3D again! [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : 3D again!



RGA
03-21-2012, 10:29 PM
Chortle chortle Why 3D movies need to die - The Oatmeal (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies)

Daybear
03-22-2012, 12:52 AM
And I expect that his Film collection is only silent movies:shocked:

Worf101
03-22-2012, 09:29 AM
That was funny as hell. I'm crying here! Thanks I needed a good laugh.

Worf

RGA
04-06-2012, 05:55 AM
Ebert's review of titanic in 3D

"Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.

But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece. Titanic [3D] :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews (http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998/-1/email_headlines)

Hyfi
04-06-2012, 06:16 AM
Both the Oatmeal and Ebert are correct, in my eyes. Funny stuff on that oatmeal page.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-06-2012, 10:08 AM
Ebert's review of titanic in 3D

"Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.

But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece. Titanic [3D] :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews (http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998/-1/email_headlines)

Richard,

Ebert may be a good film reviewer(but well past his prime IMO), but his technical expertise is sadly lacking. 3D in and of itself does not cause a loss of brightness. What causes the loss of brightness is the theatrical system not calibrated to show 3D. Cameron sent out prints to accommodate several different projectors, and if the projector setting are correct for the print, the loss of light is very minimal.

Not every shot needs to be in 3D, and the shots in 2D just further enhance the shots that are converted to 3D. I saw the movie in a properly calibrated theater, and I found it to be a quite good 3D conversion. 2D to 3D conversion can be really good, or really bad. Not all 2D to 3D conversion are as bad as Ebert would like you to believe.

Ebert now has to many prejudices to make him an objective reviewer. We can now count on him to trash every 3D movie he reviews because of his personal biases on 3D. If I could look Ebert in the eye right now, I would tell him to hang it up, your time has come and gone.

Richard you have made your point. You hate 3D, we get it. Now can you stop brow beating us(like you do with AudioNote crap) with your anti 3D BS?

RGA
04-06-2012, 08:43 PM
Maybe you should take it up with the Theater Roger Ebert goes to. I am sure he is not making what he sees up. You may be correct that it is a theater problem. I am sure Ebert goes to the best theater that city of Chicago operates. So if the best theaters in Chicago all suck maybe, since you have a financial stake (bias) in the movie industry, you should do something about those theaters that are all misrepresenting the technology you strongly advocate. Or must people now fly to the only theater in America (the one you go to) to see properly rendered 3D.

What doesn't seem to get through your financially biased views defending this bill of goods technology is that virtually every person I know that has seen 3d thinks it's total rubbish. Ebert is hardly the only reviewer who makes these comments - lots of much younger fresher critics, and people who work in the industry.

But they're ALL wrong of course and only you are right. I guess Walter Murch doesn't know anything about the film industry either right?

It's great to think only RGA and Ebert and the Oatmeal guy are left of field on this technology. But apologists always want to blame the theaters. I have no problem with that except that "how is it that OUR FAULT?"

You got to an amusement park and you get on a ride. If the operator runs it half speed it's not fun then you have an opinion of the ride. "Oh but sir it's not the ride - the operator was trying to save on wear and tear blah blah." Excuses.

Ebert said he watched it in 3D took his glasses off and the screen was brighter in the 2D segments. Pretty sure the guy has been to several theaters - so they all suck? All the theaters I have been too suck? All the theaters everyone I know who has the same opinion they all suck? All the TVs I've seen using 3D also suck? I mean at some point you can't blame the regular joe six pack from having a negative opinion on this Sir T. Even if you know there is better out there and that the theaters and entry level Sony/Samsung/Panasonic/Sharps are doing a crappy job compared to the $20k front projectors and million dollar home systems that Joe Six Pack will never get the chance to see let alone purchase.

When I saw Avatar it looked gloomy - I could not see a true real world three dimensional image. When i walk down a street I see things up close in the mid field in the distance and EVERY POINT in between - that is real 3D. Even with Avatar it simply reminded me of a better Jaws 3D. I saw some stuff in my face - some stuff in the distance and some stuff in the middle - basically looked like 3 plates on in front of each other. Nothing about that seemed like real life. It was tiresome after awhile and basically I felt it was there to cover for a very overrated badly written, weakly acted film.

The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.

I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch



Plenty of people dislike 3D

Seats that suck in 2D invariably suck ten times as much in 3D. Even in optimal seats, often it just doesn't work. While watching Avatar for instance, some of you may have noticed a weird warping or blurring around the edges of your vision whenever you turned your head. Watching Avatar meant looking at the screen at just the right angle. Don't you dare move your head, or Jake Sully turns into a ridiculous, rainbow blur. Wait, what did I miss? I had to inhale oxygen. Sure, 3D looks good when you sit in the middle of a theater imitating a statue, but how does it look when you fidget in your seat or have to keep one eye on your kid? Not good. The Trouble With 3D: Why Hollywood's Savior Could Be Bad For Movies - CinemaBlend.com (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Trouble-With-3D-Why-Hollywood-s-Savior-Could-Be-Bad-For-Movies-16812.html)

And this - it's not the article it's all the people writing in to say they dislike 3D that should tell you something. So maybe you can somehow prove the point by getting your film exec friends to actually make sure theaters are using the right equipment with the correct calibration. Otherwise you will get lots and lots and LOTS of people dissing it as most of the people here are doing Ebert: 3D movies suck - Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/ebert-3d-movies-suck.html)

The question that never seems to be asked is Why? It isn't offering something that is needed and IMO it doesn't make the films "better" the film is either good or bad and 3D doesn't make a lousy film better. It doesn't enhance good movies - since good movies were not filmed in 3D.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-09-2012, 01:14 PM
Richard,

You love to see your words posted so much that you are just repeat and rinsing them over and over. We have gone over this before. There is two ways to see 3D, and three different 3D formats. Ebert has only seen passive 3D, and that goes for Murch as well. Passive 3D is what they show in theaters, and Dolby 3D has a different 3D presentation than IMAX, and IMAX has a different presentation than Real-D. Then there is active shutter based 3D which is probably the best way to view 3D. You cannot just make generalized statements about 3D when there is so many different ways of showing it.

Murch worked on Captain Eo which is film based 3D with certain very distinct viewing characteristics. We don't use film based 3D anymore, and so his comments on the characteristics of 3D are very dated.

In the home, shutter based 3D looks different from passive 3D. Once you switch into the 3D mode, the light level at the projector increases to make up for the loss of light the active system imparts on the screen. On a properly calibrated projector, the light levels in the 3D mode with glasses on will be the same as the 2D mode with the glasses off. When both modes are properly calibrated, they will have the same light output level, so there goes your too dark argument.

As far as individual opinions on 3D; I can find as many people who like it as you can find who don't.I can also find folks who love horn loaded speakers, and some that don't. I can also find folks that like the sound of flea powered amps with high sensitivity speakers, and some that don't like it as well. Personal testimonies are just what they are, but they are no reflection of the technology itself.

I record, edit, and mix audio and movie soundtracks. I do this whether the movie is 3D, 2D, or no video at all. So my vested interest is not in any visual playback format, but audio specifically. So your mention of bias is as invalid as your information on 3D. I suppose since you are a reviewer of audio equipment, you have biases and vested interests(AudioNote anyone) that invalidate your reviews- and we should not take you seriously at all right?

As far as seating in a 3D theater - I have sat just about everywhere left to right(but halfway in the theater always) and the 3D effect is the same. The only theaters that would have poor off axis viewing are older theaters where off axis seating would not really make it optimum for 2D viewing as well. Modern theaters usually have seating areas that are only as wide as the screen itself, so there really is no deep off axis viewing.

So just to shut your anti 3D stupidity down, I have seen more 3D movies in more places than you ever have. I have seen all of the theatrical formats, and own both active and passive projectors in my houses. I have seen all the problems that poorly rendered post conversion 3D can have, and I have seen those problems manifest themselves differently on both theatrical and home formats. For any one person to take one format, and apply that to all the ways 3D is presented, shows a profound level of ignorance of 3D. To use somebody else's testimony as proof you are right shows just how weak your version of right is.

RGA
04-09-2012, 08:10 PM
Sir T

Thank you for being cordial.

The issue though is not me against the "technology" of 3D. You need to take your industry hat off and judge the "common man'e experience" - you know the common man that goes to a local theater in a local town and shleps over his money to watch 3d on the average screen. You know the people not living in the top 1%.

Then you judge that result and ONLY that result. You keep arguing about different systems in the home which presumably judging by the fact that you claim to own the best of the best of such systems - judge the "typical" flat screen 3D (ie; entry level Sony 3D) again what those not living in the top 1% will experience.

This is not an attack on 3D as a technology - Ebert is correct - others in this thread agreed with me that the RESULT in these average local theaters and these most often viewed entry level screens is pretty rubbish (which is why the Oatmeal guys are making fun of it.

You seem to take it as a personal attack that anyone on this planet could not love and think that 3D is anything less than pure perfection. Of course the fact that there are many different versions of it tells you that some would have to be better than others. Just as saying someone is a horn speaker lover doesn't mean they're going to like every horn speaker - or that they won't also like a Panel or pro-monitor.

The problem as I see it is that you are looking at it from an engineering perspective and not the common man perspective

You say this:
I have seen all the problems that poorly rendered post conversion 3D can have, and I have seen those problems manifest themselves differently on both theatrical and home formats

I have no doubt you have seen what the technology is TRULY capable of and you are frustrated with me because I have not seen what it is capable of and you're upset because I am judging presumably the bad examples.

But again - the theater experience is supposed to SET the example - it is supposed to be the BAR or reference quality experience - that's why you pay the premium - "Big Screen" (should also mean best screen) and Big Sound (should also represent Best Sound).

Why do you think there are so many people disliking 3D - if it's not the technology then it's the playback equipment of that technology. But for the "average" person they're at the mercy of what they see in the local theater and their Best-Buy/Sony store. Put another way - the people showing off the technology to the people are doing a really lousy job of showing it off and they are damaging the perception that the average person has of the technology.

You say that testimonials are no reflection of the technology - that is true but testimonials certainly are the only thing that counts when judging the result when it is based off of a perceptual experience (invoking the senses).

As for bias - movie sound goes with movie pictures. You need both in a movie. So there is a direct link - without a movie you have no sound to edit. More sales means more money for everyone who works on the film or in the industry - so if 3D sales takes off that is more work and more money for the industry. There is a difference in bias between someone who profits from the industry they work in and an independent reviewer being honest about what they see and hear at the movie theaters - their job is to report what they saw and heard at the movies (and the actual film from writing directing acting etc). You say Ebert is biased but I don't see how - he reports what he heard and saw and many people agree with him. Murch wrote a letter to him. If you want to correct Murch - then write to him. Ebert is pretty cool - I wrote to him about a decade back and he replied to my e-mail withing a couple of days. Set the record straight. Defend the position - let him know of a place to see proper 3D.

Arguing with me on a forum where 8 people read these posts isn't helpful - get the letter on the Tribune and it speaks to hundreds of thousands of people. It may be a kick in the pants to ensure theater owners do their job and don't cheat the average Joe Six-pack from seeing the best of the technology or just plain seeing it at all instead of the dredge they seem to show in my theaters.

I don't see why you bring up Audio Note at every turn. I review and listen to a lot of gear and I have no financial stake in any of it. Since I rip into many of the biggest audio gear (even in the high end niche market name brands) I kind of bite the hand that feeds me (oh but then it doesn't feed me). You see because I do not take money for writing reviews - which can't be said for most reviewers.

Though that in itself is not terrible since it would be the same pay presumably no matter what you review. Reviewers can theoretically get gear at a discount price - but from what I can tell that is typically dealer cost or a bit more and usually that applies to any brand - so it's still a level playing field. Most non reviewers can get the same item at the same price on the used market. What is sent to a reviewer is in fact a used item since it's opened.

I readily stipulate that you have far greater experience with 3D. But rather than get on me - and I suggested this to you before - you should be raising hell that something you like so much and find hugely rewarding to watch is being trashed by theater owners and stores that are making it look so god damn awful in the majority of cases. You can't then get mad at the people who are watching what the industry brings to their towns. If the picture is terrible in downtown Chicago and Vancouver(more millionaires per capita than any place in all of North America) then what hope do the suburbs in these cities have where theaters are likely to be worse? You simply can't say - don't say anything bad about 3D because there is this $100,000 3D system in my home that shows otherwise - I think it's fair to say that we can very much judge the technology on what 99.99% of the people are likely to view and likely to buy.

I remember I often generalized SS sound and E-Stat would bring up Pass Labs as an exception - and I fully agree with him that Pass Labs was an exception - but the amps were well over $10k - again not what 99.99% of people will ever hear. And probably not what 99% of audiophiles can afford. So yes the exception to the rule of me dogging numerous SS exists (and at lower prices to) that's why they call it a generalization not an absolute fact.

I discuss Bryston in a certain way and people (including you) will note that the 28B gets away from the problems of the lower models - but again one model in a line that has sold for 30 years at the highest price point in their history and that 99% of audiophiles will never afford. In most cases when you read what I say it is the $5k and under camp and it's the mainstream audiophile stuff and the mainstream video stuff. Hey I loved the sound of Technical Brain SS and I thought Magico sounded good - but at $70k for the amps and about that for the speakers - the vast majority of people reading don't give a hoot. For that price it ought to be great.

I am far more interested in the Cerwin Vega CLX 215 at $1k a pair and how good those sound and how much you get for the money. No it's not Magico - but the 215 impresses me more because of what they get out something with such a low retail price. That to me is way more fun to talk about. And when I see the $1500 40 inch Sony 3D screen that blows me away then great. I saw the $6,000 ones before I came out here and it wasn't very good - if the store set it up badly then again that's not RGA's fault - it's Sony's fault.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-10-2012, 09:16 AM
Sir T

Thank you for being cordial.

The issue though is not me against the "technology" of 3D. You need to take your industry hat off and judge the "common man'e experience" - you know the common man that goes to a local theater in a local town and shleps over his money to watch 3d on the average screen. You know the people not living in the top 1%.

You need to quit making the assumption that I don't go out to theaters(where the common man goes) to watch 3D movies. I do go to theaters, and I go pretty often.


Then you judge that result and ONLY that result. You keep arguing about different systems in the home which presumably judging by the fact that you claim to own the best of the best of such systems - judge the "typical" flat screen 3D (ie; entry level Sony 3D) again what those not living in the top 1% will experience.

Once again you are assuming. I also have 3D flatpanels in my house....the same models the average Joe has access to.


This is not an attack on 3D as a technology - Ebert is correct - others in this thread agreed with me that the RESULT in these average local theaters and these most often viewed entry level screens is pretty rubbish (which is why the Oatmeal guys are making fun of it.

Ebert is not right, and neither are you. You have an opinion...and only a opinion. Whether it is right or wrong is all in your head. What is right for you may be wrong for me. What is right for me may be wrong for you. There is no right or wrong here, there the choice of I like it, or I don't.


You seem to take it as a personal attack that anyone on this planet could not love and think that 3D is anything less than pure perfection. Of course the fact that there are many different versions of it tells you that some would have to be better than others. Just as saying someone is a horn speaker lover doesn't mean they're going to like every horn speaker - or that they won't also like a Panel or pro-monitor.

More assumptions. I don't give a damn whether you like 3D, or you don't. That is your damn business right? What I have a problem with you is the propagation of misinformation, and using opinion as if it were fact.


The problem as I see it is that you are looking at it from an engineering perspective and not the common man perspective

What the hell is the common man perspective? And how do you know what perspective I am coming from? 3D is either good, or its bad. That is the perspective. You are BS'ing by adding a engineering versus common man perspective into the debate.


You say this:
I have seen all the problems that poorly rendered post conversion 3D can have, and I have seen those problems manifest themselves differently on both theatrical and home formats

I have no doubt you have seen what the technology is TRULY capable of and you are frustrated with me because I have not seen what it is capable of and you're upset because I am judging presumably the bad examples.

Richard, I am not frustrated with you, and I correcting you.


But again - the theater experience is supposed to SET the example - it is supposed to be the BAR or reference quality experience - that's why you pay the premium - "Big Screen" (should also mean best screen) and Big Sound (should also represent Best Sound).

Sorry Richard, but the reference is set in the post production facility, not in the theater. All post production facilities follow SMPTE standards pretty tightly, theaters don't always. Theaters are only presentation spaces, not reference spaces. If you could be guaranteed the same experience from theater to theater, then you would have a point. But the difference between any two theaters could be as wide as the Pacific Ocean in reality. Some theaters meet SMPTE spec's for getting the proper light levels on the screen with the glasses on, and some do not. Some theaters have bulbs in their projectors that would not even pass SMPTE standards for 2D, let alone 3D. Some theaters have blown subs, buzzing surround speakers, or the sound system is completely out of calibration. Then there are theaters like the ones in my area that has their sound system calibrated yearly, changes bulbs when they fall below spec's, keeps their screens clean, and has their projectors properly calibrated for 2D and 3D with the glasses on(which is the proper way to calibrate 3D)



Why do you think there are so many people disliking 3D - if it's not the technology then it's the playback equipment of that technology. But for the "average" person they're at the mercy of what they see in the local theater and their Best-Buy/Sony store. Put another way - the people showing off the technology to the people are doing a really lousy job of showing it off and they are damaging the perception that the average person has of the technology.

I am going to turn this back on you - Why do you think there is so many people that like 3D? Here is what you are doing. You are living your own perspective in a bubble. You are not looking for anyone who likes 3D, you are looking for folks to co-sign your anti 3D perspective. So based on your little bubble, there is a ground swell of folks that hate 3D. Sorry, but the world is bigger than your bubble. There is a reason why there are so many 3D movies out there. Obviously someone is buying both tickets and disc, or 3D would have just gone away already. 3D based combo packs on Bluray are selling better than 2D or single disc packs. When looking at ticket sales, there is still a near 50/50 split in tickets sales of 2D versus 3D viewing. So obviously your little bubble does not describe what is happening in the real world.


You say that testimonials are no reflection of the technology - that is true but testimonials certainly are the only thing that counts when judging the result when it is based off of a perceptual experience (invoking the senses).

Testimonials are only good when you look at BOTH SIDES of the equation. Testimonies are BS when you are only looking for ONE SIDE of the equation. You are looking at ONE SIDE of the equation. Where is the balance here?


As for bias - movie sound goes with movie pictures. You need both in a movie. So there is a direct link - without a movie you have no sound to edit. More sales means more money for everyone who works on the film or in the industry - so if 3D sales takes off that is more work and more money for the industry.

This shows a profound ignorance on how the film industry works. I get paid exactly the same for doing a soundtrack on a 2D or 3D movie. So 3D does not benefit me at all, it is all the same to me.


There is a difference in bias between someone who profits from the industry they work in and an independent reviewer being honest about what they see and hear at the movie theaters - their job is to report what they saw and heard at the movies (and the actual film from writing directing acting etc).

The man gets paid for doing his reviews, so he profits just like a studio profits. Everyone is making money off of everyone else.



You say Ebert is biased but I don't see how - he reports what he heard and saw and many people agree with him. Murch wrote a letter to him. If you want to correct Murch - then write to him. Ebert is pretty cool - I wrote to him about a decade back and he replied to my e-mail withing a couple of days. Set the record straight. Defend the position - let him know of a place to see proper 3D.

Of course you cannot see how Ebert is biased, you share the same opinion egg head! Ebert does not like digital theater, does not like 3D, did not like the transition from analog soundtracks to digital soundtracks.

It is not my job to convince anyone to like or dislike anything. I have no interest in Eberts reviews, and don't watch them.


Arguing with me on a forum where 8 people read these posts isn't helpful - get the letter on the Tribune and it speaks to hundreds of thousands of people. It may be a kick in the pants to ensure theater owners do their job and don't cheat the average Joe Six-pack from seeing the best of the technology or just plain seeing it at all instead of the dredge they seem to show in my theaters.

It is not my job or lease in life to defend movie theater technology. I am a sound designer/ mixer, not an advocate of theater presentation. There is enough folks out there doing that already.


I don't see why you bring up Audio Note at every turn. I review and listen to a lot of gear and I have no financial stake in any of it. Since I rip into many of the biggest audio gear (even in the high end niche market name brands) I kind of bite the hand that feeds me (oh but then it doesn't feed me). You see because I do not take money for writing reviews - which can't be said for most reviewers.

Just because you don't get paid for your reviews does not mean you don't have biases. If you read your own press, your reference point seems to be anything AudioNote, compared to everything else. Ray Charles can see this.



I readily stipulate that you have far greater experience with 3D. But rather than get on me - and I suggested this to you before - you should be raising hell that something you like so much and find hugely rewarding to watch is being trashed by theater owners and stores that are making it look so god damn awful in the majority of cases. You can't then get mad at the people who are watching what the industry brings to their towns. If the picture is terrible in downtown Chicago and Vancouver(more millionaires per capita than any place in all of North America) then what hope do the suburbs in these cities have where theaters are likely to be worse? You simply can't say - don't say anything bad about 3D because there is this $100,000 3D system in my home that shows otherwise - I think it's fair to say that we can very much judge the technology on what 99.99% of the people are likely to view and likely to buy.

I am going to say this to you again. I have no problem with 3D in the places I see it in - whether it is the theater or in my home. You seem to have the issues. Where the problem occurs is when you think you are right about something that is purely subjective, and then you seek co-signers to support your subjective opinion. If you need someone to co-sign your perspective, then it must be pretty weak.


I remember I often generalized SS sound and E-Stat would bring up Pass Labs as an exception - and I fully agree with him that Pass Labs was an exception - but the amps were well over $10k - again not what 99.99% of people will ever hear. And probably not what 99% of audiophiles can afford. So yes the exception to the rule of me dogging numerous SS exists (and at lower prices to) that's why they call it a generalization not an absolute fact.

If you had this same perspective when it comes to 3D, then you and I would not be discussing this. You have very little experience with 3D, and yet you are trying to pass yourself off as some expert on 3D because you have the comments of Ebert and Murch. Boo on that BS.


I discuss Bryston in a certain way and people (including you) will note that the 28B gets away from the problems of the lower models - but again one model in a line that has sold for 30 years at the highest price point in their history and that 99% of audiophiles will never afford. In most cases when you read what I say it is the $5k and under camp and it's the mainstream audiophile stuff and the mainstream video stuff. Hey I loved the sound of Technical Brain SS and I thought Magico sounded good - but at $70k for the amps and about that for the speakers - the vast majority of people reading don't give a hoot. For that price it ought to be great.

So perhaps before you make your generalizations you should tell folks your experience with X brand is limited to the lower cost tier of that product.


I am far more interested in the Cerwin Vega CLX 215 at $1k a pair and how good those sound and how much you get for the money. No it's not Magico - but the 215 impresses me more because of what they get out something with such a low retail price. That to me is way more fun to talk about. And when I see the $1500 40 inch Sony 3D screen that blows me away then great. I saw the $6,000 ones before I came out here and it wasn't very good - if the store set it up badly then again that's not RGA's fault - it's Sony's fault.

If your only perspective is bad theaters, and demo's on a showroom floor, then you have very little to add to the 3D discussion.

RGA
04-10-2012, 07:35 PM
"There is no right or wrong here, there the choice of I like it, or I don't.


And I am free to make posts telling people that I think it sucks because it sucks.

‘Titanic 3D’ disappoints at the box office. Are moviegoers sick of 3D conversions already? | Wide Screen - Yahoo! Movies Canada (http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/wide-screen/titanic-3d-disappoints-box-office-moviegoers-sick-3d-183754185.html)

Read the numerous comments - the fact that numerous articles are blasting away might be a give away. No one said you were not free to like it - be my guest.

Worf101
04-11-2012, 04:50 AM
I've no opinion on the "artistic" merits of 3D as I physically can't see it due to wounds suffered in the service. As a result I've no dog in that hunt. However I do have view into the third leg of the table, the theatre owner. As I said one of my closest friends owns a movie theatre (Spectrum 8 Theatres (http://www.spectrum8.com)). Sugi has been apprising me of the major trends she's been dealing with. The biggest one was the move away from physical movie prints to digital downloads.

The second was the question of whether to put in a 3D system in one or two of the theatres. She did it for the following reason... kids! She said she couldn't compete with the malls for kid and youth movies without 3D. Now this woman's livelihood depends on decisions like this. If she felt it were truly a "fad" I doubt if she'da forked over all the dosh necessary to install it. but mebbe I'm being foolish. Well that's all I have to contribute to the conversation, Y'all can resume bashing one another over the craniums with your clubs now. LOL.

Worf

Feanor
04-11-2012, 04:52 AM
"There is no right or wrong here, there the choice of I like it, or I don't.


And I am free to make posts telling people that I think it sucks because it sucks.

‘Titanic 3D’ disappoints at the box office. Are moviegoers sick of 3D conversions already? | Wide Screen - Yahoo! Movies Canada (http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/wide-screen/titanic-3d-disappoints-box-office-moviegoers-sick-3d-183754185.html)

Read the numerous comments - the fact that numerous articles are blasting away might be a give away. No one said you were not free to like it - be my guest.
I have a 3D deficit. I've only see two 3D flicks, (1) Avatar where it was great, and (2) Conan the Barbarian where the 3D really, really sucked (along with the rest of the movie).