Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are the Toy Story films worth seeing in 3-D?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Are the Toy Story films worth seeing in 3-D? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Are the Toy Story films worth seeing in 3-D?

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 10-04-2009 06:28 PM

quote: Frank Angel
especially for big chains which have to deal with those multitudes of booth monkeys

Didn't they hire them?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-04-2009 07:42 PM

quote: Vern Dias
the current version uses a 50HZ refresh rate

Thats a pretty slow refresh rate! That alone may cause many artifacts to occur. In D-Cinema you can run at different rates... 3:1 4:1 and 5:1. All produce great 3-D in slow moving images. At high speed rates the two lower ones produce at least some artifacting... and you may possibly induce headaches at those slower rates.

As for Toy Stories, I'm going to skip seeing them. Just no decent 3-D in this area and this area pretty much encompasses all types. I just can't see sitting there for a double feature at 4 to 6 foot lamberts [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 10-04-2009 08:12 PM

I saw them today on screen 10 (the so called "Giant" screen) at Colorado Mills. The screen looks to be about 50-60 feet wide and constant width. The auditorium is steeper than a ski jump, and you could see some very slight keystoning along the bottom edge of the screen.

The image seemed brighter than the last 3D movie I saw (Bolt). I wouldn't call it remarkably bright, but I didn't find it unacceptably dim, either.

Sound was terrific and the picture was generally great.

The 3D effect is mild. If you're into 3D, I'd imagine you'd like it. I found it to be "not terribly distracting or annoying." [Smile]

My 5 year old daughter managed to keep her glasses on most of the time.

The Pixar intermission between the movies was a lot of fun - like watching special features on a DVD. And the countdown clock was a helpful touch. The film-related gags at the start seemed weird (pretend film breaks, comments about the first reel being ready) since this release is 100% digital, afaik.

My biggest gripe was that they shouldn't have run the TS3 teaser at the start. It had too many spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen 1 & 2. They should have saved it for the end, and could have "teased" it during the intermission.

Was it worth seeing in 3D? No, not to me.

Was it worth seeing on the big screen again? Absolutely. These were the best wide release movies I've seen in the theatre all year. I had a grin on my face the whole time. Go see 'em!

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 10-04-2009 08:17 PM

Did Pixar render the second eye on these, or did they fake it?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-04-2009 09:22 PM

I'm pretty sure rendering another eye would be tremendously easy. Just move the camera over a bit (different amounts depending on the scene) and hit "render". Done in 5 minutes.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-04-2009 09:46 PM

quote: Frank Angel
I see enough positive advantages to digital especially for big chains which have to deal with those multitudes of booth monkeys and all the problems associated with film...

Won't argue there at all, esp. when you do the "auto-start" function on the servers or main IT distribution where all one as to do is go upstairs, turn everything on that is needed and leave. You let the scheduler do the rest.

Definitely have to admit: no booth monkeys present since they've been now confined behind the conc shoveling popcorn in the containers that the customers purchased, or sweeping up the popcorn in the houses that they just sold to the customers.

...And no errors in presentations.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I just can't see sitting there for a double feature at 4 to 6 foot lamberts

Little help here: Why does Real Dumb and others HAVE to have their 3D presentations at such a low foot lambert level? You'd think that it would tons better at 12 to 16 than at 3.5 to 5 fL's

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 10-04-2009 09:59 PM

I agree, Joe. And given the relatively simple nature of the scenes in these movies and the increase in processing power that's available today vs. when they made these movies originally the render time should be really short. I hope that's what they did.

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-05-2009 01:39 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Little help here: Why does Real Dumb and others HAVE to have their 3D presentations at such a low foot lambert level? You'd think that it would tons better at 12 to 16 than at 3.5 to 5 fL's

There is a perfectly simple explaination to this. Cinema owners want the 3D systems in their biggest or bigger auditoriums becase they potentially see more revenue from the 3D releases. In this area, our industry lacks the capabilities of illuminating 3D in more than 5 to 6 max fl on the screen. Considering any 3D system whether it would be Dolby or Real Dumb or MI or X-Pand you need actually tripple the light output when the 3D drops in to manage to achieve the 14fl as in 2D. Although many will argue that 14fl on 3D will offer washed out colours e.t.c perhaps the Dolby System is the best as you can make settings in the colour outputs from the server and avoid this. Brad managed to get about 110fl on 2D and 10fl on 3D at a theater but he was throwing on a screen no bigger than 10m wide which is a small one and he was using 6.5k lamps. Most theathers exceed the limit of 12m x 5.1m which starts to show how low the output gets on the screen when the 3D kicks in. So instead of forcing everyone to go with the double stack projector feature to manage to achieve a light level of more than 10 fl, companies have decided than 5 is actually good enough for all 3D features. At Cine Expo I saw footage of Avatar with the RealD XL system and it did not look dark actually although I am not sure how much light they were using. So in any case, until ppl start putting the 3D systems in their smaller screens (10m and less wide) I am certain we won't be seeing the 3D specs changing to achieve a higher light output. And something final, there is not a single projector out there which uses the full chip capabilities. In flat films more pixels are being used than in scope which actually makes the scope films suck at resolution although I never see someone post such argument in Film-Tech.
Demetris

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-05-2009 04:29 AM

quote: Demetris Thoupis
In flat films more pixels are being used than in scope which actually makes the scope films suck at resolution although I never see someone post such argument in Film-Tech.

Would this, then, be the reason for the double release lens format as with "G-Force" and the upcoming "Avatar" - doing the full frame, scope release on film whereas with the digital release in a flat lens,"letterbox" format?

I've noticed that "Monsters/Aliens" didn't look as good as does the "Up" and "IceAge3" releases in 3D.

Prob, why SONY is really pushing the 4k envelope to get scope up to full 1080 resolution on 2D releases and even with the 3D with their dual lens concept.

What is Christie/TI doing with this if they're now getting ready for 4K? Do a dual lens idea, or just the single lens with a much finer pixel chipset for their light engines to get that resolution up to HDTV levels....?

thx-Monte

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-05-2009 04:36 AM

I believe they have not yet made a decision on Avatar's digital format.

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-05-2009 07:18 AM

In reality no projector is projecting full 2K resolution. We are only projecting 1.8 in flat and about 1.6 in scope which sucks deep time. So all Digital lovers can see that still Film Rules.
Demetris

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 10-05-2009 10:26 AM

quote: Demetris Thoupis
In reality no projector is projecting full 2K resolution. We are only projecting 1.8 in flat and about 1.6 in scope which sucks deep time. So all Digital lovers can see that still Film Rules.

For at least several months now all Christie projectors do full 2K 3D.

Due to the use of 2K digital intermediates for the last several years, I find that 2K digital presentation look at least as good as the 35mm releases. By extrapolating the look of 2K DLP, I would expect that 4K DLP with a 4K source file will look at least as good (and probably better than due to no generational loss, jump or weave) as the best 35mm film can offer.

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 10-05-2009 10:27 AM

I find the commentary about 5fL or lower being "acceptable" to be quite interesting. Owning a drive-in, I can't help but remember how many times outdoor presentations have been uniformly trashed, merely because of this one factor.

I took one of my daughters to see TS1&2 this weekend. I found the 3D to be subtle enough that I forgot it was even there... which tells me that the original would have been good enough. 195 minutes is a long time to be wearing those glasses... especially if they have to be worn over the ones you already wear!

Otherwise, it was a decent show. Saturday matinee, about 120 people in a 200 seat auditorium

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-05-2009 11:40 AM

So, the TS double feature came in at third place last weekend, getting beat by week 3 of "Cloudy." Realizing that they couldn't do as many shows due to the double feature, would this be considered a success, or "just OK" business?

| IP: Logged

Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 10-05-2009 12:03 PM

Saw Toy Story 3D last night and it was great. The 3D gave a new depth to the image and showed just how much of an achievment that film was. There were loads of little bits all over the film that I'd never noticed, also got the Mr. Potato Head 'ass-kissing' joke for the first time! Well worth it, can't wait for Toy Story 2 now which we're getting early next year.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.