Digital Domain Master thread(losses continue. In the first 6 months lost $23M)

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07 July 2012   #31
...so how long until DD starts losing talent over its corporate antics?
__________________
This should take less than a few minutes.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #32
They did pretty good on The Avengers, but there's been some pretty terrible conversions--I think if they plan ahead of time to do it in conversion they can do a pretty good job, but there's a lot of movies that they decide to do it after the movie is pretty much done and those have always looked terrible. I have low expectations for the new GI Joe movie conversion.

Or take for instance the conversion of Star Wars Episode I, that was the worst I've ever seen


I don't think they can patent 3D conversion, but they could certainly patent a method of doing it like with how TV's do their own conversion, an automatic method rather than actually going in and separating out elements by hand or remodeling the scene and doing projections.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 07 July 2012   #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattHarris
Hopefully this will speed up the demise of 3D.


Or just the demise of conversions in favor of shot in 3d.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #34
Doesnt our brains infringe on this? It converts 2D images to 3D.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #35
What I don't get is how you can patent a process that uses standard tools in off the shelf software. I mean, object tracking and shifting images with roto?

Why don't they just patent the use of 3d type and the color blue while they're at it.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #36
The studio that used to be Rainmaker in Vancouver (then became CIS, now Method) was publicly listed on the Toronto exchange. Their numbers included the FX part of the business as well as their film processing side. I believe the FX side was significantly less profitable when I checked it out. What used to be Mainframe animation became Rainmaker...confusing I know, and is still listed as RNK on the TSX. A share goes for a whopping $0.16 currently.
As an investor I don't think I'd touch an FX house with a 10 foot pole. Way too unpredictable revenue and thin margins at the best of times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by japetus
Out of curiosity are there any other 3D effects houses that are now publicly traded or is DD the first? It seems like the way almost all places are run (ie: not much profit) that stockholders would always be angry and it seems like it could potentially be detrimental to finding and keeping clients and to effects work in general to have your effects house be a publicly traded company.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calabi
Doesnt our brains infringe on this? It converts 2D images to 3D.

Shhh, don't give them any ideas. What, you like being sued?

On a more serious note this is a problem with "software method" patents. Software itself cannot be patented because it can be boiled down to math and math can't be patented. But throw in "systems and method" into your application's name and attach a diagram of computer hardware and you're good to go.

While many argue the obviousness of the patent I would also/instead argue it's utility.

If you actually care call or write your congress(wo)man.

P.S. If this does cause horrible 2d->3d conversions to go away then maybe it has utility after all
 
Old 07 July 2012   #38
They are shooting themselves in the foot just like Apple by focusing more on lawsuits than what they should do.

Calabi: True, the human brain pulls separate 2D images from each eye and combines them into a 3D image making us see depth in the real world. I will sit back and wait for DD's lawsuit because i have two eyes and a brain.

/ Magnus
 
Old 07 July 2012   #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattHarris
Hopefully this will speed up the demise of 3D.


Why? 3D is awesome.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshBowman
Was The Amazing Spiderman a 2D to 3D conversion? Because it was the first live action film I've enjoyed in 3D....it probably helped that most of the stunt scenes where we seen Spiderman in full costume were CG but still, the live action footage felt very dimensional.


they shot with a stereo rig, can be seen here
but theres always scenes/shots that get converted. because of technical issues (cameras dont match or dont work) or creative decissions
 
Old 07 July 2012   #41
I wish I had the patent on breathing.
__________________
My Deviations
 
Old 07 July 2012   #42
Quote:
"Hopefully this will speed up the demise of 3D."

+1

My sentiments exactly!

Cheers
 
Old 07 July 2012   #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by THX1311
+1

My sentiments exactly!

Cheers

not mine. I like 3d. Including everyone I go to the movies with. You still have the choice to see movies in 2d.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #44
I like 3D but I'd prefer that they do it only for films that deserve it--the visual stunning films and animations.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 07 July 2012   #45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient-whisper
not mine. I like 3d. Including everyone I go to the movies with. You still have the choice to see movies in 2d.


Unfortunatly not, more and more cinemas show only the 3D version to save money.

On top of that I wear glasses and have no depth perception. Going to the cinema is not very attractive for me anymore, which is a shame because I used to love to watch a good movie on the big screen.
__________________
http://www.bobtronic.com
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.