|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Bolt 3-D Projection Info
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-24-2008 05:43 AM
Geez Mark, you seem to be very forgiving when it comes to poor quality if it's digital. If it were a film setup, would you forgive 3fl screen brightness with a simple, Your eyes do actually adjust to the low light levels that single projector systems use but it takse a little while, like when you work in a photographic darkroom. shrug of the shoulders? Come on....that's just BS. You know you've spent gazillions of hours during most of your career making sure film-based systems produced the standard 16fl brighness and you would never dismiss a 5ft screen brightness. Hell, you'd be the first to scream bloody murder at such an excuse; somehow I can't hear you saying to a theatre owner, "Hey, they'll get used to it....just let your bulbs burn till they won't strike anymore -- it's ok cause guys see fine in darkrooms -- just give your patrons the chance for they eyes to get used to the fact that they CAN'T FREAKIN SEE THE IMAGE." Would tolerate such a low light level and brush it aside in a film-based operation? If you would, tell me I am wrong.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
What blows my mind is that at the last minute they come out with a new version of the framing target... This after installing 4 new systems over the last three weeks. I can guarantee you they are probably not going to get re-set for the new target since it also involves days of time just driving to the locations
Ah, such is the ways of the non-standard nature of digital. What was the "standard" one day is obsolete the next. This doesn't encourage exhibitors as you say, to spend the money to "do digital right" if every month or so, systems need to be recalibrated to a new "standard." Imagine having to recut aperture plates at the whim of a studio changing specs for its particular feature. I know it would keep your company in money, but more likely than not, exhibitors won't spend that money and you'll have allot more deviation at the grass-roots level that affects patrons' theatre experience. Just another nail sending them running to their home theatres.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 11-24-2008 10:24 AM
I saw Bolt in RealD at Harkins Northfield in Denver on a screen that was probably about 40' wide. (#10)
I thought it was a bit dim. Not unwatchable, but not bright and vibrant either. The fact that the auditorium lights were left on (at a low level) might have contributed. Of course, the dark glasses make the image even dimmmer.
I'm not really a 3D fan. I've always found it gimmicky and distracting. It wasn't too bad in Bolt. 3D seems to work best for me with animated films, where the "spectacle of the imagery" is often the priorty anyway.
My almost 5-year-old daughter watched about half the movie with the glasses off. (Her 1st 3D movie.) She didn't like wearing them.
For Monsters vs. Aliens, I would choose 3D only if my daughter is somehow really excited to try it again with the glasses. For Up, I will probably choose 2D, to avoid any distractions and really enjoy the storytelling and film-making. For Toy Story 1 and 2 & Beauty & the Beast, I would prefer 2D, but I'd be happy just to see them on the big screen again in any format.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler
Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007
|
posted 11-24-2008 01:31 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
We didn't have that problem with the two projector system operating on an 80+ foot wide screen but we are at 9fl! Your eyes do actually adjust to the low light levels that single projector systems use but it takse a little while, like when you work in a photographic darkroom.
80 feet? Sorry to break it to you, Mark, but if no one complained that they didn't see anything within even the first thirty rows, I'd be surprised. At that point, your eyes would be REALLY crossed in order to see any 3-D.
Dim levels are simply not good for your eyes. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to read in a dark room? Your eyes are straining to see what's on screen.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
3-D films seem to be made with a center of action in each scene and you tend to follow that part of the scene... similar to how Imax is done but the action is not necessarily in the bottom third like Imax tends to be.
You're talking about the point of convergence. I'd be surprised if most filmmakers understood what that is, based on the latest 3-D films. Because no one seems to know (or care), I had to take my glasses off during the FLY ME TO THE MOON trailer before JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, it was so bad.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Also, today's 3-D while being capable of being in your face is more like a window box effect presenting depth into the screen.
What's different between today's 3-D and yesterday's 3-D? In fact, the focus during the '50s was NOT "in your face," but exactly the stereo window that you're talking about.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have yet to see any 3-D thats been distracting because of it's image size nor because whats going on in the film, and I've seen ALOT of 3-D.
Try sitting in the front row sometime. Also track down a book called "New Screen Techniques" published in 1953. That sets the guidelines for what is or isn't comfortable 3-D, as outlined by people who knew what they were doing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-24-2008 04:46 PM
quote: Jack Theakston
80 feet? Sorry to break it to you, Mark, but if no one complained that they didn't see anything within even the first thirty rows, I'd be surprised. At that point, your eyes would be REALLY crossed in order to see any 3-D.
Jack,
There are not 30 rows total in that theater... and there have been no complaints as of today... only compliments on how good the 3-D works and looks.
quote: Jack Theakston
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to read in a dark room?
Nope, in fact my parents both encouraged me to read and do work in the dark room since I have had a photographic interest since I was about 7... I started dark room work when I was 8 in fact! Of course I'm just kidding about dark room Jack! What I stated above is true though. However anyone that does or has done any amount of darkrroom work knows how well your eyes do adjust after about 10 to 15 min.... Not to the point like you're in a normally lit room but as though you're in alot brighter light than you actually are.
quote: Jack Theakston
What's different between today's 3-D and yesterday's 3-D? In fact, the focus during the '50s was NOT "in your face," but exactly the stereo window that you're talking about.
Actually the focus during the 50's with films shot with the NaturalVision camera could be in your face... indeed in Hitchcocks film Dial-M the scene on the desk! The scene in House Of Wax with the Paddle Ball! Etc., Etc. It is well known that Hitch intentionally shot that one scene to be in your face while the rest was shot as a normal film. Take the LF Film "Dinosaurs Alive", it was intentionally shot to be "in your face" buy it's producers. There are even artifacts as a result of doing so but the responce from the film was so good they continued to shoot this way but came up with a lighting scheme that minimizes those artifacts. The artifacts are also clearly visible in the 15/70 version as well. I have to admit that their use of 3-D is one of the best I've seen where you may be looking at the Dino sleleton from the outside and all of a sudden you're inside that same skeleton... or the Dinos mouth!!
quote: Jack Theakston
Try sitting in the front row sometime. Also track down a book called "New Screen Techniques" published in 1953. That sets the guidelines for what is or isn't comfortable 3-D, as outlined by people who knew what they were doing.
Ha! You should see the Pace Camera demo film! Its literally spectaculuar and encompasses everything one can do with their 3-D camera system.
The more common problem is how 3-D affects different individuals. Everyone sees it and perceives it differently. You may have a muscle problem (weak eye muscles most likely) that cause your eye strain. I personally don't know anyone that has eye strain from watching today's 3-D material but there are always going to be a some that do... you are one of them and should probably stick to 2-D. Don't count on everythng being filmed so its like inside a "window box"... producers and directors will contimue to exploit 3-D how they feel it should be exploited... not how those that write the books do. The 300 people that saw the demo one night of the stacked system on the 80 foot screen all loved it and no one complained of eye strain...
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler
Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007
|
posted 11-25-2008 02:41 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
There are not 30 rows total in that theater... and there have been no complaints as of today... only compliments on how good the 3-D works and looks.
Probably no point of reference. How far away is your first row from your screen?
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
However anyone that does or has done any amount of darkrroom work knows how well your eyes do adjust after about 10 to 15 min.... Not to the point like you're in a normally lit room but as though you're in alot brighter light than you actually are.
My point still stands, though. Ever try to read that packaging in a dark room? Very hard to read fine print if at all.
A dim screen is simply not good, 3-D or 2-D, and 3.5 fL is an unacceptable level in my book.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Actually the focus during the 50's with films shot with the NaturalVision camera could be in your face... indeed in Hitchcocks film Dial-M the scene on the desk! The scene in House Of Wax with the Paddle Ball! Etc., Etc.
Those are two of the most extreme examples, and it's ironic that even after the Paddle-ball man in HOUSE OF WAX (which I might add "opens" part 2 of the film), Vincent Price makes the remark, "a couple of more weeks and we won't need that sort of thing." Trust me, the irony was not lost.
Look at films like ROBOT MONSTER, MONEY FROM HOME or SECOND CHANCE, which all have little to no gimmicks whatsoever. These examples typify 3-D photography from that era much better.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Ha! You should see the Pace Camera demo film! Its literally spectaculuar and encompasses everything one can do with their 3-D camera system.
Never saw it. Know where I can?
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The 300 people that saw the demo one night of the stacked system on the 80 foot screen all loved it and no one complained of eye strain...
No offense intended to your or your venue, Mark, because you may be doing it right, but McDonalds serves 4 billion people and their burgers still taste like shit. Just because no one has complained doesn't mean it's not wrong. It's just that they don't have a point of reference.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler
Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 11-25-2008 10:51 AM
quote: Jack Theakston
It may be standard, but that doesn't mean it's right. 3.5 fL is a really DIM image, and a dim image is one of the contributing factors to eye strain in 3-D (aside from synchronization and phase issues).
RealD on a 50-foot screen is a bad idea. A dim, less-than-HD-resolution 3-D image on a 50-foot screen is no good. At 50 feet, you're talking super eye-strain for about the front 1/3 of the audience. Their eyes are going to be ripped apart trying to converge the images so far apart.
I never said it was right, just that it was what you got when you installed that system. In fact, when they were doing the install at my previous theater, I expressed some dismay and outrage, which can be found in a few other threads on the topic. The state of the digital system installed was a contributing factor to my disagreement with the company which led to my leaving.
When I go to see Bolt, I will be opting for the 35mm over DLP for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the poor light and the fact that the use of 3D in this movie is sure to be gimmicky and contribute nothing to the experience. I think there is great potential in digital 3D, but it is not being realized by the installations, nor the idiotic use to which the effects are applied by filmmakers. Also, I'll probably see it at my old theater, and not watching movies on that DLP is my own little form of personal rebellion from which I derive untold satisfaction.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-25-2008 06:59 PM
Mark, you missed my point entirely. I am not saying 3.5ftl looks good or not; I was asking how CAN it come anywhere what has always been the accepted benchmark -- and you are right, I have yet to see digital 3D other than IMAX, which wasn't as bright as 2D but SUBJECTIVELY acceptable. My point was that somehow we have gone from being about hitting hard specs numbers when evaluating systems to determining what is a well aligned system by what "looks ok."
I profer that is not a scientific approach at all and one I suspect you would never have tolerated in your film work. And let me speculating again, but I would bet that you would never use the criteria of "even the scaled down images actually don't look that bad...." if you were talking about a film-based system. If an exhibitor told you that he didn't need a tech to align his lamphouse or his sound system because his booth guy just fiddles with the adjustments and gets everything so it "doesn't look that bad" or "it sounds pretty good" and there are no complaints from the audiences, I think you would be the first to agree that kind of subjective tweaking is anatham to what professional standards are all about. Hell, Mark, you have been fighting that kind of unprofessional crap all your career.
Yet you don't offer reasons why 3.5fl is as good as 16fl or that there are technical reasons why it is just as good as the standing benchmark. Yet you offer a purely subjective evaluation as a good enough reason -- "They look better in fact than any of the 80's film based 3-d systems did." Well, he-lloo, the 80's over-under systems looked flat out terrible -- hardly a glowing benchmark for digital 3D. I am sure it looks better than anaglyphic too, but so what? My concern was only with the descrepancy of the two numbers and why the descrepancy seems to be quietly accepted by the technical community. When did we switch from evaluation based on proven specs to using personal, subjective observation? That's the change I've seen creeping into your posts ever since your espousal of the digital conversion. And sure, you can play hotshot by asking if I know what FFIB is (just explain it if you think it's pertinent, and yes I do know what it means) but that doesn't go to the heart of my question which was how can 3.5ftl to 5ftl be OK when 16ftl has been the standard benchmark half a century? And if tripple flashing or even 10x flashing or any other process can make 5ftl = 16ftl, please explain it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic