|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Avatar 2009 (plus lots of off-topic, non-review junk)
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-03-2010 07:28 AM
3-D has been around us for 100 years.
*EXACTLY* the same stereoscopic 3D that has been in use ... forever is the one we are seeing at theaters today. It's two images, taken aprox. 6.5cm apart, being shown "simultaneously" (of fast enough to look that way) on a screen to be separated by glasses so each eye only sees one of them. Period. This is EXACTLY THE SAME that it has always been.
To obtain this, a variety of methods have been use through the years. Shutter "glasses" (a spinning half-disc, sort of like a shutter blade) was used before shutter LC glasses (like XpanD) existed, but the result is the same.
Dual projection with polarized light (like current digital Imax) was extensively done on the 50's. Whether they used circular or linear polarization to project both images to a silver screen doesn't make a real difference (BTW, circular polarization HAS been used in the past on public projections, just it wasn't as popular as linear).
Using a single projector combined with a silver screen was also done in the 80's, identically to today's Sony's digital 3D.
Even frame-sequential 3D, used in XpanD, RealD, MasterImage, Dolby was extensively done in the 80's in home 3D systems, like the VHD players in Japan or the Toshiba 3D camera. Even active polarizing rotating zscreens (by Stereograhpics Corp) were extensively used in 3D video projection before cinemas became ... video projectors and Stereographics Corp. became... RealD Corp.
Regardless, all of these systems try to do the SAME THING. Put two images on the screen to be separated by glasses. Whether they are from a single or dual projector, time-sequential or space-sequential (i.e. split frame), polarized or color separated (Dolby), etc, etc, etc is not that important. The results they try to achieve are EXACTLY the same, even if one systems obtains it 1% better or cheaper than another.
If in 100 years people hasn't been all that crazy about 3D to make it common place, what makes you think they really care about it now?
Sure, as a novelty or a "freebie" (i.e. your next TV is gonna be 3D whether you care or not for the same price), it will hold some interest. And a small part of the population REALLY diggs it and they think it's great, but they are a small part.
What a lot of people don't realize is that we ALL SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. Some people don't notice the "strobe effect" of Avatar, which partly has to do with the rapid camera movements used at 24fps, but partly has to do with some people being more sensitive to the TEMPORAL DISPARITIES that most current 3D systems produce (one eye is seeing a frame "in the future" compared to what the other eye remembers through persistence of vision). What some people see as a "fine presentation" is overly dark for another. Some people have excellent night vision while others can hardly drive at night because they don't see well enough in low light. We are all different.
And that's part of the problem. Some people have small heads with eyes very close together (specially children) and some are huge "giants" with eyes really far apart. We all see (slightly) different 3D, slightly different colors, slightly different day/night vision, slightly different 'speeds' (i.e. notice rainbows in DLP projection), etc, etc.
When a "3D-nut" (a person that loves 3D) tells you that the 3D/presentation was AWESOME and you see a blurry/strobery/dimm picture you wonder what the hell he was talking about and he thinks there must have been something wrong in your theater because he didn't notice any of those things.
We all know that ALL 3D theaters around project 3D at between 3.5 and 5.5fl illumination. This is 1/3 or less what is recommended for cinema viewing. We ALL should be complaining about illumination levels. But some people (most) cope fine with it, but a percentage of the population doesn't.
The problem comes when you are one of those people for which 3D is the very greatest thing (like Cameron) and think the rest of the world is like you. A few will love the 3D like you do. A few will totally hate it or not even see it. Most won't care enough either way. They can be lured through heavy marketing like with Avatar, and they'll go to see "what they are missing or what the fuzz is about", but once they've seen 20 or 30 3-D films, a lot of them won't care enough to even put up with passive glasses.
3D in cinemas and at home has died a few times before and it wasn't significantly different to what is being offered today. Sure after 100 years technology makes the active glasses at home lighter/cheaper or the TV screens larger and with faster refresh rates. But theaters keep showing 2K resolution which, with 35mm, has been around or surpassed for almost 100 years ... The first confirmed paid-audience show of a 3D film was a dual 35mm strip anaglyphic in 1922 (The Power of Love) and later the same year there was another show with "shutter glasses" (well, shutter "viewers" back then). And in the 30's they started to use dual-polarized projection ...
If 3D was so awesome it brings huge profits and you'll-be-an-idiot-to-not-use-it ... why is Ironman 2 not being done in 3D?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-03-2010 01:55 PM
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #4
Format: 2K DLP, RealD
Rating: 3 stars out of 4
I finally got around to watching Avatar yesterday at an early Saturday screening. My parents even saw the movie before I did (last week in IMAX 3D at a Cinemark theater in Colorado Springs). I'm just not getting out to the theater nearly as often as I did in the past. And I'm rarely there during opening weekend anymore either.
Was Avatar the movie "that would change filmmaking forever?" No. Was it a good movie? Yeah, I thought it was pretty good for the sum of its parts as a 3D movie going experience. But it's not nearly the best movie of the year. It isn't one of James Cameron's better movies for that matter. I'll may buy a copy of it when it arrives on Blu-ray for the visual spectacle and sound mix. Maybe. I'm not sure if this movie lends itself to a lot of repeat viewings.
I agree with a lot of the critical comments made throughout this thread.
Avatar looks and sounds fantastic. The visuals in it are pretty incredible. The movie has a few pretty cool action set pieces. The 3D effect was handled very well and arguably the best I've seen in a digital 3D show. I didn't really notice how long the movie was until it was finished. My eyes felt a bit irritated afterward so 2 1/2 hours of run time really seems a bit much for a 3D movie.
The negative points are pretty obvious. The story is pretty thin and very predictable, even the ending. While it is a point of style, the Na'vi seemed too much like American Indians dressed up in alien clothing.
What's with the use of the typeface Papyrus in the subtitles? Papyrus is a decent looking typeface, but since it has been so badly over-used in lots of ways, particularly in ways where the font's theme has no relevance to the document, the use of Papyrus has turned into a joke among people who know type. If you use Papyrus, you're going to draw laughs from professional graphics people. It would have been better if they had set the subtitles in a sans-serif typeface that didn't call so much attention to itself.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-06-2010 03:33 AM
I am actually angry to see this turd is already sitting at 3rd highest grossing movie of all time, and most probably will become the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time. But what is even more pathetic than that is this:
quote: Phenomenal loser #1
Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible. I recently read on the Avatar TypePad Blog, that people are becoming depressed because of the movie. People are realizing that the dream can't actually come true. I was trying to start a thread where people gave ideas on how to cope with it, as in reading Avatar stuff, Writing ( about avatar of course), painting, or whatever. Just give me some ideas and I'll try and help them out. Maybe people reading might even get some good ideas that'll help.
quote: Phenomenal loser #2
After I watched Avatar at the first time, I trully felt depressed as I "wake" up in this world again.
So after few days, I went to cinema and watched it again for the second time to relieve the depression and hopeless feeling.
Now I listen to the soundtrack and share my views in this forum. It really helps.
quote: Phenomenal loser #3
The first time after I woke up the next day after watching it I "had" to see it again. I have seen it four times now, and soon to be a fifth. I think watching it takes away that depression, because when I am watching it, i dont know how to describe how I feel, but it feels good. I want to just forget about it all sometimes, take down my avatar wallpaper, stop reading about it and what not, but I just cant.
I have to use a quote from the movie sometimes I guess "Sooner or later though, you always have to wake up."
I heard writing a sequel helps, but I just cant compete with what has been laid out.
I dont know if theres any WoW addicts out there, but after seeign Avatar I have lost all desire to play (and trust me thats like being addicted to any drug)
I'm just hoping it will pass over time, but if anybody has any recommendations how to cope I would love to hear them.
quote: (skipping to page 54) Phenomenal loser #4
do you guys also get the thoughts of sucidal? i dont mean to sound creepy or emo but i kinda felt that humans are pathetic and my life don't mean anything anymore after checking out how good the Na'vi lives are.
It goes on and on for 52 pages like that (as of the time of this post.) Would it be rude to say "wake the fuck up people, it's just a shitty movie"?
Link to one of the most amazing collections of losers on the internet.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic