CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-27-2012, 11:56 PM   #61
iikii
Creator
 
iikii's Avatar
portfolio
Choo Bin Yong
Freelancer
Singapore
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 103
I feel that 3D is kind of distracting for me to focus on the actual story. The glasses and the popping visuals.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 12:22 AM   #62
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,852
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Quote:
Originally Posted by leigh
Avatar is the only film I've seen in 3D where I felt the 3D actually added something to the film, although personally I didn't find it as immersive as you. Interestingly, what I liked about the effect in that film is that it was more of an in effect than an out effect, if you know what I mean - there wasn't stuff flying out of the screen, it was more of a case of the picture having a sense of depth behind the characters.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this.

AVATAR impressed me as a 3D picture and it's the only film right now I'd tell people to see to really know what 3D is all about. For AVATAR, the stereo 3D was used as a sledgehammer for selling the reality of Pandora. That's why there was depth emphasis. It's very specific, Jim used depth the way George Lucas used "Grit and Wear" in STAR WARS to "sell" to you the world was real.

TRON Legacy was made with the same technology but somehow didn't end up feeling the same.

If you listen to directors talk about the use of 3D I think the only two people who sound like they have a plan for how to use it visually are James Cameron and Martin Scorsese (although I haven't seen Hugo).

I have a feeling that right now only James Cameron knows how he's going to use the 48 and 60 fps frame rates. I've had this feeling for a while that Peter Jackson (like a lot of directors on Stereo 3D) walked into a trap after some patented James Cameron sales talk - as we all know Jim likes to push very hard with all parties about technology he actually wants for his own films.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION
 
Old 12-28-2012, 01:26 AM   #63
Papa Lazarou
Lord of the posts
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers

Unlike 3D's detractors who want 3D gone so that people like me cannot enjoy it I am in favor of choice. I realize that not everyone likes the same thing- and that's fine. I'm just opposed to propaganda pieces like this.
I also understand that in Europe theater owners don't give you a choice- and I think it's up to you guys to convince the theater owners to put up additional screens for your choice. We don't have that problem in the states.


I think that'll always be an issue to some extent. It'll be the case in some areas, some theatres and for some films. But the way I look at it, there's always been issues about seeing screenings of films we want to see the way we want to see them. This is nothing new. Some films I wanted to see didn't get released locally. And if I wanted to see an Imax film, I would've had to travel to another country. In my father's day, there were no multiplexes, the most any cinema had was 2 screens. We've got so many more options nowadays.

When it comes to home viewing, the issue becomes irrelevent. The choice is there. 3D can be turned off if that's your preference. You could also turn down the colour and watch in black and white if you were so inclined.

If it were my film that I'd gone to the trouble and expense to film in 3d, I wouldn't want 2d screenings. You put that extra consideration into framing things a certain way, and I feel it's akin to watching a film in the wrong aspect ratio. You used to get the people who complained when widescreen movies were shown on tv because of the black bars. I feel that it's far more important that a film be presented first and foremost the way it was intended. After that it can be flattened, cropped, presented with sign language, dubbed in a foreign tongue, whatever needs people feel have to be met. But all of that should be secondary to making the film available in its native format.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 01:58 AM   #64
Papa Lazarou
Lord of the posts
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan
AVATAR impressed me as a 3D picture and it's the only film right now I'd tell people to see to really know what 3D is all about. For AVATAR, the stereo 3D was used as a sledgehammer for selling the reality of Pandora. That's why there was depth emphasis. It's very specific, Jim used depth the way George Lucas used "Grit and Wear" in STAR WARS to "sell" to you the world was real.

TRON Legacy was made with the same technology but somehow didn't end up feeling the same.

If you listen to directors talk about the use of 3D I think the only two people who sound like they have a plan for how to use it visually are James Cameron and Martin Scorsese (although I haven't seen Hugo).


With Hugo I felt the technique had an added relevance given to the subject matter.

But I think it's equally valid when you have some trashy B-movie that just goes for thrills and entertainment and pushes the medium for all it's worth.

The worst is when you have some big budget studio movie that cynically gets the stereoscopic treatment just because.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 02:53 AM   #65
vlad
Expert
 
vlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers
Not all. But many- especially when you see a lot of the same points repeated.

So you are actually implying that people that dont like the stereoscopic effect in movies are being subjectively manipulated by some kind of anti-3D faction into some psychosomatically induced state of discomfort or resent? For something as trivial as this? I'm not sure I follow you...People just voice their opinions on public forums (in the broader sense of the term). Some people pick up on it because they have the same experience. Some people dont because they like it as it is. I dont see any conspiracy here. I mean if you like some type of music, I sincerely hope it would take more than a couple of articles or posts on public forum to convince you that you dont...

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers
And a lot of things other people complain about are more about the old red/blue 3D too.


That was so long ago and there were so few of them, I dont think that's remotely relevant. My opinion of course...

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers
Which means people are paying to see it- which contradicts the notion that people hate it.


I never said that people hated it. Unless that was the international masochist delegation...Some probably went for the 3D, others because they wanted to see it on the big screen again. Then some were maybe taught to believe that the movie would be better in 3D
 
Old 12-28-2012, 05:03 AM   #66
fablefox
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Azhar Mat Zin
Fable Fox
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,162
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan
I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this.

AVATAR impressed me as a 3D picture and it's the only film right now I'd tell people to see to really know what 3D is all about. For AVATAR, the stereo 3D was used as a sledgehammer for selling the reality of Pandora. That's why there was depth emphasis. It's very specific, Jim used depth the way George Lucas used "Grit and Wear" in STAR WARS to "sell" to you the world was real.

TRON Legacy was made with the same technology but somehow didn't end up feeling the same.

If you listen to directors talk about the use of 3D I think the only two people who sound like they have a plan for how to use it visually are James Cameron and Martin Scorsese (although I haven't seen Hugo).

I have a feeling that right now only James Cameron knows how he's going to use the 48 and 60 fps frame rates. I've had this feeling for a while that Peter Jackson (like a lot of directors on Stereo 3D) walked into a trap after some patented James Cameron sales talk - as we all know Jim likes to push very hard with all parties about technology he actually wants for his own films.


HUGO wasn't shown here at all, so I rented the DVD. Watching enough 3D film, I think I can feel which will be emphasized. I think it would have been awesome in 3D. And the film itself is great. I knew of the director after watching "Tonight, Tonight" by Smashing Pumpkin. It really great.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 05:31 AM   #67
redbellpeppers
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Chris
Standing, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
So you are actually implying that people that dont like the stereoscopic effect in movies are being subjectively manipulated by some kind of anti-3D faction into some psychosomatically induced state of discomfort or resent?


What I am saying is, after discussion this issue here and on other forums *not related to film* and reading the contents of their posts, I have come to the conclusion that a good number of people are just sheep who are repeating what articles like this say... and when pressed for details you realize that they are talking out their butts.

That's not every critic mind you- just a number of them.

*EDIT*

And I forgot to mention: there is a financial guy (Clark Howard) who broadcasts all over the US, and he flat out tells people to *NOT* buy 3D TV's. I've never heard him add "unless you want the 3D effect". He just tells people to not buy them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa Lazarou
If it were my film that I'd gone to the trouble and expense to film in 3d, I wouldn't want 2d screenings. You put that extra consideration into framing things a certain way, and I feel it's akin to watching a film in the wrong aspect ratio. You used to get the people who complained when widescreen movies were shown on tv because of the black bars. I feel that it's far more important that a film be presented first and foremost the way it was intended. After that it can be flattened, cropped, presented with sign language, dubbed in a foreign tongue, whatever needs people feel have to be met. But all of that should be secondary to making the film available in its native format.


I would make (2) different cuts of the film: (1) 2D, (1) 3D. Different angles, different takes- a different cut.

Last edited by redbellpeppers : 12-28-2012 at 06:02 PM.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 05:37 AM   #68
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,852
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Quote:
Originally Posted by fablefox
HUGO wasn't shown here at all, so I rented the DVD. Watching enough 3D film, I think I can feel which will be emphasized. I think it would have been awesome in 3D. And the film itself is great. I knew of the director after watching "Tonight, Tonight" by Smashing Pumpkin. It really great.


Yeah, when I mention Scorsese sounds like he knows what to do with stereo 3D I'm refering to an interview (before Hugo was announced) where Scorsese explained that an interesting use of Stereo 3D was to see if it can cause interest inside a picture where you are wondering about a secret deeper inside the picture... or how your perception of an event shown through a window or a doorway is changed by stereo.

When I heard him describing it this way, I was given the impression that he knows what he is going to do with stereo 3D to help "tell something".

Others seem to be just using it as a gimmick.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION
 
Old 12-28-2012, 06:05 AM   #69
jake rupert
Käpt´n Jake
 
jake rupert's Avatar
Jost Keller
Germany
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 267
I think, the great difference to the change from silentmovies and black and white to color is, that after a while the great majority of moviegoers got acustomed to the new way, wheras with 3 d almost half of the audience still is disturbed by the expierience after three years.
The simple fact, that we still have that ongoing dicussion at all, prooves in my eyes, that 3 d is not really working as a broader presentation medium at the present.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 06:45 AM   #70
fablefox
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Azhar Mat Zin
Fable Fox
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,162
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan
Yeah, when I mention Scorsese sounds like he knows what to do with stereo 3D I'm refering to an interview (before Hugo was announced) where Scorsese explained that an interesting use of Stereo 3D was to see if it can cause interest inside a picture where you are wondering about a secret deeper inside the picture... or how your perception of an event shown through a window or a doorway is changed by stereo.

When I heard him describing it this way, I was given the impression that he knows what he is going to do with stereo 3D to help "tell something".

Others seem to be just using it as a gimmick.


Yeah, that is exactly what he said in "the making of" (which is available on the DVD - one of the reason I prefer DVD when looking at non 3d movies). I couldn't help but imagine it would be as awesome as Coraline (which also not shown here, but i've seen the 3d trailer at 3d tv shops - and it is amazing). So I think HUGO in 3D is equally awesome. Specially the dream sequence or other in-movie remake of George films.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 06:56 AM   #71
fablefox
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Azhar Mat Zin
Fable Fox
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,162
Wink

To add my 2 cent here, the right way to use 3D in movies is to treat it like "camera focus", and not to show which object is "floating" in front of other object. Is this a place where customer isn't always right? The problem with this floating thing (like some 3d sticker / picture sold in bookstore) is that our world is 3d but we does NOT see our world like that. But if 3D were use subtly, maybe the audience will get angry "where is the 3d?" (or maybe the executives?).

I think it just like focus. Not everything needs to be blurred, and not everything need to be in focus. And if it used right, it felt right. Personally, I think Coraline did it best (based on 3d trailer watched on 3d TV. So I don't know if that is a factor in itself - since roger ebert always complain that 3d movies in theater is dark and other things).

If people were forced to pay a lot and the result is jarring, or bad 2d to 3d conversion, or floating headache inducing 3d gimmick, people would return to 2D in no time.

I have mentioned it here at cgtalk and worth a re-mention, for the first time in my life, Rise of the Guardian 3D causing me a serious headache that lasted the whole day. It take a good night sleep. And this is from a person who always watch CGI film in 3D whenever possible (not on Wreck It Ralph. No 3D ticket). For what it worth.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:58 AM   #72
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,852
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Quote:
Originally Posted by fablefox
To add my 2 cent here, the right way to use 3D in movies is to treat it like "camera focus", and not to show which object is "floating" in front of other object. Is this a place where customer isn't always right? The problem with this floating thing (like some 3d sticker / picture sold in bookstore) is that our world is 3d but we does NOT see our world like that. But if 3D were use subtly, maybe the audience will get angry "where is the 3d?" (or maybe the executives?).


I think this is correct. I didn't quite think of 3D in the same way as Focus, Blocking, or Depth Of Field. But yes.. I think I am coming around to your way of thinking in saying that Stereo is actually in the same area of usage as Focus, Blocking, and Depth of Field.

I remember early in the design phase for REVERSION, someone asked me why I would want to do it in animation, and I said that animation allowed me the most freedom of projection. He asked if that meant "Matrix Cam" (360 view of an event in slow-motion) to which I quickly said: "We won't be doing Matrix Cam shots... That's not the show I'm making."

I think Stereo 3D.. how to use it.. when to use it...One has to go through a similar logic and to use it properly with good audience effect means you avoid being "shallow" with it. Just like people who want to make a point using Animation should avoid just spamming viewers with 360 pan views and "impossible angles" just to sort of "make a point" - I think directors using Stereo 3D have to think of a specific situation where the Stereo is actually servicing some kind of audience experience that is part of the storytelling.

HOWEVER.. One draw back I immediately see here is that if you design the film this way it can only be "really seen" in 3D... as some of the blocking will not work with "left eye only".
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION
 
Old 12-28-2012, 10:54 AM   #73
Dillster
Always Learning
 
Dillster's Avatar
portfolio
Dylan Saunders
Student
Still in college
Dublin, Ireland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by fablefox
I couldn't help but imagine it would be as awesome as Coraline (which also not shown here, but i've seen the 3d trailer at 3d tv shops - and it is amazing)....


I actually think the 3D Coraline DVD was absolutely terrible. Washed out colours and soft quality. I got the DVD set which had both 3D and 2D discs and the 2D was much better. The 3D was basically unwatchable for me. This was a 3D disc supplied with glasses for watching on a 2D TV.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 12-28-2012, 03:10 PM   #74
RobertoOrtiz
[Forum Leader]
 
RobertoOrtiz's Avatar
CGTalk Forum Leader
portfolio
Roberto Ortiz
Illustrator/ Modeler
Washington DC, USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,900
Send a message via MSN to RobertoOrtiz
As posted before, New mediums can be used to enhance drama.
if you want to see how color and Visual Effects was used to enhanced drama in the black an white era,check out a film from 1947 called Black Narcissus.

New inventions in the hands of masters can be used to enhance storytelling.
Avatar and Hugo demonstrated that 3D used in the hand of a master can be a integral part of the drama.

i am really curious to see what Cameron will do with variable frame rate.
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 12-28-2012, 03:53 PM   #75
garryclarke
Expert
 
garryclarke's Avatar
portfolio
Garry Clarke
Horsham, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 245
If the 'fad' or whatever you want to call it is over, is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.

I've tried 3D movies, (Avatar, Up, Alice in Wonderland etc etc) I don't like them much, I wear glasses to start with so balancing another pair on top is not fun, especialy when the quality of the lenses are total shit. I mean James Cameron spent millions making a move, I see it a state of the art cinema with digital projection and surround sound, yet I have to watch it through wobbly dark plastic that dulls everything and distorts things like a hall of mirrors. Plus the '3D' is just a fake effect and gives me a sore head after a while.

So now I avoid 3D wherever I can, I don't care if it's booming or dying, if there's a 2D print I'll go and see it, if not I'll see something else or save my money. I've since bought Avatar and Up on Blu-Ray and I've enjoyed them just as much in 2D (plus I now get to see the colours properly)

Yesterday I saw Life of Pi (in 2D), whatever you may think of the movie I can't see what it would gain from being in 3D.

I'll be watching The Hobbit in 2D and I'll give 48fps a shot, I'm looking forward to it, at least I won't have to wear cheap sunglasses.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.