I was going to make an old man crack, be decided against it. I like Cheese. Figured I better become a regular poster again before I crack on too many people.
I was going to make an old man crack, be decided against it. I like Cheese. Figured I better become a regular poster again before I crack on too many people.
He's probably too busy to defend himself - make hay while the sun shines!
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
The Following User Says Thank You to Bobblehead For This Useful Post:
This reminds me of the plane I was on a few weeks ago. We were watching the movie "Unstoppable" and at the same time experiencing moderate turbulence.
I have to say, while I don't think it added to the movie, it made the turbulence almost unnoticeable. So kind of cool in a way.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Unconvincing fake? 2D is a much less convincing fake of a 3D than 3D. I don't get your argument at all.
Your argument is analogous to claiming that sculpture is intrinsically superior to paiinting, because the illusion of depth in a painting is "just fake 3D". Yet - somehow - there are far more masterwork paintings than there are sculptures, as evidenced by the ratio of each to each in the great museums of the world.
Once you figure out why this is so, you'll understand my argument completely.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Your argument is analogous to claiming that sculpture is intrinsically superior to paiinting, because the illusion of depth in a painting is "just fake 3D". Yet - somehow - there are far more masterwork paintings than there are sculptures, as evidenced by the ratio of each to each in the great museums of the world.
Once you figure out why this is so, you'll understand my argument completely.
I went to this last summer and I can tell you, it was a ton of fun getting sprayed with water every time a freaking whale decided to spray water out of it's spout. Or when the eel went off screen and some thing pokes you in the back. Half the theatre jumped out of their seats.
It was really cool though watching big rolling waves crash with some wind and slight vibrations to add to it.
I only hate 3D, because it has become the main focus of a lot of movies, instead of the actual content of the movie. A good movie 2D >>>> a bad movie 3D
Agreed there, but I think it makes your 3D hate misguided. It's not 3D you hate, it's bad movies.
Compare Avatar 2D with Avatar 3D, not Inception 2D with Avatar 3D. Or better yet, Inception 2D with Inception 3D (assuming it would have been done natively, not some bad conversion like Clash of the Titans).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misterpants
Yeah but usually the movies destined to become 3d aren't usually Oscar winners. I don't think people are clamoring for the King's Speech to be made in 3D. It just adds another layer to the type of movie that's merits are usually based on the visual aspects of the film.
And yet, if you took a movie like The King's Speech, and made it in 3D (properly), in my opinion it would only improve the experience. Pretty much anything that can be done in 2D can be done in 3D, only with greater immersion and realism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Your argument is analogous to claiming that sculpture is intrinsically superior to paiinting, because the illusion of depth in a painting is "just fake 3D". Yet - somehow - there are far more masterwork paintings than there are sculptures, as evidenced by the ratio of each to each in the great museums of the world.
Once you figure out why this is so, you'll understand my argument completely.
That's a weak analogy.
Perhaps there are more paintings because they're lighter, more portable, and can be displayed on walls? Maybe they're easier, require less space?
There are more paintings than photos in art museums, and whilst there are movies that want to look more like a painting than a photo, they are few and far between.
In some sculpting circles, life-size sculptures were considered inferior to scale models, because they were too easy. Yet, they are more realistic.
In my photography, I do both 2D and 3D. Mostly 2D. Because my 2D equipment is better. Because it's easier. Because it's more accessible. But very rarely is my choice to do 2D instead of 3D for creative purposes.
Be careful what you wish for. As the technology behind 3D improves so will the cost to movie goers. It costs the price of a home to install a 3D projector in a movie theater. When technology changes the projectors will have to be replaced also. Who do you think will be paying for those added costs?
Movies have been increasing in ticket prices from time immemorial. I don't just think it's 3D's fault.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
And yet, if you took a movie like The King's Speech, and made it in 3D (properly), in my opinion it would only improve the experience. Pretty much anything that can be done in 2D can be done in 3D, only with greater immersion and realism.
No, it can't. A good director will use focus to direct your eye where it needs to go in a scene - putting things in 3d means you can't pick out a particular element other than by putting it in the centre of the screen, or having it move around while everything else is still, or making it large and obvious.
Look at this classic scene and tell me how it would be better in 3D. You can't blur the background in a 3D picture, precisely because it has to look "real". So the whole climax of it would be impossible. Yay 3D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Perhaps there are more paintings because they're lighter, more portable, and can be displayed on walls? Maybe they're easier, require less space?
There are massive paintings and small sculptures, you know - yet somehow there are dozens of times as many famous of the former than the latter. Controlling the experience of the viewer is far easier in 2 dimensions, precisely because it is limited. You can't go around the back of the frame and see what's on the other side.
You are too focused on the idea that we WANT to make movies more like reality, when actually that serves almost no purpose at all. We don't need art to mirror reality, we can already experience reality without the mediation of a director.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
Movies have been increasing in ticket prices from time immemorial. I don't just think it's 3D's fault.
For countless years the movies you saw on the big screen where in
35 mm prints. It's only recently that the technology has taken a big jump with the introduction of digital and 3D movies. Both required theater owners to replace thier screens and projectors at a huge cost to them. Try $25,000 for a new screen and close to $340,000 for a new projector.
For countless years the movies you saw on the big screen where in
35 mm prints. It's only recently that the technology has taken a big jump with the introduction of digital and 3D movies. Both required theater owners to replace thier screens and projectors at a huge cost to them. Try $25,000 for a new screen and close to $340,000 for a new projector.
Great! That doesn't do anything to dissuade my point. One movie ticket in 1960 was less than movie ticket in 1990. That was before the 'introduction of digital and 3D movies'.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
Great! That doesn't do anything to dissuade my point. One movie ticket in 1960 was less than movie ticket in 1990. That was before the 'introduction of digital and 3D movies'.
Inflation causes the prices of anything to rise - labour and the cost of stocking the concession. That happens with any business. It's when you make rather costly improvements you will see the price of your ticket rise even further.
I'm good friends with someone who owns and operates a movie theatre. We had a discussion a few weeks back about the costs of upgrading to digital and 3D which he hasn't done yet. If he moves in that direction his ticket prices will go up 2-3 dollars more than what he is currently chargiing. Then there's the possibility of even more on going costs if the 3D technology is tweaked.
No, it can't. A good director will use focus to direct your eye where it needs to go in a scene - putting things in 3d means you can't pick out a particular element other than by putting it in the centre of the screen, or having it move around while everything else is still, or making it large and obvious.
Look at this classic scene and tell me how it would be better in 3D. You can't blur the background in a 3D picture, precisely because it has to look "real". So the whole climax of it would be impossible. Yay 3D.
I would watch it, but all I see is a white rectangle.
And yes, you can blur the background (or foreground) in 3D. Avatar did this a ton. Too much, IMO.
