|
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Real D and "Meet The Robinsons"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 03-21-2007 07:15 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Even though a person's eyes can do this sort of "double action" trick, the activity isn't something most people can maintain for long periods of time.
I don't know, dude. I've said it here before, and I'll say it again... After sitting through ten days of interlocked 35mm 3D, sometimes as much as 10 or 11 hours a day, no complaints here. And no complaints from anyone else around me. I think the people that can't sit through 3D because their eyes can't handle the focal and convergence points being separated are in the minority.
And I don't agree that 3D itself is a gimmick. You can do gimmicky things with it, just like you can do gimmicky things with six track stereo, color, cinemascope, and black and white. But that doesn't make the entire format a gimmick.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-21-2007 10:34 AM
Right on Mark. And I will add that convergence and its proper use is a fine art. It has to be learned. In a film like DIAL M FOR MURDER, the 3D is brilliantly controlled and there are no disconcerting convergence changes between one shot and the next -- something that is key to preventing eye strain. The eyes don't have to readjust to an instantanious, difficult convergence vector change as they do in say Andy Worhol's FRANKENSTEIN, where unlike DMFM, convergence is all over the place; there are shots that, because of the shot that preceded it with vastly different convergence, make it almost impossible for the eyes/brain to combine the two images. To avoid this, control must be maintained not only in the shoot on the set, but as to how the film is edited. Editing decisions must take into account the convergence factor -- shots can't simply be strung together as they can in a 2D film based solely on content. It's a learned craft and it can be done -- they did master it, for the most part, in the 50s and they can do it again -- they must if the public is going to accept 3D as a normal, intergral part of the movie experience.
Also, much of the eyestrain of the 50s, where it did occurred (and I contend not nearly as much as has become legend), was not due to any inherent flaw in the 3D process -- again, referencing the 3D World Expo and our "no eyestrain" experience there watching hours and hours of 3D, all of which were 50s 3D titles -- but it was the slipshod way many local theatres threw together their 3D system, as well as the inexperience of many projectionists. I myself saw some pretty bad 3D presentations in the 70s and 80s where inexperienced art house personnel were really mucking up 50s "retrospective" 3D festivals -- one where the polaroid filters were reversed....one show where the projectors were a few frames off -- not a pleasant experience. Thing that you could get away with running 2D are devastating in 3D -- just a slight misadjustment of a framing knob on one projector and your eye muscles will be required to pull one eye up and the other down -- for the ENTIRE film! something that is sure to give you a headache. But I must say, as a kid in the 50s watching the original 3D presentations, I never ever got any headaches, nor did any of my friends.
A major problem were the focal lengths of those old lenses of the mix and match variety that were found in many neigbhorhood booths, sometimes not even by the same manufacturer. That might have been acceptable for 2D change-over operation, they were not the perfect matches that 3D demands for perfect registration and zero eyestrain. Perfect registration is guaranteed with today's digital 3D; even the polaroid 3D film system, if it ever were once again commandeered to present the new 3D titles, could certainly be done without eyestrain using computer matched lenses. Also resisting the temptation to use 3D as a gimmick or intrude on the subject matter can make 3D work as naturally as color or stereo sound -- after all, we do see in 3D all the time -- it's not a gimmick.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-24-2007 05:13 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Actually, I'm still somewhat surprised a OKC theater, such as the Harkins Bricktown 16, has gone this long without having a single digital projection system installed.
Despite contradictory details obtained through Harkins corporate, their website currently indicates the Bricktown 16 in Oklahoma City will be showing "Meet The Robinsons" in digital 3-D.
Regarding Harkins, the data I had was that there would be two digital 3-D bookings in Arizona and one in California. Now, they have a brand new complex in Gilbert, AZ opening on 3/30, the release date for "Robinsons," and I wouldn't be surprised if they run it in digital 3-D there as well. They have several other fairly new complexes, and I'm surprised they haven't equiped them with digital projection on a screen or two. I'll update the list once I get all this Harkins stuff confirmed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-24-2007 08:30 AM
If one has two healthy eyes, the odds are overwhelming that to them, 3-D is normal vision, and not a gimmick.
3-D movies are only gimmicky when they overuse the "in your face" shots. If a 3-D movie is filmed and presented with the convergence at (or more appropriately, just behind) the screen surface, that is not defeating the point of 3-D, it's just using the "stereo window" properly, and keeps eyestrain to a minimun, yet allows for occasional depth effects to enhance the story where appropriate. The 3-D is still there, just not so gimmicky.
And from what I've read, there were many fears that color movies would tire the eyes of audience members. Skeptics believed that people could not sit through all that color for the length of a feature (which is absurd, because like 3-D, color vision is the norm for the majority of us). Supposedly, that is why films such as "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and especially "Gone With The Wind" were initially released with rather subdued colors, compared to what we're used to today. Color was originally deemed an unnecessary gimmick. How times have changed. Hopefully, with more thoughtful 3-D production and projection, that same evolution will happen with depth.
I agree with those who believe that 3-D is a logical and progressive enhancement to movie viewing, just as was sound, then multi-channel stereo sound, color, and anamorphic photography.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-24-2007 04:24 PM
Saw 'Meet The Robinsons' yesterday afternoon. About ten people in a 440 seat cinema for the 3:30 show. Seven too many, I really hate out of towners and tourists in the cinema. No idea how to behave. Bit expensive at nearly £10/$18, but don't mind that much.
The film was presented with a 3D short from 1953. It's the Donald Duck one which I think introduces Chip and Dale, they steal peanuts from an elephant, and Donald is the zookeeper. Very good way to start the show.
The 3D is fantastic, Disney really know what they're doing with this, and what works and doesn't work in the format. Depth is chosen over breaking the fourth wall in nearly all the shots. Done properly this is the way forward for CGI animation. Also the style of the film, with bright colours and a retro-future feel to the characters and locations, suits the 3D effects.
The plot is alright as well, although with perhaps too much emphasis on the moral of the tale. There is enough to keep you interested, and a few funny bits. The frogs and the majority of the Robinsons were under used. I'd say Disney are still in their creative low period, but things are getting better. Lasseter seems to have more respect for the tradition of the company.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic