|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 3D already dying?
|
Rob Ferreira
Film Handler
Posts: 25
From: Conway, NH, USA
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 08-16-2010 02:00 AM
Our theatre is going to be getting the Technicolor 3D soon. As it's only on a few hundred screens in the US, I can't yet comment on how it looks in compared to digital Real3D or Disney 3D or even the classic red/blue glasses.
At any rate, 3D seems to hit in these 30 year cycles. Popular in the 50s, again in the 80s, and now. It'll die off soon, I hope. It's a generic technology that focuses on visuals instead of stories. Which is made even more apparent by that god-awful piece of Smurf trash AVATAR. Recycled bullshit story, poor acting, and phenomenal 3D and visuals. Wahoo. Who gives a shit? Obviously a lot of morons who care nothing about the movies themselves and everything about having shit pop out at them. Biggest movie of all time? Give me a break.
Even with the recent release of 3D TVs, and channels like ESPN broadcasting in 3D, I still don't see it lasting forever. Fads come and go, right?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010
|
posted 08-17-2010 10:56 AM
Well, it was shot, as all the prior "Harry Potters" were, on 35mm film, so it is obviously going to have to be a 3D conversion.
IDK WTF they don't resurrect some of the 80s 2-perf. cameras I assume they used to film 3D movies then.
Obviously, in this day and age, it is too prohibitively expensive to shoot two 4-perf. cameras simultaneously.
But, with 2-perf. I don't know why the hell all the 3D rigs now are digital. It still looks like trash, frankly. I've only seen a couple of digital movies really pull the look off, "Date Night," "Knowing," and "Collateral."
The first and the latter pulled the look off because they embraced digital cameras' strengths rather than trying to make them look like film. The one in the middle did alright because they deliberately made every daylight exterior cloudy so as to avoid blown highlights.
I still maintain 3D is a push to digitize the film industry at the top level, which is a loss for everyone except the chip companies. I don't think anyone here will argue that 35mm neg. still is king, even scanned and F-ed with.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-17-2010 01:15 PM
quote: Rob Ferreira
At any rate, 3D seems to hit in these 30 year cycles. Popular in the 50s, again in the 80s, and now. It'll die off soon, I hope. It's a generic technology that focuses on visuals instead of stories. Which is made even more apparent by that god-awful piece of Smurf trash AVATAR. Recycled bullshit story, poor acting, and phenomenal 3D and visuals.
I don't think anyone expects Merchant-Ivory literary quality when paying to see a James Cameron movie. I agree Avatar was cardboard thin on plot and character. But it delivered in the areas where more than enough customers expected: action and visuals. A domestic box office gross of nearly $750 million is pretty difficult to dismiss.
Hollywood's current fixation on 3D has some major differences from the 3D trends of the 1950's and 1980's. The current 3D trend is easily more successful than the brief 1980's period of 3D use and at least rivals the success of the 1950's. Unlike the 1980's 3D is now being used on at least some of Hollywood's top tier releases. This current 3D craze is also unique for the number of animated 3D movies being released. There's a lot more 3D content for children available. Hollywood studios and movie theaters are throwing a lot more money at 3D now than they did 20 or 50 years ago.
I don't know if this will mean 3D is going to stick around permanently, but its chances are certainly better now then they've been in the past. Various parties can still goof up a good thing with surcharge price gouging at theaters, phony 2D to 3D movie conversions on the production end and the flat out stupid exclusive Blu-ray 3D movie bundling going on with 3D TV sets for home use. The level of greed being displayed against the consumer right now is pretty unwise especially with the economy bouncing its butt on the basement floor. Those various executives are horribly out of touch and just asking for a really nasty anti-3D backlash.
quote: Jonathan Smith
Obviously, in this day and age, it is too prohibitively expensive to shoot two 4-perf. cameras simultaneously.
The budgets and technology is there to shoot entire movies in 5-perf 65mm or even full blown IMAX (Christopher Nolan is considering doing just that on the next Batman installment). 8-perf 35mm VistaVision is feasible. A dual strip 4/35mm system is do-able. But too many techno-geeks out there keep creaming their jeans over the word "digital." So that's where all the developing effort is going.
quote: Jonathan Smith
But, with 2-perf. I don't know why the hell all the 3D rigs now are digital. It still looks like trash, frankly. I've only seen a couple of digital movies really pull the look off, "Date Night," "Knowing," and "Collateral."
Knowing is the only one of those three that pulled off a reasonably convincing film look. It was recorded with a Red One camera in 4K resolution.
Date Night, shot with the Panavision Genesis camera, often looked video sourced. Panavision desperately needs to do something with that system because it just sucks when used in any low light settings. I can understand the reasoning for so many comedies being shot with digital cameras (more takes, improv experiments, etc.) but it's often coming at a cost of making the movie look like shit.
Collateral wasn't shot to look pretty, but it's still really easy to tell the difference between the video and film-sourced imagery in that one. I think the movie would have been better if the native video footage had retained its video look rather than being muddied up with film look filtering attempts.
I kind of worry about Tron Legacy. It's being produced with a twin digital camera setup in 1080p HDTV resolution. That immediately kills any enthusiasm for me to see an IMAX version of it, be it fake IMAX or film IMAX. I remember how crappy the blown up from 1080p HD footage of Superman Returns looked in IMAX 3D. I'm not repeating that same attendance mistake again. If I see Tron Legacy it will be in a standard 2K digital theater with a modest sized screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic