|
Author
|
Topic: The end of 3D?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted August 14, 2011 06:07 PM
It seems to me that "eyes" and "ears" are having different social type.
For ears, the clearer sound produced and the more realistic sound heard, people will appraise that.
But it is different with eyes that they are very slow to adapt new things and tend to stick with the previous things.
3D is an example and many movie goers (not kids or people who just start watching movies) are enjoying this technology, and in fact got some problems with 3D and prefer to watch flat.
The same thing also happens on film frame speed that since the modern movies was introduced in 1940s, the frame per second (fps) is stand on 24 fps until now. Whatever the new technology we have now, people prefer to watch movie on 24 fps. When Video was introduced later on and using 30 fps, celluloid film never changed.
Nowadays some movies have been using HD camera (Video) and not films, but the funny thing, instead of using its original speed of 30 fps, the HD video is "downgrading" it into 24 fps.
If we play our super 8mm film on a variable speed projector and increase the speed into almost 30 fps, then we will watch more video look. We will not comfortable with that.
Perhaps, what is now happening with 3D is similar to that.
my 2 cents,
winbert
ps: on joking side, when we were in the High School and crushed on to a girl, but one day the girl was dressing up more than usual (slut mode "on"), suddenly our feeling says "she looked better yesterday" ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) . Probably that is the social type of our eyes.
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Brandenstein
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1632
From: California
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted August 27, 2011 12:57 AM
The pros here can correct my technical details if I get it wrong, but here's my take: all of the polarized systems require a special-coated silver screen and the majority of the light is lost. So either you have an insanely bright system to start with (Imax digital does well), a smaller screen, or it's just not very bright. Worse, the coated screens tend to have a hot-spot effect, so the brightness ends up being uneven. This intrusion will happen with all movies on that screen, obviously, whether 2D or 3D. So now all movies suffer on account of the 3D craze.
I saw a few minutes of Dolby 3D at Disneyland earlier this summer, and it was really impressive. Apparently it doesn't require the silver coating, and the glasses got out of the way better than anything else I've seen. (Usually I want to keep cleaning them, even new ones right out of the wrapper.) Someday I'd like to see a feature in Dolby 3D to see if it holds up under more scrutiny. I'd be curious what professionals think actually looks best.
The differences locally between cinemas are apalling. I don't go to movies much, and it's really discouraging that all the local ones are Edwards/UA houses now 100% converted to Sony 4K projectors that are terribly underlit. That's ironic considering that some of the best-looking, bright film experiences I've ever had were formerly at the same house. Last digital movie I saw was Cars in 3D, and purposely went out of my way (to AMC in this case) to try to find something brighter, and we did well by them.
But give me a matte screen with richly saturated film color and a bright crisp 35mm picture any day for something like Cars 2. I think if most people could see the difference side by side, they'd be astounded. As it is, most haven't a clue what they're missing.
For a really great technical discussion of this, including footlambert numbers for brightness (or lack thereof), read the first post in this discussion over at the "pro" side of this site. I found it quite... illuminating.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted August 29, 2011 01:23 PM
3D comes and goes and the fad will no doubt be back.
The question is, where will it be seen?, just on a little monitor onn your PC, or in a straight downloadable movie from the studio on your big plasma (or otherwise) TV on the wall?
I love the "quaint-ness" of the old 50's red/green glasses 3D best. In fact, if you use those red/green glasses, the effect is, well, quite affective!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Brandenstein
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1632
From: California
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted August 29, 2011 11:00 PM
Larry, we need to get together next time. I did Hubble 3D with my kids several weeks ago down at the Science Center! Yes, that is what Imax is supposed to be, I agree! Definitely film, and other than the hot-spot effect on the screen, the 3D is excellent. Glad to see the documentaries are still film-based, and boy, do they look amazing.
The AMC I was referring to is the former Cineplex Odeon, at the Universal Citywalk. That's where we saw Cars 2. The entire place is now digital with the exception of their Imax screen, which was showing the Harry Potter film in 3D film Imax (wouldn't that print be something like 15 miles of film?), and a staffer didn't think that would be going away any time soon because they had a clientele based on that "choice." Hmmm, go figure. Anyway, "Cars" was enjoyable enough with their presentation. Sorry to hear that Burbank is bad... I seem to have lucked out, then.
Ironically, AMC Burbank is where I first saw digital projection, all the way back with Star Wars Episode 1. There is no question that many current installations are inferior in brightness to the early DLP/standard screen combinations. That one looked decent, to my eye only bested by film at the extremes of bright or dark. Too bad some standards have slipped since then in the name of "progress."
Another irony is that the AMC Burbank at one point not all that long ago tested the Technicolor over/under film 3D system, and then decided to take all their film out anyway. Must have wanted 100% automation?
Adrian, I'd love to give your suggestion a try, but the only LA-area theaters that have it are both smaller facilities far off of my beaten path. Good for the smaller places that can do this as an alternative to spending $100,000 per screen to get rid of film -- I wonder if their shows actually look better and brighter, or if the lens/polarization systems kill it for them too.
EDIT: Missed one the first time I looked -- Regency Granada Hills has it. I'll be keeping an eye on that, might just be able to take a peek sometime.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
My wife tried the glasses and lasted 30 seconds or their abouts and afterwards felt a bit dizzy, one thing for sure 3D is not for everyone. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
