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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 06-02-2006 08:19 PM                        quote: Mark Lensenmayer It takes the brain awhile to fight through the static Although I was just joking, I don't think it would be too difficult to see 3D this way. I (unlike many people) have never had a problem seeing those MagicEye images immediately. I just understood how to view it, and viewed it. The eyes don't have to "relax" so much as cross just the right way, and once the eyes align things, the brain was right there with them.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-03-2006 01:08 AM                        The problem with Magic Eye is that you're limited to shapes, silhouettes and the like. You could never make a detailed picture out of one. Even if you could, people would come out of the movie crosseyed and try to drive home that way resulting in the death of many innocent babies. Nobody likes dead, innocent babies.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 06-03-2006 04:26 AM                        Their eyes wouldn't tend to cross any more than if they viewed any other 3D movie with 3D glasses, which force your eyes to focus on a point that's not the screen in the same way. But yes, very little, effective detail, and no color to speak of at all. Now, the matter of innocent babies ... what benefit did THEY ever contribute to society? I think the argument could be made that ...  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 06-03-2006 08:55 AM                     Innocent babies? Yeah right! Have you ever changed a FULL DIAPER?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-03-2006 11:45 AM                        Some people can't do the Magic Eye thing. There was an old American Cinematographer issue that was dedicated to 3D. In it they printed quite a few left/right images side by side. I was able to see them in perfect 3D with the cross-eyed method. Once I got the convergence right, they locked in very solidly. I tried to get my girlfriend to see it, but she couldn't. Plus she got really piss at me for insisting that she keep trying. I would love to try to see if it would work on moving 3D images. It would be a good experiment. I imagine that if it did work, there would probably be a limited distance-to-screen where people could actually get the convergence right and lock it in so they could see the whole movie. Then, what toll would that take on eye muscles? BTW -- This is an effin LAW OF THE UNIVERSE -- you can't make something from NOTHING, unless you are God, and even He has a hard time doing it. So this idea that you can make 3D from a 2D image, i.e., creating information that isn't there will look just like what it is. Remember what computer "colorization" looked like? Now imagine that crap up on a 40 foot screen. Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-03-2006 01:05 PM                     quote: Frank Angel Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke. WOW! Pretty bold statement to make on a public forum.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-03-2006 06:16 PM                        Why? Are they gonna come and get 'im?  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 06-03-2006 06:47 PM                     quote: Frank Angel Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke. quote: Richard Hamilton WOW! Pretty bold statement to make on a public forum. The Internet has made it too easy for people to make "bold" statements that they might otherwise not make face to face. One troublesome aspect to the bashing of Lucas, Cameron, Spielberg, insert name of any successful filmmaker, etc. is that it seems like one of those biting-the-hand-that-feeds things if it comes from an exhibitor since those filmmakers have been responsible more than any for putting butts in seats year after year, film after film.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-03-2006 07:36 PM                     Michael, very well put. quote: Joe Redifer Why? Are they gonna come and get 'im? Interesting comment..If someone can sue the tabloids for libel or slander, can they sue an internet site?  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-03-2006 07:45 PM                     quote: Frank Angel Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke. How so? I've heard all the complaints against Lucas (even though I don't agree with most of them), but what about Cameron? I mean there are good filmmakers and great filmmakers, and then there's James Cameron, who more than anything else may be the best storyteller the industry has ever seen. I know that's a bold statement, but I believe it to be accurate. One of the reasons for this is that he knows how to use all of the tools at his disposal. And when a tool doesn't exist, he takes a few years off and builds it. But the great thing about Cameron, and the reason why this "dimensionalization" technology is not something to be feared, is that he knows when not to use particular tools. Much like colorization, there is nothing conceptually evil about this new technique. It's a question of who's using it. If Ted Turner wanted to colorize CITIZEN KANE, that would be wrong, and he should be ashamed of himslef. But if Orson Welles wanted to do it, aside from the fact that he'd be a zombie, who are we to stop him? But the thing is, Welles was a pretty smart guy, and he'd know that colorizing CITIZEN KANE was a bad idea, and he wouldn't do that. In much the same way, Cameron has indicated that "dimensionalizing" certain movies in his body of work would be inappropriate. According to an article a few months back on aintitcool, He's only planning on doing this to TITANIC and and TERMINATOR 2. When asked about ALIENS, he said that he wouldn't do that, essentially because it would be out of place aesthetically. I guess I rambled on a bit too much, but my point is that if someone like James Cameron says, "I want to do this. It'll be cool," then you let him do that, because 99% of the time, he's right. Worst case scenario, we still have the originals.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 07-21-2006 07:51 AM                     Here's a shot from our wedding almost two years ago. This was a first attempt to convert any of my Realist slides to anaglyph, and was done at work because I don't have Photoshop! Because this was new to my co-worker who did it, please note that the RED lens goes over the RIGHT eye. Sorry Joe.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-21-2006 12:32 PM                        Weird "layered" effect goin' on there. How did your friend do it? Here is a picture my friend and fellow forum member Jeff Skallan took in Telluride. Once again red eye goes on the left:  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 07-21-2006 12:54 PM                     As much as I hate anaglyph, it's the best way to present these here, as cross-eyed or freeviewing is not very convenient. Both original (full-color) stereo slides were scanned, and each image was turned into a monochrome corresponding to the colors of the glasses I bought. She transposed the colors, but for my purposes, it didn't matter. Then she layered both images on top of each other with my husband and myself as the convergence point. The color that results is kind of an old two-color Technicolor look. The 3-D effect suffered a bit by downrezzing it for posting. My original file looks much better, and the original slide better still! This was done for our 2004 Christmas card. We included a pair of red/blue glasses in each card. Someday, I will get Photoshop, and play around with this technique to get more color into it like yours.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-21-2006 02:18 PM                        So were there two cameras that went off at the same time? I never really understood how the monochrome anaglyph 3D images were even possible. For me I have no choice but to do them in full color.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 07-21-2006 02:36 PM                     Dual-camera stereo is one way to do it, but I use a vintage Stereo Realist camera that records two images simutaneously. 99.9% of the itme, I shoot slide film, mostly Kodachrome. The images are narrower than a normal 35mm frame (5 perforations wide as opposed to 8), and I get 29 stereo pairs on a 36 exposure roll. Ideally, they're viewed with a viewer kinda sorta like a View-master, but usually self-illuminated with better optics. You can see the camera at Dr. T's Realist Page. For our purposes, the wedding picture came out well, but I'd like to tweak the process to put back more color in the anaglyph. Compared to the slides, though, the colored glasses sap so much of the spectrum.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.