Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 07-15-2008 11:01 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Some of the folks in the press will certainly be spinning everything as hard as they can to make it seem like Cameron will have failed if Avatar doesn't gross over $600 million in the United States.

What do you mean "some?" I don't think I've ever seen a review of an M. Night Shayamalan movie that hasn't noted that it's "not as good as 'The Sixth Sense.'"

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 07-27-2008 02:50 PM

I have always been addicted to 3-D movies since I first saw them in the early fifties and looked forward to seeing this movie because it was the first non animated film in Real D 3-D. After watching it yesterday at Regal's Dole Cannery 18 in Honolulu, I must admit I enjoyed the 3-D effect very much but was bothered with a picture that was projected a little on the dark side and watching it with my Polaroid glasses, made it even darker. The production value had a TV movie feel to it but after I had put it out of my mind as well as checking my brains at the door, I enjoyed the movie very much.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 07-27-2008 08:24 PM

Claude, according to the Real D manual that I have, the screen luminance metered through the glasses should be between 3.5 and 5.5 FL. Obviously the glasses and polarizing "Z Screen" account for a good loss of light, as well as the projector's inefficiency (I have a Barco, to further suck down the light). 5.5 FL is a far cry from the 16 FL I otherwise expect to get on this screen, especially since my Real D install uses a monster 6500W lamp for a 42 foot in scope, fixed height screen, versus the 4000W I use in my 35mm! Getting more light on screen needs to be a major priority for Real D as well as projector manufacturers, and of course xenon manufacturers.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 07-27-2008 09:21 PM

quote:
5.5 FL is a far cry from the 16 FL I otherwise expect to get on this screen,

But isn't there a reason why 5.5 FL is acceptable? I thought that it had something to do with each eye getting the light separately or something. I don't understand how it works, but I thought I was told that 5.5FL in Real D is the equivalent of 16FL in 2D.

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 07-29-2008 11:51 AM

I haven't heard anything like that. It certainly does look brighter than I would expect, but still not nearly as bright as I shoot for on other screens. Of course, we changed to a silver screen a few days before we started our run of Journey, so I only ran a couple shows in 35mm on the silver screen making it hard to know what kind of effect that is having, exactly. Even if 5.5 FL on screen is an acceptable situation, running a 6500W lamp which would be putting ~30 FL on screen in a 35mm setup sure sucks down the power for so little light on screen. Efficiency needs to come up to prevent having to use extremely expensive lamps that last 500 hours and suck down more than 30% more power in order to make 3D a viable profiting situation.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-10-2008 10:29 PM

FWIW: I sat through this film again today in Dolby 3-D with some friends that hadn't seen it yet and although this film still leaves alot to be desired in the story department the 3-D effect was a show all in itself. Everyone in attendance obviously had a great time as was evident by the smiles on faces as we left the room.

quote: Mike Schindler
But isn't there a reason why 5.5 FL is acceptable?

I don't know the answer to that... may have something to do with "apparent" brightness. I definately do know that the studios want to get that brightness level up quite a bit higher. The colors and density are presently mixed for the 5.5 level and any higher light levels tend to wash things out... so a re-mix for any higher level would have to happen.

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Efficiency needs to come up to prevent having to use extremely expensive lamps that last 500 hours

The Christie CDXL60 6kw short gap lamp is rated to burn 1000 hours. Its warranted life span is however about 600 hours. We have one just at about 700 hours still running just fine and with excellennt light output.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 08-10-2008 11:17 PM

We use an Osram XBO DHP 6500w (I may have left out a few more letters in that name). With small exception, what lamps we get are not up to me, our ordering list for some reason excludes items that can easily be purchased from Hadden, such as said Christie lamps. I have been dissatisfied by the performance of high wattage Osrams, and would be happy to try out Christies, but it isn't an option.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-11-2008 02:27 AM

Maybe it's my somewhat bad depth perception (or I'm just picky)... but everytime I'd watch parts of this movie from in the booth it felt like everything in the foreground (the stuff that's noticeably "sticking out" in the 3D space) was much more in the foreground than felt natural. By that I mean I'd look at the screen and feel like the stuff in the foreground appears closer to the viewer than I would expect compared to the stuff in the background of a shot. It felt as if they shot the movie entirely in 2D (single camera) then digitally edited it to make some stuff appear 3D.

And since I thought "maybe it's just me and not the movie" I made sure to watch the 3D trailers (Fly Me to the Moon and Bolt) and the 3D look felt much more natural.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-11-2008 08:04 AM

Chris,

I have no idea how the film was shot although I can tell you that it costs about 10 times the initial filming cost to put in the 3-D after the fact... I agree that some of it looked exagrated and some of it looked pretty flat. Hopefully some day they will all look like the original House Of Wax, or like Hitchcocks Dial M for murder where every shot looks to have the same amount of 3-D.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-23-2008 03:54 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Hopefully some day they will all look like the original House Of Wax, or like Hitchcocks Dial M for murder where every shot looks to have the same amount of 3-D.

Agree 110% These films STILL remain the benchmark of how realistic 3D should look.

quote: Mike Schindler
But isn't there a reason why 5.5 FL is acceptable? I thought that it had something to do with each eye getting the light separately or something.

5.5ftL will always be 5.5ftL, 2D or 3D -- there is no magicical optical illusion about 3D that will make a 5.5ftL look like 16ftL. And me thinks the reason the RealD manual says you should get between 3.5ftL(?!) and 5.5ftL is because that's all they can get out of their system, not because that's what will make your image look like a normal, well lit screen. I can't even begin to imagine how awesomely sucky 3.5ftL looks like -- talk about not being able to see detail.

Galen obviously can see how under lit that 5.5ftL image looks with that kind of light-starved output, and he doesn't need to measure it. No one needs to call in a tech to tell them when their picture looks dark and muddy.

My big question is, forget about the shorter life of the 6500w bulb -- how about the life of the DMD? How much light energy can be safely pumped at the DMD module, not much bigger than a film frame, before it impacts negatively on the life span of the mirrors, or even threatens it? One would think there isn't a substance known to man that can remain unscathed if enough focused, radiant energy is aimed directly at it. Anything, be it film or nano-mirror, especially a few million delicate moving mirrors, will take on hellofa beating as that radiant energy is increased. We know that with film there is a point of diminishing returns where the increase in lamp wattage does not see a proportionate rise in the light level on the screen, but continue to increase the energy and it will threaten the integrity of the film passing thru it. There must be a similar point where the DMD begins to be threatened by the heat as well. At least film has the benefit of a shutter interval.

| 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.