Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Going Digital and 3D
teutonic_leech writes "Last weekend the Directors Guild of America hosted its annual Digital Day event, which gives filmmakers a look at revolutionary new movie-making gear. Judging from a Wired article reporting on the gathering, Hollywood's future not only seems to be digital - there are also indications that stereoscopic 3D has caught the attention of filmmakers in and outside tinseltown. One Indie filmmaker even went so far as to build his own homebrew stereolens attachment enabling him to film in 3D."
I hope so too. I hope so too.
For Homebrew blockbuster 3D Videos.
This could bring a whole new meaning to the porn industry.
Or was this done about 20 years ago, involving stupid looking glasses that a) didn't work and b) made you look like a tit
or maybe that was their plan all along?
The GPL loves me...
Can we look forward to 3D-enhanced moneyshots that make us lean to avoid getting hit by the man-goo?
TOO LATE!
Video Games have gone digital and 3D like 15 years ago.
Movie and TV are doomed to death!
End of story... Nothing to see.. Move along...
... 3D stereoscopic, dolby Digital 14.2, environmental simulation, smell replicators, ... ... only one thing missing: good movies ...
But isn't equipment needed to view these 3D images? People aren't going to be using them much if they need to wear special glasses to see the movies.
Once, when I was little, I saw a stereoscopic spy photograph at the Smithsonian. They had a viewing port through which two images would be superimposed on each other giving the resulting image a 3 dimensional quality.
I don't know how well they can bring that sort of 3 dimensionality to a film without requiring strange and uncomfortable glasses (remember Jaws 3D?). The closest I've seen is in plays where the actors and props are all in three dimensions (naturally).
But the improvement in 3 dimensional rendering in digital filmmaking has been absolutely outstanding in recent years. Just compare old movies like Tron and Dungeons and Dragons with their blocky and obviously computer-rendered scenes to today's Toy Story 2, Incredibles, even Star Wars. The difference is night and day.
I hope that digital film making becomes more than just special effects, though. The medium allows for such a broad range of uses that it is virtually limitless. Take the anime film Grave of the Fireflies as an example of pushing a medium to its limits. Who could have thought a cartoon could have such an emotional impact? Now figure that whatever was done there is only scratching the surface in what can be done with digital films and a whole universe of possibilities opens up.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
this 3d thing could bring a whole new look to the matrix. oh joy
But somewhere along the line a stigma was attached to it which keeps anything other then sci-fi/horror filmmakers away from the format.
Hitchcock saw 3D as an exciting new direction to take the art of films, and originally shot and released one of his pictures in 3D format. Aparently, this wasn't enough to get it to catch on in serious film making circles.
Ultimatly the push towards 3D may simply be found in the new technology. Directors who never considered 3D--because of the 'out of sight, out of mind' nature of the "novelty" of 3D--might see the new and exciting equipment and processes for 3D production and give it a shot.
3D stands as one of the last methods in film making which has yet to be explored artistically (Alfred Hitchcock's single effort aside). I for one would be delighted if serious film makers picked up the process and did something more then "we can use this to make the audience feel like a shark is floating right in front of them, read to attack" or "watch as the blood splatter appears to fly out into the audience". In other words, I'd like to see a director try to do more with 3D then just gee-wiz novelty special effects and try to make a serious, artistic film which uses 3D to compliment the overall value of the work.
The Internet is generally stupid
Crap with depth.
I found 1d radio broadcasts like Alan Shepard in the 60s more interesting than most of the ooze oozing out of my TV set today.
IMHO They should focus a little more on story and meaningful content. What's next? 6 new star wars remakes? --yawn
This sounds like a major gimmick - the 3d glasses mentioned in the article will cost theatre owners $20 to $30 each, and there wasn't even a mention of how much more the 3D projector will cost. So xpect theatres to start raising prices to cover the initial upfront investment, all the while Hollywood churns out the same old tired cliched fare, BUT NOW IN 3D!!!!!!
Just came back from the Futuroscope in France where they have plenty of this 3D shit. Some is with LCD glasses (heavy and annoying), but some also with simple polaroid filter glasses. This is great for 10 minutes demo movies, but I think that after 1 hour, a lot of people will leave the theatre with a serious headache. Not only are the polaroid glasses not perfect, but you are still tricking the eye: the eye is focussing on a fixed distance (screen), but seeing objects all over the depth field. This could be good for some wild action movies, but don't hold your breath for mainstream 3D movies.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Wake me up when we can view 3D movies without the need for special glasses.
...because the 2D editions aren't as he imagined them, not to do with making more money or anything. It's like a generation of Sci-Fi fans cried out "Nooooooooooo!" and were silenced.
Greebo is rumoured to be 3D'ed first. Before Han...
(some of the above may not be true)
Yawn. I was around the first several times they tried 3D films. Never caught on and probably won't this time once the current younger generation gets over the 'gee-whiz' factor. Of couse, i'm an old fart who has lived through Cinerama, Cinemascope, Superscope, Vistavision, Todd-AO, Technirama, Cinemiracle, and god knows how many other widescreen formats. Don't even get me started on all the various sound formats. Ok, yeah, i grew up on the old black and white classics and saw most of the Hitchcock movies when they were first run in the Downtown theaters. Oh, you don't remember Downtown theaters. Oh, you youngsters .
When are they going to learn? People think the quality is fine (could be better though) but it's all the stupid storylines that's the problem.
This if offtopic, but nobody seems to have mentioned it yet.
Is there something drastically wrong with the
This isn't the holiday season or anything, so we can assume that trafficwise
Quite good in 2D as it generally shown (of course), but when she reaches for the scissors in 3D...
Not to mention all the wads of cash they will save by only needing voice overs.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I've seen 3D IMAX films three times so far, and the glasses are, indeed, large. Which is good, because it meant they fitted over my glasses. But they aren't heavy, or unwieldy.
Modern 3D uses polarised light, with the left eye filtering out horizontalally polarised light, and the right eye filtering out the vertical. This means that a very light pair of plastic glasses can allow for proper 3D without changing the colours at all.
It looks _fantastic_.
My Journal
We'll have some actors that aren't shallow :)
Free Firefox news reader.
I can't help to think that 3D hasn't taken off yet because, to date, there hasn't been a really good movie to take advantage of the process, which could explain that while 3D has existed in various forms for the last 60 years, it's rare to see a wide released feature film.
I can remember, as an example, computer animation. When it first hit the scene, it was more of a novelty, and I can remember thinking to myself "computer animation will never be successful, it's doomed to stay a novelty for all time, even if it does get better".
Then Toy Story came out, and my opinion instantly changed. It wasn't because I thought the graphics were especially good, it was because as a whole I really, really enjoyed the movie. They did some things in it that you couldn't do in convential ink and pen animation, and ommitted several traditional animation techniques commonly found in previous hand drawn films.
When I first saw Toy Story, it was on video shown at the free 'mini' theatre on my college campus. I avoided it at the box office because I thought "why spend money on something that's going to be a fad?", and only went to the free showing because going to the free movies was a great way to kill time while procrastinating on that paper you're supposed to be writing.
I really was taken aback. "This is a pretty good movie" I thought, and realized I was compleatly wrong about computer animation. Since the release of Toy Story, computer animation has become the rule instead of the exception, with (it seems to be, at least) more computer animation movies being released now then the tridtional hand drawn animated features.
If 3D could score a toy story, it could really take off. But since the bulk of all 3D movies are usually really bad, and nobody has yet to release a "masterpeice" in the format, I think most people's impressions of 3D are akin to my initial take on computer animation; that is, it's kind of neat, but not something I'd go out of my way for.
The Internet is generally stupid
The core challenge for 3-D is creating a system that works when a person tilts their head. Current 3-D filming and multi-person viewing systems assume that the viewers left eye is a fixed horizontal distance to the left of the right eye with no vertical displacement between the eyes' pupils. This assumption is only true when everyone is sitting upright in their chairs. If the viewer tilts their head, then the parallax of the scene appears unnaturally displaced and gives the viewer eyestrain, headache, or a sensation of double-images. With 3-D, you can't rest your head on your partner's shoulder, tilt your head to see around the person in front of your, or lie on the couch and watch it without some visual discomfort. I'd imagine that most people won't consciously notice the problem but might subconsciously become aware that they get eyestrain, neck-pains, headaches, or a vaguely nauseous disoriented feeling when they see a 3D movie -- not a recipe for repeat business.
One nearterm solution to the problem is constructing tilt-dependent parallax for each viewer. The person with their head tilted to the right needs to see a different pair of images than the person who is sitting up straight or who has tilted their head to the left. This pushes 3D into the realm of more awkward and more expensive personal viewing headsets and the need for tracking head tilt and recomputing/rerendering the scene parallax in realtime.
The longterm solution is holographic or volumetric systems that create/reconstruct an optical 3-D field. This solves the head tilt problem, although adds the minor cinematic problem that the people on the left side of the theatre may have an obstructed view (relative to the people in the center or right-side) if, for example, the main character's hand covers some important object from some angles.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Ok, so they have some new "tech" available, will we see some impressive movies yet? I hope so. The movies coming out these days, are just rediculous. Dont get me wrong, there are some decent movies out there now, but none of them strike me like a movie did 5, 10, 15 years ago.
Over the last few years, have we been so overstimulated that nothing impresses us? Possibly, but I dont think so. Lets get some unique things out there! Hollywood always bitches and moans about low box office earnings, well come out with something new!! Kind of interesting, an article at a gaming site I am an editor for wrote an article about this a few days ago, hollywood needs to friggin show some unique ideas, new tech alone wont do it, it will help, but we need some new ideas and some innovation.
After having to sit through hours of eye pain during Spykids 3D (Those Glasses STING!!!), I don't see myself going to any 3D movie for a long time. It seems like they knew about the pain, because at the begginning they had some retarded guy wearing, plaid pants, popping out of the screen, and telling us that when out eyes start stinging, to spend 20 bucks at the consession stand. I said, "No thanks", but I don't think he heard me.
And forget the pain, all the environments had to be rendered in variations of red and blue, because if not, they would look disgusting with those red and blue lenses. Lets just say that it wasn't very aesthetically pleasing. But, if you ever have a stomach ache, it induced vomit well.
The only good 3D experience in existance, is the IMax experience, but I don't see directors taking that route, because too few theatres have the technology available.
And the guy that said something about the Matrix 3D: Think of the entire movie, in 3D, tinted red and blue, not a pretty picture indeed.
I always didn't really get the whole 3D or the effect got mostly lost on me with the silly glasses as I lack depth perception.
I just don't like the sound of "stereoscopic" in my case. I hope they can also be viewed comfortably in mono if this gets a new cinegraphic standard.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
If you have all of the original material, models, images and so forth, you can recreate scenes of the movie with different text showing, with mouth motions different, relevant to a dfifferent language, and even with different cloths or cloth patterns on the characters. You control the emersion of the characters completely, so take advantage of it.
Make the film in one language. But when the time comes, change those elements that are relevant to another language and remake it in that language completely.
These days, all you get is the spoken language dubbed in, and that usually does not match the mouths of the characters speaking it. Text is untouched. That is a relic of live action movies. It doesn't have to be in digital also.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
... was done by drawing hand-painted cels on a grid. Really. The computery-looking stuff was done by human animators, which made the rendered stuff look even more amazing.
If you RTFA there is no mention of this.
In-Three's "prototype" liquid crystal shutter glasses are not new. There is nothing to suggest that they are any different to those available from Stereographics or VRex, for example. This is just re-reporting of old news.
Companies such as DDD have been doing semi-automatic 2D->3D conversion for years; it's difficult to do well, time consuming and expensive. Don't get excited just yet.
The simple crossfade, for example. In 2D, everything is in the same plane of focus; your eyes don't have to adjust during the transition. However, 3D crossfades broke my brain. As one scene faded out and another in, I couldn't figure out what to focus on, and until the transition finished I just saw a confusing blur.
Maybe that's just me, and kids raised on 3D will be able to sort it out. But I rather think that entirely new visual metaphors will be developed as 3D becomes mainstream.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Some claim 3D so marvelous, incredible, great. No, it isn't. It's improvement, true, but not all that big. I'd say stereo sound vs mono is better.
In theater (real, with actors playing on the scene) you get full 3D, 100% realistic experience, real multi-sourced sound, you can smell gunpowder from a gunfire. The camera position changes once in 20-40 minutes maybe, and the special effects are somewhat limited and sometimes cheesy, but you can't deny the realism of the scene. But somehow the live theatre seems to be slowly dying, being an "elite" thing...
I've been to a 3D cinema, watching with polaroid glasses. The glasses were light, didn't disturb really, watching experience was generally good. But the movie was rather boring. True, there was that third dimension added. It looked better that way. A corridor really looked like a real room behind the screen. The dinosaur really looked like reaching into the audience. So what? Just one extra sensory experience added. Not really important one.
But movies are a kind of storytelling. Like a book, or a still picture. It doesn't have to look realistic to be enjoyable. Special effects? Sometimes - But there's one thing that really "do it": immersion. You just must feel "in it". Involved emotionally. Binding your feelings with the action. Feeling for the characters. There's no single thing that could help it. Good play/storytelling, good plot, no interruptions/distractions - that works. Extra visuals may impress but won't bind you (watch a horror movie, starting 15 minutes from the end and see how scared you are...). I think the old, almost forgotten, entertainment park "180 degrees cinema" (the screen is half of the surface of the dome above the audience, the image covers your whole field of view) would do it better than 3D.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
How about new technology that can be used to write better scripts?
The big problem with traditional stereoscopic 3D isn't the need for glasses. It's problems with geometrical distortion. Sitting in a theatre, everyone sees slightly different images with their left and right eyes. But a person sitting front left sees a VERY different PAIR of images than a person sitting in the back right.
With the traditional two-image processes--versions of Wheatstone's nineteenth century stereoscope--everyone in the house sees the SAME thing through their left eye and the SAME thing through their right eye.
This has serious intrinsic limitations.
The audience view appears geometrically distorted, except for a few lucky members sitting in a fairly small central "sweet spot."
3D tends to make every movie look like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari."
Suppose Ann Miller is twenty feet from the camera, and she chucks a handkerchief at the camera, and it lands ten feet away. In the theatre, EVERYONE sees the handkerchief chucked straight at them, and landing halfway between them and the screen. People near the front see a flattened version of the original space. People near the back get exaggerated depth. People at the sides see rectangular geometry as rhomboidal.
Even in the sweet spot, there is only one camera focal length that reproduces depth accurately. If the cinematographer chooses to use a long lens for a closeup, rather than physically moving the camera closer, the picture will look wrong.
These geometrical distortions actually apply to ordinary 2D films as well, but you do not notice them because the image is already so spatially distorted by being flat that you are not processing it as an accurate representation of reality.
(Warning: ageist/sexist alert): Another issue is that 3D is unflattering to actresses, as it reveals the true spatial contour of their faces regardless of makeup. A forty-year-old actress can be made up to look twenty-five in regular films, but not in 3D.
They struggled with all these things in the 1950s, both with stereoscopic 3D and with the ultra-wide-angle processes like Cinerama.
All of these problems suggest to me that 3D will be fine for fantasy, science-fiction, and generally surrealistic subject matter, but I don't see how it can ever be used for traditional mainstream cinematic drama.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
From a post a while back on slashdot http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 17/1331207&tid=196
If LCD manufacures continue with this kind of technology we may not need the bulky glasses or other 'personal accessories' to be able to see in 3D. The images coming from the 3D cameras will just be encoded on multiple layers and each screen will project its own layer giving a 3D effect. This will also allow for viewing of the 'old' 2D movies and programming.
your "recomputing/rerendering the scene parallax in realtime" betrays your having forgotten that we're talking about film here...
Film records a fixed perspective but human heads and eyes are not fixed. And that's the problem with film for use in 3D. FIlm is not an appropriate medium for visually comfortable 3-D because it forces the viewer to hold their head in the same fixed orientation used by the cameras.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I saw the original Star Wars films in theatres and recently saw the latest and last one (which I believe was shot in Digital). It did not look as good as the originals did so very long ago (opening scene with the lettering against space, in particular). If this is digital, I'll take analog film any day.
Khaaaaaaaaaaaan!
My thesis was that there is a long history of 3D photography and cinema, with the level of interest bouncing up and down on about a 20 year cycle - about the expiry time of a patent. The 3D views had a short-term novelty value, but they always lost out in the long run to conventional photographs with sightly better resolution.
Wheatstone produced the first hand-drawn stereographs in about 1834.When his friend, Fox Talbot introduced the Daguerrotype process to the UK in 1835, they got together and made some stereo photographs, which were exhibited the same year.
Stereographs were mass-produced from about 1845 onwards (Queen Victoria got given one, then everyone had to try it). In Europe, people often used transmission stereographs, while in the US, the Homes stereograph used reflection prints. Some of Brady's Civil war photographs were stereo pairs. No special camera was necessary: when emulsion speeds allowed hand-held cameras, you had two plates, and you took one with your weight on the right foot, and the second with your weight on the left foot. This moved the camera by something like the intra-ocular distance. This meant that anyone who could take a conventional photograph could take a stereograph, and some people amassed huge private stereo collections (over 100,000 pairs).
The heyday of stereo photography was bought to an end by advances in lens design. The old 'bullseye' lens gave a very limited field of view. The Right Rectilinear lens gave less abberation at the edges, so you could take wider views. Panoramic cameras extended this by moving the emulsion as the photo was taken. You could have 3D panoramas if you made a special spectrograph, but if the parallax offset went through a minimum in the centre of view, then you ended up squinting at the edges.
Two-colour printing for book plates in the late 1800's allowed the red-blue anaglyph stereo images. You could get a wide field of view without special optics because the two images appeared on the same sheeet of paper. Magenta and cyan glasses, and a full-colour print with a common, defocussed, yellow image culd give the appearance of full colour.
Conventional stereographs were combined with flicker-book animation in 3-D 'What the Butler Saw' machines in the late 1800 - early 1900s. Later innovations included anaglyph 3D films and colour still image viewers (View-Master) within a year or so of the first colour films in the 1930s. There were polarized 3D films in the 1950's, a year or so after Polaroid became available in reasonable amounts. Experimental 3D TV was also tried in the 1950's. There were adapters for 35mm cameras and slider projectors in the 1970's, and printable polarized images (the Xograph). There were also lenticular sheet images, the Nimslo camera, and so on. In the 1990 there were liquid-crystal shuttered glasses 3D on colour TVs using the Pulfrich effect (the BBC's Doctor Who in Eastenders episode). It goes on, and on - I am sure there are others that I have forgotten in my original collection. However, they tended to peak on odd-numbered decades. Perhaps the most recent is the IMAX 3D films - the International Space Station (keep your head really level or you see the other images), and New York in 3D (keep your head over the bucket, so you don't miss it when the motion sickness kicks in).
I reckon we are now on a low: there will be a flurry of 3D work in about 2010, peaking at about 2015 at exhibitions, and then disappearing for good a few years later. It's sort-of fun at the time, but it never seems to last.
Yeah, without decent screenplays everything on your list turns to crap. I mean,
3D stereoscopic
It's SCTV 3-D theater: Eugene Levy and John Candy lunge toward you, Eugene Levy and John Candy move away.
dolby Digital 14.2
The next cinematic release of Battlestar Galactica sure will have clear rumbling sounds when the battlestar goes past. Hoo boy. Just like "sensaround" sound for the first cinematic release of Battlestar Galactica...
environmental simulation, smell replicators
Speaking of sensaround -- it's smellaround, back from the dead! Take out your scratch-n-sniff cards, people.
The signs are not all bad. Amazingly, Charlie Kaufman has become a sort of golden boy in today's Hollywood by cranking out pretty good, pretty accessible, interesting little stories: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, Being John Malkovich. A screenwriter is one of the industry's biggest stars! Christopher Nolan made his director's rep with Memento, and he's done two pop movies since without completely losing any sense of a decent story. The studios actually seem to "get" using the indie movie world as a way to identify talent. It's like a Miracle on Sunset Boulevard. Where's Santa?
(Somehow though, we still have the specter of "the Bruckheimer production of Pride and Prejudice, starring Keira Knightly" -- OH. MY. GAWD. HOW. HIDEOUSLY BAD. DOES. THAT. SOUND?? I can't wait to see the Matrix-style revolving cameras turning around the big dance at Mr. Bingley's...)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
According to this valuable web resource, 6-8 percent of people lack stereoscopic vision, and that includes me. It's not a lot of fun sitting in a theatre looking at other people grabbings stuff in front of them that doesn't exist.
When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
The technology is not the issue. Poor story-telling is. In fact increasingly cheaper technology is allowing more mediocre movie makers put more crap out there. I am very bored with movies about conflicted superheroes chasing bad guys. The computer is a tool, not an end.
50 years ago!!! Like wow, 3d, you mean I get to wear these glasses that give me a headache after an hour? SIGN ME UP!!! SARCASM LEVEL 7 CAPTAIN!! THATS ALL I CAN GIVE YA!!!
Maybe the DGA shouldn't kick out cutting-edge digital film makers like Rodriguez for silly reasons... That would be a good first step in their journey towards these modern formats and techniques.
Yeah, the glasses mentioned in the fucking article are needed.
There are 2 mainstream methods to get perceived 3D movies: Stereoscopic and anaglyphic.
Anaglyphic is where you seperate color channels (red and blue typically) and then filter those for the right and left eye.
With stereoscopic, 2 different perspective streams are interleaved into your video. Now this is where it really gets interesting as to how to view that.
The first method (the method IMAX uses..and what I actually use in my own home) is to use stereoscopic shutter lenses. You are correct that you have to have vision in both eyes. For those with vision in both eyes, blink your left eye and then your right eye. That slight shift of all objects in vision is your perspective. That is the VERY same thing that is accomplished with the 3D glasses (and specially formatted movie). The movie is streamed in alternativing frames. So you have to find a way for the left eye to see frame 1 and right eye to see frame 2.
Alternating views is usually accomplished with stereoscopic shutter lenses. What this does is to blank the left eye and then the right for you (usually by having LCD screens that simply go dark or transparent--really not that magical at all).
The glasses are kept in sync with the video by a sender unit (mine is infrared wireless, but you can have RF or wired connections as well). The bottom line is that it works and beats the snot out of Red/Blue 3D views (anaglyph is by far inferior).
Now, some think that the glasses are pretty cumbersome or dorky. That really isn't a problem, as you can purchase monitors for your home that require NO GLASSES. Not only that, but you can purchase notebooks that already have those LCDs in place.
The screens require you to be at a pretty specific depth from the screen for it to work, but it works very well. What it does is to have a lenticular approach to views. You know those toy pictures (and now framed photos do it too) that you tilt from right to left and the picture appears to move? The surface feels funny with deep grooves as well. That same approach is used in these monitors to shoot 2 different images from right to left eye.
Sharp has pioneered the manufacturing of these laptops and LCD panels. Amazing things in that they are just one of the proof-of-concepts that you do NOT need holograms or glasses to get 3D views for motion or static pictures.
as every-other-frame.
I'm sure, somewhere, somebody in Hollywood was simply thinking of a way to make it so people could not pirate movies. Voila! Encode the movies to the human eye, make it so you need a special De-coder to view them! No more piracy. Okay, its a stretch, but we'll no longer be able to 'observe' bootlegged copies of professional films.
Sigs are for Terrorists.
They are called 'Plays' and 'Theater'...
Technology has changed art into marketing.
I think that's one thing you could watch without getting a headache.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The cost of converting a film to 3-D varies, but the conversion price tag for a possible stereoscopic re-release of Randal Kleiser's '70s blockbuster Grease was estimated at around $8 million.
"Grease"? Nifty new 3D technology, and we're going to get "Grease" in visual stereo? WTF?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Posted on Tuesday was a perfect compliment to this story Stereoscopic Viewing. In THAT article it talked aboout independent stereoscopic viewing without the use of glasses. Further if you read the article and then view the albeit large, but nice, 40mb clip from it, you would see that at one point they are projecting an image onto a wall (or any surface would work I would imagine) and the image was completely 3D and adjusted to the viewing angle of the person watching. Now, I couldn't explain exactly how they are doing this, but the demo shows a couple of people who look like they are in a basement using what look like standard lcd projectors (I could be wrong). Bottom line, all the gripes about 3D everyone is talking about are being addressed, and not only being addressed, but with some progress coupled with it. Take into account the previous article, and the industry's new attitude towards 3D, we might actually have something here!
Having had that experience burned into my memory, I can tell you honestly that unless somebody comes up with a way to make 3D films which don't involve glasses or lousy scripts, I will never go to another such production again.
Unless, that is, a girlfriend or child wants me to take them because they've never seen one before and are really excited about going. --If that's the case, then I'll happily pay for all the admission fees and probably even enjoy the head-ache afterwards.
Life is funny, ain't it?
-FL
As always, 3d stereoscopic stuff will likely be marginalized to whiz bang stuff.
Estimates are that at least 15% of the human population, whether knowingly or not, is unable to see in stereo vision. Someone who has this problem who walks into a theater, dons these glasses and finds out they can't see properly might well be more than just a touch disappointed. And alienating 15% of potential customers probably isn't such a great thing.
Lucas and Cameron (ILM) have already previewed some of it at ShoWest several months ago (several minutes of the original Star Wars...they also showed several minutes of Top Gun). The 3D was displayed on a Christie 3 chip DLP cinema projector with dual processing using a single lens. I also heard the the new 3D glasses look more like a nice pair of sunglasses.
...you've been warned.
Oh...and by the way...get ready for what is being billed as the largest ever ad promotion of a movie...Disney's Chicken Little 3D.
This post points out a problem which is covered in other posts, but perhaps in the best way.
I haven't seen any Slashdot coverage of the digital cinema spec, the loss of celluloid will change the movie industry I think. If anyone is interested in the full tech spec you can see it here.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
I've been wondering: at what point will film studios pay real-life actors for the digital representation of their likeness.
Seriously. They're getting close with digital effects to accurately render humans - they do it all the time for background actors, but the main actors (Final Fantasy) still look wooden and emotionless despite a still shot of them looking amazing.
At some point, I would think, George Lucas (or the then-overseers of his franchise) would hand Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher (or their respective estates) a whack of cash for their likenesses. Then, their digital monkeys would scan every scene in the three Star Wars films, every angle, every facial expression and body shot to create fully 3-D versions of the characters. With all the samples of their voices in so many movies, it would be easy to have a perfect sample of their voice to form any words, most intonations and possibly even force them into foreign accents.
Then, it is completely possible to make Episodes 7-? using the actors as they would have looked and sounded in 1985 rather than 2015.
I use Lucas as an example because it'll either be him or Spielberg (or both at the pace they're taking to make Indianda Jones 4) to do something like this.
By spending $100 million on technology and special effects and only $50,000 on an actual script, they have ensured that you'll close your eyes and go to sleep or walk out of the theater long before eye-strain becomes a problem.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Your are so spoilt, young people! Back in the day we had 0D movies, and enjoyed them!
In a recent issue of Cinefex Lucas states he has already made tests at converting the Star Wars flicks to 3D and hopes to re-release them that way.
I hope a talented South Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tai, ecetera) director and production crew to use this technology have a full blown stereoscopic 3d epic consists of troops, sword fighting, spears, and even elephants.
I would gladly part lots of money (moreso than any Star Wars film combined) to see a film adaptation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Tales of the Genji, adaptations of Chinese or Japanese novels, recreations of historic military battles, or even a mad crazy samurai flick. I just hope the director and script would be a high enough calibre to have a in depth story with Eastern psychology and thinking.
Giving the technology to Asian filmakers would the killer app for the tech. Shame the VCD version wouldn't be able to transfer the effects.
Sorry, but no matter how clear, bright, and judder-free a digital projection is, the resolution still isn't there. I go to movies to inundate my senses with sound and light, to immerse me into a work of fiction. When you can clearly see video scanlines (ala Star Wars Episode II), the illusion is ruined.
Cineon resolution for 2.21:1 film prints is 4096x1888. Wake me up when digital projection can equal that.
The problem with filming these movies is that only the objects the camera(s) focus on are in focus to the viewer. Hence if the camera is focused on the main actor, and you look at the supporting character, he will be out of focus even though you are looking directly at him! Thats my problem with this technology
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
I saw Episode III first on film. Half way through a fire alarm went off and everybody in all the theaters had to leave for about 20 minutes. When we were allowed back inside I took a seat in the digital projection theater of Ep. 3 and watched it there. I found the level of detail a little bit higher than film. However I could see the pixels which I didn't like. The film copy had the more pleasing blur to it, but that blur, the judder, shook too much detail away.
I'm sure the film print did have more resolution than digital, but it was shaking so much I couldn't see it. So the digital projection had more useful resolution.
You can have polarising glasses which work regardless of their orientation. Most polarisers used are linearly polarising. But you can add a quarter-wave retarder to make them circularly polarising. It can be arranged such that one eye sees clockwise and the other sees counter/anti-clockwise polarisations. Ditto for the projectors. However, this increases the cost and reduces the brightness. For more info, see http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid /11916/fid/801 and
http://www.instrumentplastics.co.uk/products_cpf.p hp
Now you can simply not look at the object, but in several circumstances, the being out of focus is intentionally used.
I really hope they take this to heart, because despite what they might think is cheaper, the movie will end up more realistic if they simply use two cameras.
-AT
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
Sorry, but if you could see pixels, then the resolution was LOWER than that of film.
If I want to see pixels when I watch a movie, I'll download a crappy divx rip. When I pay $8 to see a movie, I want a decent experience for my $8, and seeing pixels doesn't cut it.