Originally Posted by dzignlight
One of the stereographers from TASM here... actually, this person is claiming knowledge about something he has no knowledge of... sorry dude.
This guy IS the guy who's email bits I have been quoting in the article. In an attempt to keep his credibility , I had refrained from saying who he is.
He's swiftly gone into Damage control mode, after even more "knowledgeable" stereographers on the Yahoo board, actually stereo veterans, said that the narrative parts are all flat.
He is covering it up more than he should, on his lack of understanding on how to create rounded 3D. OF COURSE you cant change what you did 18 months ago. that does not mean people should not call you out on your error or whine about it.
(one does not have to have billion dollar movie credits to their name, to know what rounded and flat 3d is)
IF no one pointed it out, guess what you would be doing the next time?
Instead of saying yes, we all are learning (and we really all are)... he says that, but YET defends it and tries to pass on the buck to the entire production unit and decision makers.
Now I have no doubt that the Director/Dp etc might have actually called for subtle 3D. BUT WHAT HE DID was plain flat 3D. NOT subtle 3D.
flat cardboard layered 3D, on top of bad framing (by the DP) is what made the narrative scenes insipid.
AND that has to be called out, owned up properly and then people move on. They do not shamefacedly deny it
even worse they do NOT insult the public and 3D hobbyist by name calling and de-riding other peoples intelligence.
THAT is what he did to AVS members Cakefoo and BleedOrange11.
here's his post on Yahoo's 3D forum: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31596
(people might have to be members to read it, i'm not sure, but i take the liberty to copy it below)
This guy used to be a friend. But I can see that there's more to his character than meets the eye. He preaches being the "agreeable guy" and riding the middle lane (all good advice) but yet detests straight fowardness and critique, going on the defensive and twisting facts to confuse and mis-direct people.
That's quite a scientific study you've done, Clyde. You found four
people on the internet who don't like it.
With a quick Google search, I just found four people who think that jet
condensation trails are actually government mind-control agents. It must
be a universal truth.
Clyde, I appreciate your need to be in the limelight here and have a
strong opinion. There are many people who, for better or for worse, equate
having a strong opinion with being right. Your opinion is your opinion,
and stating that is fine. I have opinions about the 3D that we shot, and
I've already stated them on this list. I've also stated that everyone
measures "good 3D" with a different ruler, which means that "cakefoo" and
"bleedorange11" on AVS can each have their own dignified opinions despite
their usernames. But when you start making leaps in logic and presenting
your unfounded and often incorrect postulations as fact, and dragging folks
and the industry through the mud with you, that's where I would really
expect that you would see what it looks like as an outsider and maintain
some sort of journalistic integrity... if that's what you're going for at
No matter how hard you kvetch, it won't change the 3D on scenes that were
shot 18 months ago. You want everything to be perfect now, but it won't
be. There is a growing process and, even with someone experienced on set,
you're talking about a 100 year-old industry that is VERY ingrained in
That last line I explained in my 3rd paragraph above, and is a classic example of him trying to confuse the topic.
Note: He does not expand on what parts of my statements are unfounded, illogical and incorrect postulations (could they perhaps be that I called the 3D flat and yet the other stereographers also did along with the public? or something entirely different?...hmmm)
Then from a previous of his posts on Yahoo: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31598
. I hate to break it to folks, but if five guys
on a blog are agreeing, that simply means that five guys on a blog are
agreeing. Yes, five guys all meet the qualification of having an internet
connection and an opinion. Sweet. If they all agree that the way to
measure a 3D movie is always deep, all the time, and off screen effects, a
la cinemablend, then by all means, let's extrapolate their opinions to the
hundreds of thousands of people who saw the movie in 3D
You see the sarcasm here, and then the twist of argument towards the end (No one said they wanted to see Deep 3D all of the time as he claims).
The more you and other people kvetch, the fewer movies will be shot in
3D; studios will either deliver them in 2D, or they will convert them so
they don't have to worry about you complaining about things being too flat
or other people being uncomfortable... and everyone will be out of a job
except for the rotoscope artists in India.
...here he tries to blame us, the critiques, as to the reason why 3D might fail and movies will be converted. NOT claiming responsibilty or accepting the notion that FLAT and bad NATIVE 3D might certainly make producers want to convert in the first place.
Not once saying that he "sold out" (if he claims he knows what bad 3D is, yet wanted the money) or.. conversly, admitting that he did a bad job on His 3D choice, and acknowledging it without twisting it around.
Here's one noted and revered stereographer (John Rupkalvis) calling out the 3D on the narrative shots: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31592
This (URL below) is a very good commentary, and I believe that it applies to all recent 3D movies in addition to TASM. I am taking the liberty of cross-posting this to the Photo-3D group as well, as I think that as many as possible should read this very accurate description. Be sure to check it out on Clyde's blog.
JR does not, I repeat Does Not need to have billion dollar movies to his credit (and he may have too), to know good from bad 3D. He is one of the beacons of the art, that many of us stereographers have learned from way back to 2003 via his advice and insight shared (for free) on the yahoo boards.
Finally, here's my last reply to this guy who cant straightfoward say that he worked on the parts of TASM that we are complaining are flat: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31599
If he did not care about people's dignified opinion (even though their usernames are undignified), why then is he here...onm AVS... doing Damage Control?
By itself the quote I posted of his is not that stinging in nature, but this persons true penchant for sarcasm and sneaky behavior can only be gleaned from following his style of between the line meanings, and thread of previous and follow up postings.
Sorry for this rant (and it is a rant with tinges of a personal attack, which I am sorry about, but feel it has to be done)
Kind RegardsEdited by realvision - 7/13/12 at 9:33am