a focal length for viewing far subjects, many people who want contact lenses go the monocular contact lens route & get the lens for one eye for close subjects, & the lens for the other eye for far subjects. They adapt quickly to shifting the use of the eyes as needed, but of course lose stereo vision. Going down stairs must be packed with thrills for a while.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-15-2005 12:01 PM
There are a few issues with the digital 3D system. One of the primary ones I noticed was horrible ghosting on black background. I've been talking with Michael Kaye of In-Three about this and they finally determined the problem lay not with the LCD glasses, as first thought, but rather with the projector itself. According to Kaye:
"We finished testing every single pair of glasses at In-Three that were used at Showest. Low and behold, we found NO Ghosting whatsoever. What we had assumed was a circuit design fault of the glasses (causing them not to extinguish all the way) was incorrect. The glasses were working correctly. As it turns out, the ghosting was actually caused by a slight timing difference between the DCinema projector and the glasses. This timing, by the way is totally adjustable in the TI software in the projector. At the time of the show we were convinced that the problem was the glasses, we never thought of timing, an even simpler solution. What apparantly was happening was that the signal that the projector puts out to sync the glasses was slightly out of time such that the glasses were being caused to switch a tad bit early catching the prior frame ending resulting in a slight ghost image. Obviously from now on we will emphasize to all involved to make it a point to ensure that the projector's software timing is set to precisely to coinside with the images outputted by the projector. Once that timing number is established, there will be consistancy across all DCinema projectors."
Regarding Oliver's question, In-Three converted 2D images from the rover into 3D for "Ghosts of the Abyss," so yes, their work could be printed on film.
Finally, if Lucas makes his next film with 3D cameras it should be interesting. He mentioned in a 60 Minutes interview a year ago that his next project would be a documentary on slavery.
[ 04-15-2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Joseph L. Kleiman ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-14-2005 02:57 AM
Here come the hype....here come the hype.
From In-Three site....
quote:
Dimensionalized™ 3D content looks extremely realistic, typically better than if it had been originally photographed in 3D.
(my emphasis)
And then again, there is this crap that they have been spewing like a broken record for the last five years: quote:
Precise and accurate repeatability for each and every showing. No change at all in quality of the image over time, over any number of showings.
No artifacts: no scratches, no dirt, no fading colors, no film weave, no film flutter, no accumulated hairs in the gate, etc.
Exceptional quality that matches or exceeds that of a film based “answer print.”
Mind you they are talking about a 2k based video system, which we all know has NO artifacts, right?
You know, they would be taken a lot more seriously if they didn't continually make these statements that defy believeability. I just tune it all out when I hear this stuff, which is unfortunate, because the system may very well be quite impressive. I don't WANT to be negative about it (I LOVE 3D), but prefacing a discussion about a new system with statements like these makes one ponder if whatever they have to say afterwards is just so much dog doody.
I mean, can anyone take THIS statement seriously?: quote:
The question is not if it will happen - but only when it will happen. In-Three believes that all the signs point to the answer as being “very soon now”.
How's that for precision....very soon now; that's right up there with the news report I heard circa 1997 - "Digital Cinema will revolutionize the way we see movies. In another three years, there will no longer be any film running through projectors in movie theatres." ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic