-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
THE "misinfo" is coming from you.
Anybody with half a brain would be leery of 3D anything, considering its somewhat lackluster track record.:1:
And that "studio" you sweep floors for, wouldnt be owned by Sony now, would it?:1:
You are giving away your age fossil fuel Freddy. You are constantly using film based 3D from the 50-70's as your point of reference. Sorry, but this is not that 3D.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Lackluster track record? Those possessing a full brain, however, are aware of what this movie has done. You might have heard of it. :)
rw
YEP, you hear about all of those mediocre movies that didnt make it.
I REALLY DON'T THINK James "top of the world" Cameron will be making every 3D movie,
nor will they all be coming outta PIXAIRE.
Give me a break:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You are giving away your age fossil fuel Freddy. You are constantly using film based 3D from the 50-70's as your point of reference. Sorry, but this is not that 3D.
AND THAT BRIEF foray into 3D TV in the eighties with polarized "shutter" glasses.
How quickly they forget.
Funny how you mention the fifties to the seventies, then your memory drops off
the planet like a rock.
CANT QUITE RECALL all of the massive failures of 3D since then, emmm?
3D is like a letter sent snailmail, it never quite gets there.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
AND THAT BRIEF foray into 3D TV in the eighties with polarized "shutter" glasses.
How quickly they forget.
Funny how you mention the fifties to the seventies, then your memory drops off
the planet like a rock.
CANT QUITE RECALL all of the massive failures of 3D since then, emmm?
3D is like a letter sent snailmail, it never quite gets there.:1:
When you go to the zoo, I bet you like to jab sticks at the bear through the bars.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
AND THAT BRIEF foray into 3D TV in the eighties with polarized "shutter" glasses.
How quickly they forget.
Funny how you mention the fifties to the seventies, then your memory drops off
the planet like a rock.
CANT QUITE RECALL all of the massive failures of 3D since then, emmm?
3D is like a letter sent snailmail, it never quite gets there.:1:
Once again some more of your profound words of stupidity. All previous attempts at 3D where based on film, which was problematic with 3D. In case your rather aged memory has failed you, here is a list of issues that plagued the film version of 3D
Two prints had to be projected simultaneously. This is no longer needed because of several new techniques that make only one projector necessary.
The prints had to remain exactly alike after repair, or synchronization would be lost. This is no longer an issue because there are no film prints, it is a digital file.
It sometimes required two projectionists to keep sync working properly. Since everything is digital, you don't need dedicated projectionist, a kid could start the projectors these days.
When either prints or shutters became out of sync, the picture became virtually unwatchable and accounted for headaches and eyestrain. With the precision of digital synchonisation, this is no longer an issue. Also shooting techniques have also changed so this leads to less eyestrain.
The necessary silver projection screen was very directional and caused sideline seating to be unusable with both 3-D and regular films, due to the angular darkening of these screens. Later films that opened in wider-seated venues often premiered flat for that reason. Now all screens are flat, and some projection techniques no longer require a silver screen. Also theaters are no longer designed with a fan shape seating area which puts viewers off axis of the screen. The screens are now as wide as the theater itself.
Another point your aged mind tends to forget is that IMAX, Disney, and Universal all had extreme success with 3D from 1985-2003 in theaters and theme parks.
I mixed a soundtrack for a 3D movie entitled Borg Invasion 4-D, that was enormously popular, and was shown in the Las Vegas Hilton.
3D has dramatically changed since you dinosaurs roamed the earth. Everything about the process is cheaper, more streamlined, more precise(less headaches), and you need to face it, it is making money.
Using your old antiquated perspective of 3D shows that you have not seen it recently, so excuse me if I just blow your stupid comments off.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
When you go to the zoo, I bet you like to jab sticks at the bear through the bars.:1:
I'm from BAMA, only bear around here is Bear Bryant.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Once again some more of your profound words of stupidity. All previous attempts at 3D where based on film, which was problematic with 3D. In case your rather aged memory has failed you, here is a list of issues that plagued the film version of 3D
Two prints had to be projected simultaneously. This is no longer needed because of several new techniques that make only one projector necessary.
The prints had to remain exactly alike after repair, or synchronization would be lost. This is no longer an issue because there are no film prints, it is a digital file.
It sometimes required two projectionists to keep sync working properly. Since everything is digital, you don't need dedicated projectionist, a kid could start the projectors these days.
When either prints or shutters became out of sync, the picture became virtually unwatchable and accounted for headaches and eyestrain. With the precision of digital synchonisation, this is no longer an issue. Also shooting techniques have also changed so this leads to less eyestrain.
The necessary silver projection screen was very directional and caused sideline seating to be unusable with both 3-D and regular films, due to the angular darkening of these screens. Later films that opened in wider-seated venues often premiered flat for that reason. Now all screens are flat, and some projection techniques no longer require a silver screen. Also theaters are no longer designed with a fan shape seating area which puts viewers off axis of the screen. The screens are now as wide as the theater itself.
Another point your aged mind tends to forget is that IMAX, Disney, and Universal all had extreme success with 3D from 1985-2003 in theaters and theme parks.
I mixed a soundtrack for a 3D movie entitled Borg Invasion 4-D, that was enormously popular, and was shown in the Las Vegas Hilton.
3D has dramatically changed since you dinosaurs roamed the earth. Everything about the process is cheaper, more streamlined, more precise(less headaches), and you need to face it, it is making money.
Using your old antiquated perspective of 3D shows that you have not seen it recently, so excuse me if I just blow your stupid comments off.
The 3D system I AM REFFERRING TO is a system that was quite popular in Japan.
Came with a pair of "shutter" glasses and allowed you to watch 3D on your TV, had
nothing to do with film.
Not that it matters, film or video the principle hasnt changed in decades , two dissimilar images producing a 3D image, just like a cheap veiwmaster from the five and dime.
A long way to go before true 3D is possible, if ever.
GETTING A PICTURE SO SHARP AND ACCURATE that it appears "3D" may be all we can manage for awhile.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
The 3D system I AM REFFERRING TO is a system that was quite popular in Japan.
Came with a pair of "shutter" glasses and allowed you to watch 3D on your TV, had
nothing to do with film.
Not that it matters, film or video the principle hasnt changed in decades , two dissimilar images producing a 3D image, just like a cheap veiwmaster from the five and dime.
A long way to go before true 3D is possible, if ever.
GETTING A PICTURE SO SHARP AND ACCURATE that it appears "3D" may be all we can manage for awhile.:1:
We are not talking about the same 3D, so move on. You still don't have it right as usual. Old references not applicable to today.
-
:19:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
We are not talking about the same 3D, so move on. You still don't have it right as usual. Old references not applicable to today.
If thats the case you surely are not "applicable".
Basic facts dont change, our knowledge of them(or in your case lack of it) can.
3D has never been ready for being more than a short term gimmick, the fact that the powers that be are dusting off thius tired old crap shows just how desperate they are
during this downturn.
As for me poking a stick at a bear, GM, are you kidding?
POODLE WOULD BE MORE LIKE IT.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
3D has never been ready for being more than a short term gimmick, the fact that the powers that be are dusting off thius tired old crap shows just how desperate they are during this downturn.
I'm convinced your view is shared by many who really have little concern with film quality. Other folks, however, have a different perspective. The original three projector Cinerama format was simply incredible in its day, but appreciated by relatively few. I remember watching Grand Prix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ice Station Zebra at a few large Martin theatres in Atlanta in the 60s. They were incredible in their realism in the day. The original 15/70 IMAX format continued the march towards greater reality with its large format film, spectacular screen size and better-than-average sound quality. The scene from The Dream is Alive filmed by NASA on the shuttle when the bay doors are opened and the beautiful sight of our planet and the absolute blackness of space still brings tears to my eyes. Years ago, I watched an IMAX 3D film of the California kelp forests. This underwater film was positively spooky in its realism. Kids in front of me were reaching out in the air trying to touch the fish that were suspended in space in front of your eyes. The capability of today's digital 3D has enabled that kind of realism to be found in a far wider range of theaters. Having said that, I find there is still nothing like the realism of attending a full sized IMAX venue.
At the expense of repetition, I've now seen Avatar at three different IMAX venues and have been amazed every time at the you-are-there level of realism delivered. I want to be able to experience as much of that realism at home as possible.
May you enjoy your 2D small screens as much as I do the full 3D IMAX experience. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I'm convinced your view is shared by many who really have little concern with film quality. Other folks, however, have a different perspective. The original three projector Cinerama format was simply incredible in its day, but appreciated by relatively few. I remember watching Grand Prix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ice Station Zebra at a few large Martin theatres in Atlanta in the 60s. They were incredible in their realism in the day. The original 15/70 IMAX format continued the march towards greater reality with its large format film, spectacular screen size and better-than-average sound quality. The scene from The Dream is Alive filmed by NASA on the shuttle when the bay doors are opened and the beautiful sight of our planet and the absolute blackness of space still brings tears to my eyes. Years ago, I watched an IMAX 3D film of the California kelp forests. This underwater film was positively spooky in its realism. Kids in front of me were reaching out in the air trying to touch the fish that were suspended in space in front of your eyes. The capability of today's digital 3D has enabled that kind of realism to be found in a far wider range of theaters. Having said that, I find there is still nothing like the realism of attending a full sized IMAX venue.
At the expense of repetition, I've now seen Avatar at three different IMAX venues and have been amazed every time at the you-are-there level of realism delivered. I want to be able to experience as much of that realism at home as possible.
May you enjoy your 2D small screens as much as I do the full 3D IMAX experience. :)
rw
Amen to this my brotha!
While Pix has mentioned the failure of past 3D, he fails to mention that Disney and Universal theme parks have used 3D to attract millions and millions to their theme exhibitions. Great example, Captain Eo, (Michael Jackson's first 3D short). Then he forgets the great success of Imax 3D from 1985 to 2003.
He also forgets that theaters are designed today to take full advantage of 3D, with their more symmetrical shapes and wider screen sizes. You have better equipment for production and reproduction. A better understanding of our natural visions operation to minimize eye strain and headaches. The list goes on. Everyone from Directors to Cinematographers are learning how to use 3D in the most effective ways to assist in the story telling enhancement side of things.
This is not the 3D of yesteryear.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This is not the 3D of yesteryear.
I think we've only seen the beginning of what will become a far more prevalent trend. As I've stated before, I have no interest in the overt in your face "this-is-3D" sort of approach taken by some recent films. On the other hand I'm convinced that you'll find increasingly more use of what I call the "you're not aware it's 3D" effect in a wider range of films - with the objective being simply to replicate the environment as you watch the story unfold by the characters. It is simply the ultimate extension of the human experience - story telling - that can now be realized in a manner so convincing that the full breadth of emotion and depth can be conveyed. While today I purchased the second $100 bulb for my DLP monitor in five years' time, I look forward to the ongoing evolution of video presentation. My next monitor/player WILL be 3D capable.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I'm convinced your view is shared by many who really have little concern with film quality. Other folks, however, have a different perspective. The original three projector Cinerama format was simply incredible in its day, but appreciated by relatively few. I remember watching Grand Prix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ice Station Zebra at a few large Martin theatres in Atlanta in the 60s. They were incredible in their realism in the day. The original 15/70 IMAX format continued the march towards greater reality with its large format film, spectacular screen size and better-than-average sound quality. The scene from The Dream is Alive filmed by NASA on the shuttle when the bay doors are opened and the beautiful sight of our planet and the absolute blackness of space still brings tears to my eyes. Years ago, I watched an IMAX 3D film of the California kelp forests. This underwater film was positively spooky in its realism. Kids in front of me were reaching out in the air trying to touch the fish that were suspended in space in front of your eyes. The capability of today's digital 3D has enabled that kind of realism to be found in a far wider range of theaters. Having said that, I find there is still nothing like the realism of attending a full sized IMAX venue.
At the expense of repetition, I've now seen Avatar at three different IMAX venues and have been amazed every time at the you-are-there level of realism delivered. I want to be able to experience as much of that realism at home as possible.
May you enjoy your 2D small screens as much as I do the full 3D IMAX experience. :)
rw
How unfair, but I GUESS its to be expected from some on this site.
GET THIS STRAIGHT, this has nothing to do with "quality".
It does have to do with a marketing gimmick that has never gone anywhere.
On antiques roadshow yesterday they had some old stereoscope prints from
the 1890's, thats how long this concept has been around.
And it has never caught on.
And "quality "?
3D has mostly been genre pictures and somedtimes the 3D reduces quality
and never increases it.
THIS is a typical 3D flap, after the "3D" monitors die on the vine it will quickly go away, just like every other time, taking quite a few careers with it.
NOBODY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN A YEAR,
TWO AT THE MOST.
And I would rather watch a "quality" 2D movie than a crappy 3D one.:1:
-
AND we are not talking about IMAX.
Good luck building one of those in your home.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
AND we are not talking about IMAX.
Good luck building one of those in your home.:1:
I do have a great set of tools.
-
You can tell a certain poster here has not seen 3D recently:rolleyes: No clue whatsoever.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
On antiques roadshow yesterday they had some old stereoscope prints from the 1890's, thats how long this concept has been around. And it has never caught on.
Nah, such a product would never take hold. Oh wait. What about the GAF Viewmaster made since 1939? Hmmm. How many discs did they make? 1.5 BILLION!
Feel free to stay away from 3D broadcast offerings in 2011 from The Discovery Channel, ESPN, and Disney.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Nah, such a product would never take hold. Oh wait. What about the GAF Viewmaster made since 1939? Hmmm. How many discs did they make? 1.5 BILLION!
Feel free to stay away from 3D broadcast offerings in 2011 from The Discovery Channel, ESPN, and Disney.
rw
Gonna go nowhere.
Regardless, dont talk about a lack of concern for "quality", leave the cheap shots to
talky, thats all hes' got.
I would rather see quality 2D than gimmick , poorly done 3D.
And all of these peeps watching those 3D channels?
HOW MANY hdtvs with 3D out there?
How many in a year? A few years?
RIGHT:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You can tell a certain poster here has not seen 3D recently:rolleyes: No clue whatsoever.
So what?
MEET THE new 3d, SAME AS THE OLD 3D.:1:
-
This is exactly what I thought. He does not know about THIS 3D, and has never been to even one current 3D movie, yet he is the foremost expert on the subject.
An expert fool is what we have here.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This is exactly what I thought. He does not know about THIS 3D, and has never been to even one current 3D movie, yet he is the foremost expert on the subject.
An expert fool is what we have here.
and WHERE DID YOU GO to school to be such an "expert"?
There is NO such thing as "new" 3D", just the same old crack ho gussied up with new makeup.
There is no new magical new tech that will save this upteenth effort to foist this turkey
off on an unsuspecting public.
Theres' already reports of headaches, depression, etc.
People didnt go to Avatar because it was 3D, they went because it was JAMES CAMERON.
Same reason they went to TITANIC.
Titanic being a great comparsion to this newest effort to sell something (anything) to a broke and out of work public.
Except 3D will beat it to the bottom of the ocean.
34D , now thats something that will sell.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This is exactly what I thought.
;)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This is exactly what I thought. He does not know about THIS 3D, and has never been to even one current 3D movie, yet he is the foremost expert on the subject.
An expert fool is what we have here.
THIS "3D".
Well, when you can explain (which you have so far failed to do) the magical difference between this 3D and the old 3D(something you cant do) then you might have something there.
Of course there is no difference.
3D hasnt changed since the days of the old stereoscopes in the 19th century.
Every once in awhile its dredged up, a little makeup is applied to the pig, and its pushed
out the door, to be shot down in short order.
In good times it would be a hard sell, good luck in this econony.
OF course when it sinks faster than an American idol winner on his own, everybody will
forget that you heard it here first.
Not a difficult prediction to make.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Well, when you can explain (which you have so far failed to do) the magical difference between this 3D and the old 3D(something you cant do) then you might have something there.
He did in post #55. You weren't paying attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Every once in awhile its dredged up, a little makeup is applied to the pig, and its pushed
out the door, to be shot down in short order.
In good times it would be a hard sell, good luck in this econony.
OF course when it sinks faster than an American idol winner on his own, everybody will
forget that you heard it here first.
Not a difficult prediction to make.
This *commentary* is indicative of the level of maturity to which I refer elsewhere. And randomly hitting enter after "pushed" and "will".
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
He did in post #55. You weren't paying attention.
This *commentary* is indicative of the level of maturity to which I refer elsewhere. And randomly hitting enter after "pushed" and "will".
rw
Nothing to pay attention to.
So its a digital medium, big deal.
At its core its still the same basic tech, and peeps are still complaining about headachs, etc.
just a gimmick to sell new sets, and I beleive most will give it a pass, or just decide they can do without it at home.:1:
|