3D will only be 1:78:1/185:1 ? - Page 2

agreed !



Yes !

Along with 3D conversions.

My issue is that, althgough I like the action adventure blockbusters, I love the great dramas of the past and present. These films reap no benefit from the technology.

Art

i have nice 720p correct AR copy of streetcar that I recorded off air years ago that im dying to see on a big screen.

Franin, Art:
I dunno there's a few folks over on the >3k PJ forum that are literally peeing their pants over in-home 3D.
Making some pretty wild predictions about how everyone is dying to fork over cash for 3D.
Personally I think they're immature dreamers who have some very fanciful ideas about economics, business and real world priorities.

What, you don't want LOTR in 3D

(in all seriousness -> )

Exactly! That was my biggest gripe about the 3D systems I saw at CEDIA and SMPTE. Size does matter when your talking images and who cares about 3D on a screen that hardly 20" tall

didnt anyone hear about the 7mm (milimeter) thick LG display? Soon there will be 100" displays that are 5mm thick and weigh 25 pounds. More importantly they will be inexpensive. People will put them into their walls. They will have screen savers that mimic the texture and color of various wall so it will look like there is nothing there but a wall.

the problem with 3D is it is not replicating how we visually comprehend things in real life. It's taking objects and throwing them onto different planes. Let's throw out the fact that it's blurry in comparison when stuff gets moved closer ot us.

In the live action scenes in Avatar, the board meeting rooms. Every row is on its own plane. They're like a pop-up book!

If you were driving down the highway, would all the cars pop up out of the road - while the road stayed stagnant?

They can't make it look realistic, so it appears to only be useful in a minor fashion for animated films (where it's more difficult to discern reality anyway).

I could not agree more...and well said I might add.

I agree about the movie looking like a pop up book or pop up greating card. Some parts of the movie wow'ed me, but other parts had to much CGI. I don't know how it looked off angle.

motion sickness is what a friend of mine said it made him feel.

Yes...but he should have known better, because video games make him feel the same way.

Glade to have helped.

Is this post from 1999?
I'm still waiting for the personal jetpack I was promised in 1966

The problem is, I think, that they're simulating 3D with a 2D surface. In real life, an important part of our perception of depth is that we can focus on different depths. If you're looking at someone else standing in the foreground in front of something in the background, you can focus on either, and when you do, the other (usually) is not in focus.

I had this problem early on in Avatar. I kept trying to "look around" the different planes created by the 3D effect, but you can't focus on what you want, you're stuck with whatever the film maker decided should be in focus. Or everything is sharply focused which is just not realistic.

Eventually I got used to the the focus being "passive" on my part, but not in a way that made it more realistic, it just became lest fatiguing.

I think until true 3D reproduction occurs, where you can focus on the different depths at will, it will not be completely "here".

Can you imagine 'Casablanca' being converted to 3D! A travesty, but I won't be suprised if it happens, such is our gimmick ridden movie world.
I totally agree about the cut-out look of 3D films, by no means is it natural stereoscopy. True 3D movies will only come via holography, which is way way in the future.

3D can emphasize spatial differences in a way 2D can't. Josh mentioned Hitchcock - I really wonder what Vertigo would be like in 3D.

Whatever happened to 3D via alternate Left/Right display, viewed through active (i.e. switching) Liquid Crystal glasses? I thought this was the way it was going to be done for HT, epspecially as the 3D beta specs reveal an up-to 120Hz frame rate (60Hz per eye).

Active LCD shutters is one of 6 current designs. It is also the most expensive. The display itself also must refresh at 120Hz (60Hz per eye). Whilst it is impressive, there are more affordable passive systems that do as good a job.

but the sense of depth avatar achieves with 3d adds to the visual enjoyment. its really neat.

I don't know if it would help me enjoy the movie better or not. I'm neither for nor against 3D. But if the director intended the movie to be seen in 3D, I'd rather see it that way.

In that respect, I'm also opposed to reworking existing movies into 3D, because that's not how they were intended to be viewed. My example of Vertigo was merely to wonder if Hitchcock had been able to utilize the 3D tools of today perhaps he would have framed/composed things differently in order to really allow the audience to truly experience James Stewart's perspective. I don't mean that reworking it into 3D would make it better.

As for the point about the 2D version expressing the story better because the 3D visuals are distracting, then why not remove CGI? Why not go even further and skip all visuals and read the novelization? That would certainly focus attention on the story.

I'm not sure why the consternation about 3D, as if it's intrinsically bad. As Josh said, it's merely a tool. Obviously no one has used yet it in a way that satisfies you, but that doesn't mean it will never be satisfying.