AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › Katzenberg and Cameron in a box-The future of 2-D to 3d conversion,and of HT itself .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Katzenberg and Cameron in a box-The future of 2-D to 3d conversion,and of HT itself . - Page 2

post #31 of 125
11/15/10 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

Crap in 3D is still crap.

And that is the crux isn't it ?

Art
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 125
11/15/10 at 9:54am
Thread Starter 
Why did J Mike Ferrara made this point and Now you are harping on it?

Crap in 2-D is worse, and crap in audio only even worse. So if you want crap at least enhance it with 3-D and activate the areas of the Brain that have been suppressed since the few of us invented home theater way back when.

2-d to 3-d conversions will not make a bad transfer better (although technically the dual proc amps will help) nor a bad script, however be advised that visually it will be far more stimulating.

So bring it on I say. I will bring it on to the moons of Saturn,and never do a 2-D only system again, in fact the systems will be 3-D at All times.

I guess when we have a chance to demonstrate Avatar in 2-D converted to 3-D vs 3-D native on the Superkontrast that is where the proof of the pudding be. I am betting EVERYTHING on it though, so get ready for the next major paradigm shift.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 125
11/15/10 at 10:39am
Crap in 2D is worse than crap in 3D?
Oh.My.Word.
The only possible reason for making such a claim is that your bottom line is completely dependent on 3D taking off. Good luck!
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 125
11/15/10 at 10:48am
Thread Starter 
Listen to you? I can't believe how narrominded you can be.

My bottom line has nothing to do with you or this forum for that matter I do this BECAUSE I SEE IT AS THE ONLY CORRECT PATH. Now I am very sick and your vitriol is giving me stabbing pains so whatever....
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 125
11/15/10 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Why did J Mike Ferrara made this point and Now you are harping on it?

Because I agree with him, is this a riddle ?

Art
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 125
11/15/10 at 11:15am
Thread Starter 
ET TU Art...

Why the negativity aimed at 3-D? EVERYONE THAT SEES IT LOVES IT.

This is the second CEDIA I spend money to show YOU what I am talking about and then you do a no show. So considering that is a bit bad mannered to spam this thread simply because it does not apply to your particular installation. When deep down I know YOU WOULD NOT BE SAYING THAT if you saw what I am talking about.

And why on this thread? I am only sharing what I am using in my upcoming projects.

Why attack 3-D? I am sorry you guys are talking out of your butts on this one.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 125
11/15/10 at 11:31am
i had in the past some visitors to my cinema that say "3d i not like it".

not one single person say this anymore when they left this set up.

i am sure with enhanced 3d source material(avatar 3d bd will be soon in my hands)
improved 3d pr. or plasma tvs 3d make its way and will never go away.
around 5% of all cant see 3d at all because the have a eye problem.
for all the rest they can select 2d or 3d but i am sure the one that have a
good 3d set up where the picture is not dim 95% will choose 3d.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 125
11/15/10 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

ET TU Art...

Why the negativity aimed at 3-D? EVERYONE THAT SEES IT LOVES IT.

This is the second CEDIA I spend money to show YOU what I am talking about and then you do a no show. So considering thatt is a bit bad mannered to spam this thread simply because it does not apply to your particular installation. When deep down I know YOU WOULD NOT BE SAYING THAT if you saw what I am talking about.

And why on this thread? I am only sharing what I am using in my upcoming projects.

Why attack 3-D? I am sorry you guys are talking out of your butts on this one.

Listen, I love toys, especially the ones you promote. And I love your passion and excess verbiage in every post you make. And I certainly don't mean to hijack your thread or cause you gastric distress.

But the mania surrounding a format that been around for 50+ years and that I associate with very bad sci-fi and Disney rides leave me speechless. There is so much work to be done to improve the video quality (8 bit color - really?) without adding faux 3D to simply move product. Let's get Hollywood/Broadcasters to do these things first:

1) Dump 24fps - adopt at a minimum 60 fps, more is better
2) 4K resolution, period.
3) 24 bit color, period.

Then, feel free to add 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 125
11/15/10 at 11:57am
Thread Starter 
My new DP4K-P Barco Special Edition handles all of it.

These projectors are the most future proof investment in HT. And the best 3-D machines as well.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 125
11/15/10 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

Then, feel free to add 3D.

Then add content.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 125
11/15/10 at 12:22pm
What I'm afraid is a building 2D to 3D movement, not unlike the colorizing of B&W movies back in the 80's. That was a complete abomination.

I did not want to see Citizen Kane in color.
I do not want to see Citizen Kane in 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 125
11/15/10 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Have you seen the new series about ww2 Apocalypse something?

Fantastic colorization, it conveys way more information than the old bw footage would.

It took 30 years to perfect but colorization now is good. Maybe not for citizen kane, but in these ww2 documentaries.

It does.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 125
11/15/10 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

My new DP4K-P Barco Special Edition handles all of it.

These projectors are the most future proof investment in HT. And the best 3-D machines as well.

I'll be saving my pennies
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 125
11/15/10 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

I'll be saving my pennies

I'm going to spend mine some place else. WWII documentaries done in poorly archived 16mm footage could be OK but why ?

I felt so bad looking at 20 Million Miles to Earth colorized about a year ago. Trees a uniform single color of green. Faces one single flesh tone, crowds that they just gave up on.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 125
11/15/10 at 1:20pm
Thread Starter 
Give It's a Wonderful life a try.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 125
11/15/10 at 2:07pm
[quote=peter0328;19488544]Thanks peter take your time. If there is one person on this forum who has shown that they know what they are talking about with 3D it's you (and not icester!! )

Most agreed.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 125
11/15/10 at 2:44pm
It seems like alot of people on here are afraid of 3D for some reason. I believe that reason is the fear of all things becoming 3D, as well as a fear of having to upgrade their theaters to compete in technology. All the HD and digital haters, (mostly old folks who dont' want to upgrade) still have standard def. So I think no matter how big 3D gets, and it will, you still will have 2D. You guys don't have to go see the 3D movies if you don't want to. Whats so hard about that?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 125
11/15/10 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post

It seems like alot of people on here are afraid of 3D for some reason. I believe that reason is the fear of all things becoming 3D, as well as a fear of having to upgrade their theaters to compete in technology. All the HD and digital haters, (mostly old folks who dont' want to upgrade) still have standard def. So I think no matter how big 3D gets, and it will, you still will have 2D. You guys don't have to go see the 3D movies if you don't want to. Whats so hard about that?

My fear is not of 3D but the effect it is having on other improvements in both 2D technology and of there being more released in 3D rather than great films.

I could care less about it, it is easily habituated too after a while IMO but I do see it having a nice effect on both sports and gaming.

I can afford to upgrade to anything I want but moving laterally or even downward in some performance parameters to get it is no upgrade.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 125
11/15/10 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

My fear is not of 3D but the effect it is having on other improvements in both 2D technology and of there being more released in 3D rather than great films.

I could care less about it, it is easily habituated too after a while IMO but I do see it having a nice effect on both sports and gaming.

I can afford to upgrade to anything I want but moving laterally or even downward in some performance parameters to get it is no upgrade.

Art

Your comments seem to imply that either great films OR 3D films can be produced, but not both. Or that improvements in 3D technology preclude improvements in 2D technology. Why the exclusivity?

By all accounts, improvements in plasma technology by Panasonic to accommodate 3D have resulted in improved 2D performance as well. 3D is appearing in the best displays of all manufacturers. This would seem to be the trend in flat panel and projection technology. The technological advances that make 3D possible make 2D better. I would think you'd be praising 3D for accelerating positive change.

And how many great films are produced every year? Not many, by my count. Will 3D dilute that small pool? I doubt it. Plenty of crappy 2D films get made, and now plenty of crappy 3D films will join them. But why single out 3D as a culprit in poor decision making by studio heads? Why not single out color or surround sound? One might as well make the claim that ANY aspect of film technology could detract from a film's greatness, but that would be silly. Your arguments suggest that you think 3D itself is an issue.

I don't have a problem seeing a point of view that despises colorization, or "dimensionalization" (2D to 3D conversion). Philosophically, such opinions don't bother me. I prefer to judge such products on a case by case basis. In the case of 2D to 3D conversions, I know simply that I enjoy them sometimes on my Samsung, despite the frequent failures to reproduce a realistic 3D image. I would enjoy very much seeing the technology that Cineramax is so excited about.

I also know that 3D is important to me, and I don't understand a philosophical resistance to 3D as a filmmaking tool. 3D is how I see, and to me it's the most natural thing in the world. 3D engages me in a way 2D never does. It's not that I think 3D is the only way to make a movie, but to propose that it should wait on other things (higher resolution? better scripts?) is very dismissive of the value 3D holds to enhance the viewer's experience. I think that potential is great, and not something that should wait for improvements in any other aspect of filmmaking - much less ones so unlikely to improve in my lifetime (studio heads greenlighting better film projects? please).
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 125
11/15/10 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Your comments seem to imply that either great films OR 3D films can be produced, but not both. Or that improvements in 3D technology preclude improvements in 2D technology. Why the exclusivity?

.

No not that it can't but that it hasn't IMO. Could be a coincidence but it could also be an easy substitute.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 125
11/15/10 at 5:41pm
Thread Starter 
I think some of the animations are brilliant.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 125
11/15/10 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

No not that it can't but that it hasn't IMO. Could be a coincidence but it could also be an easy substitute.

Art

Arguing whose opinion is right is obviously pointless. We're all entitled to our opinions in such matters. We're not talking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Roger Ebert is on record as saying that 3D adds nothing to the film experience and is "a waste of a perfectly good dimension." His opinion is literally his business, and he's certainly not alone.

From a personal point of view, though, the attitude is very nearly incomprehensible to me. After the tremendous success of 3D at the box office (at premium prices no less - when given the choice of seeing a feature in 3D or 2D at the theater, people prefer 3D), how can a critic argue that it adds nothing to the experience? The disconnect from prevailing sentiment seems extreme.

Will 3D@home succeed? IMO, you could point to 3D's success at commercial theaters and predict (with pretty good odds) that it will. Of course, there's the difference in screen size, but that doesn't seem to have prevented a huge number of people from being able to enjoy "home theater" on smallish screens.

The other factor, of course, is cost. Fortunately, 3D is not expensive to implement with today's digital displays. That's a huge plus. JVC has been able to implement 3D on its new projectors, while lowering the price of a couple of them. Will it be good? Who knows? We'll find out in a couple of months. I suspect it will be better than what I've seen in commercial theaters. I already know that's true for my 63" plasma 3D TV. In December or January, I'll know whether it's the case for a new JVC front projector, too. 3D is important enough to me that upgrading my current projector was contingent on its being 3D. I'm sorry the JVC won't do 2D to 3D conversion, but I always have the Samsung for that.

What I really want to know is when this new system will become available, and, more importantly, affordable. My budget might be a little bigger than some, but I can't buy any projection system (or 3D conversion system) I want. One of two things will have to happen for me to be able to afford it. One, mass production makes it possible to include it in mainstream 3D projectors. Two, they start using it to create real time conversions of 2D content, which they then market to a hungry 3D audience.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 125
11/15/10 at 8:47pm
I envy your funds Art thats for sure. I hope to be there some day. Yes I do agree that 3D is hurting the development of 2D. Thats a side effect that I truly hate. Great 2D can look very three dimensional as we we all know so I would hate to ever see 2D tech come to a stand still.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 125
11/15/10 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Your comments seem to imply that either great films OR 3D films can be produced, but not both. Or that improvements in 3D technology preclude improvements in 2D technology. Why the exclusivity?

By all accounts, improvements in plasma technology by Panasonic to accommodate 3D have resulted in improved 2D performance as well. 3D is appearing in the best displays of all manufacturers. This would seem to be the trend in flat panel and projection technology. The technological advances that make 3D possible make 2D better. I would think you'd be praising 3D for accelerating positive change.

And how many great films are produced every year? Not many, by my count. Will 3D dilute that small pool? I doubt it. Plenty of crappy 2D films get made, and now plenty of crappy 3D films will join them. But why single out 3D as a culprit in poor decision making by studio heads? Why not single out color or surround sound? One might as well make the claim that ANY aspect of film technology could detract from a film's greatness, but that would be silly. Your arguments suggest that you think 3D itself is an issue.

I don't have a problem seeing a point of view that despises colorization, or "dimensionalization" (2D to 3D conversion). Philosophically, such opinions don't bother me. I prefer to judge such products on a case by case basis. In the case of 2D to 3D conversions, I know simply that I enjoy them sometimes on my Samsung, despite the frequent failures to reproduce a realistic 3D image. I would enjoy very much seeing the technology that Cineramax is so excited about.

I also know that 3D is important to me, and I don't understand a philosophical resistance to 3D as a filmmaking tool. 3D is how I see, and to me it's the most natural thing in the world. 3D engages me in a way 2D never does. It's not that I think 3D is the only way to make a movie, but to propose that it should wait on other things (higher resolution? better scripts?) is very dismissive of the value 3D holds to enhance the viewer's experience. I think that potential is great, and not something that should wait for improvements in any other aspect of filmmaking - much less ones so unlikely to improve in my lifetime (studio heads greenlighting better film projects? please).


I agree. Panasonics plasma technology has improved with 3D tech such as faster acting posphers. As you say about 3D movies, I believe 3D has so much potential. Ive been impressed by so many different 3D movies already.
When its done right its a blast.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 125
11/16/10 at 6:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post
From a personal point of view, though, the attitude is very nearly incomprehensible to me. After the tremendous success of 3D at the box office (at premium prices no less - when given the choice of seeing a feature in 3D or 2D at the theater, people prefer 3D), how can a critic argue that it adds nothing to the experience? The disconnect from prevailing sentiment seems extreme.
I don't think that this is the prevailing sentiment by a long shot (see AVS poll); my position is not a disconnect that's for sure.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 125
11/16/10 at 11:07am
Thread Starter 
This thread is not about that stupid poll, which I can tell you what I am going to print it and leave handy on top of my toilet. 2D is for Wankers.,,!
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 125
11/16/10 at 11:48am
i can add my voice to those that do not like 3D, and i cannot stand having glasses on. and the auto-stereoscopic displays (alioscopy and others) make me physically ill. both due to the display itself and the massive waste of resources it appears to be.

i applaud those who are further growing the use of 3D, maybe one day it will give us a truly immersive experience without glasses, without headache, and be able to be used with some lights on. for now though, it is neat, it is a gimmick. and i would argue that if anything, it lowers the amount of immersion in the story due to the fact that one spends more time concentrating on the 3D effects.

And peter... good to see you have not lost your touch when it come to intelligent debate when your (sometimes deluded) point of view is challenged in the slightest...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

GO F___ YOURSELF A__H)!#. I am putting you on ignore.

I am in no way related to that company, if someone asks nice and I have the time and inclination I help, but kicking me in the nuts when i am suffering from serious pain is a nono. Ask Teranex, although your sociopathic attitude may not get you too far.

Reply
Reply
post #58 of 125
11/16/10 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

i can add my voice to those that do not like 3D, and i cannot stand having glasses on. and the auto-stereoscopic displays (alioscopy and others) make me physically ill. both due to the display itself and the massive waste of resources it appears to be.

i applaud those who are further growing the use of 3D, maybe one day it will give us a truly immersive experience without glasses, without headache, and be able to be used with some lights on. for now though, it is neat, it is a gimmick. and i would argue that if anything, it lowers the amount of immersion in the story due to the fact that one spends more time concentrating on the 3D effects.

And peter... good to see you have not lost your touch when it come to intelligent debate when your (sometimes deluded) point of view is challenged in the slightest...




Not to mention the fact that he has not once discussed his stock ownership in that printed bathroom tissue company.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 125
11/16/10 at 12:25pm
Ive still to be convinced by 3D. I prefer my movies to be genuinely artistic and cultured....

Thats why my current favourite is MILF Drillers in the Guggenheim.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 125
11/16/10 at 3:47pm
3D kicks ass! I'm with peter on this one

I'm replacing my home theater with dual projection circular polarized 3D in Q1 2011 (using 3D-XLs for stereo-demultiplexing), have an Optoma HD66 for the living room that will be upgraded to 3D when the 3D-XL is released, and use an Acer 3D Vision computer monitor.

3D is the way of the future.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › Katzenberg and Cameron in a box-The future of 2-D to 3d conversion,and of HT itself .