Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ebert on 3D Animation

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Ebert on 3D Animation (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Ebert on 3D Animation

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 01-09-2011 01:07 PM

quote: Aaron Garman
My point is that if the artist truly believes in their work and wants it seen a specific way, why are they giving people a choice?

Right, but if they felt that way they would never allow their work to be released on video, because half or more of the audience is watching on tiny screens with crappy sound.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-09-2011 01:21 PM

There are only a handful of "artists" in the film world who have the power to control what formats their baby will be released in. They rarely own their work, they are just the hired help. Well compensated hired help in may cases, but still just painting the walls for the business owner.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-09-2011 04:41 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
James Cameron's intent was to appeal to as my persons as possible

That may be true for 3D vs. 2D, but Cameron is one of those artists that had the pull to release it exclusively in 3D and still make it horribly successful and reach many people. As for the aspect ratio thing, there is no excuse for not deciding which one he wanted. I always asked myself what his true version and vision was.

It is sad that filmmaking is just a business, more than ever really because it hurts the art form going forward into the future. Kind of interesting to consider that the art of cinema is just over 100 years old. I wonder what they'll be discussing once it becomes old like painting, sculptures, literature, and theatre.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Kris Verhanneman
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 182
From: Belgium
Registered: Dec 2009

posted 01-09-2011 05:07 PM

quote:
This is another reason I think digital cinema is a great thing: it is going to bring a more solid standard to cinema projection that has been lacking for many years. I know when I see a film locally, it isn't guaranteed that I'm going to get an intact print, or even digital sound (several houses are still using optical sound, and not even SR),

Oh my god ... If a theater isn't able to get a decent analog sound/image it will not getting better by pushing in a digital projector.

quote:
Sure, poor management and terrible booth monkeys are more to blame,

pfff, sory but give some booth monkeys a brake. They can't be held responsable if they need to clean the theaters, sell pop corn and more of that stuff. There is also the part of who trained them and how where they trained.

And yes there are ... probleme is that they will stay when the old '35/70mm masters' retire.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-09-2011 05:37 PM

quote: Kris Verhanneman
Oh my god ... If a theater isn't able to get a decent analog sound/image it will not getting better by pushing in a digital projector.

quote: Kris Verhanneman
pfff, sory but give some booth monkeys a brake. They can't be held responsable if they need to clean the theaters, sell pop corn and more of that stuff. There is also the part of who trained them and how where they trained.

That's exactly my point: since the multiplex model is often a poorly trained usher in the booth that also runs the stand, cleans theatres, etc., digital cinema eliminates that variable. Am I happy the business has come to that, no: I love film and what it is capable of. However, the reality is that in the modern multiplex, it isn't as efficient as having digital cinema. It also eliminates the question on what sound format you are going to get when you see a film: will it be SR, mono, digital? With digital cinema, you get lossless sound, that's it. I know I hate dropping $15 to go to a movie in a first run cinema just to get treated to bad optical sound and a scratched up print.

AJG

EDIT: I should add that I was horribly disappointed when I visited the El Capitan and the Chinese this summer they were running digital cinema: houses that size and of that scope should be employing truly great projectionists that know how to run a great 35 or 70 presentation.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.