|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-22-2006 07:11 PM
That is awesome! Great job, Joe!
I like the Realist because of the assured simultaneous exposures (and I'm too cheap to seek out two matched camera/lens sets), and of all the accessories (old and new) and support materials available for the format. However, the narrower image has always been an issue. I personally would like it a little wider. Some people have converted certain models to produce wider images. And there's a company that twins regular 35mm cameras so that full-size 35mm stereo frames can be produced. If anyone watches the production diaries for "King Kong," Peter Jackson can be seen photographing a pile of fake camel poop with one of these.
Whenever I'm doing still subjects, or when I need to change the interocular distance, I use my Nikon and a slide bar. However, I just came back from a wedding in which I took about two rolls with my Realist. Whatever works best. I'd really like one of those RBT cameras though...
Thanks for the great work. When I finally get PS, may I pick your brain to learn your anaglyph technique?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-22-2006 08:07 PM
quote: Michael Coate
The Internet has made it too easy for people to make "bold" statements that they might otherwise not make face to face.
One, I don't see that as a "bold" statement. Two, there seems to be an assumption here that I wouldn't make that statement to either of them face to face; that assumption is incorrect. And not for nothing as we say here in Brooklyn, I don't think there is anything bold about saying two people who seem to be hell-bent on denegrading and slamming motion picture film at every opportunity, the very medium that has given them the monetary resources to get where they are today, that such individuals are an industry joke, at least to the exhibition industry.
Funny they didn't think video was the way to go when they wanted millions of potential viewers to shell out $10 a pop to see their films. They could have easily opted for made-for-tv movies, yet both chose film while out of the other side of their mouths tell of the heavenly day when that aweful film which does nothing but mar their great works will be a thing of the past, being replaced entirely with digital -- the sooner the better and good ridance to it. And now it's not only digital, but 3D that's gonna put nails in film's coffin and give the world what it didn't have before, a way to really appreciate the filmmaker's art. To me, this is a joke, and they are the butt.
And if that's slander or libel, I plead guilty. I simply have no respect for a filmmaker who trashes the medium on which the greatest works of our truly indiginous American art-form were created over the last Century. And I will tell either of them that any time, anywhere.
quote: Michael Coate
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.
This is a two way street. They can only put those butts in seats year after year if exhibitors invest in and maintain motion picture theatres for the filmmakers to play their films in. Without those seats, they would be making made-for-TV-Movies, Pay-per-view and direct to DVD releases. If Mr. Cameron thinks he could have mustered 60 million in the first weekend of TITANIC without those theatres and without those film projectors, he should have tried selling his movie to Time-Warner and let them put it on cable.
Seems that their rhetoric point squarely to the fact that they have distain for film and exhibitors and would happily release day-and-date if they think it is more profitable to do so, regardless of the impact on exhibition. Seems to me that anyone who thinks the digivangelists filmmakers think of themselves as partners with exhibitors or are friends of exhibition, are a tad naive.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
I must sheepishly admit that not too long after my question, I learned of the Stereo Photo Maker freeware. It's just so dang easy, I forgot about my request.
Printer-friendly view of this topic