Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Can we get over 3D now please?

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 85
  1. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Rasmussen View Post
    Remember, all these cameras, systems and technology are all just tools that we can use to express ourselves as artists and no artist has the right to tell another artist how to do things. Ever.
    I hope that you guys respect my decision to shoot in 3D then :)

    I personally like it and think it fits the stories I want to tell.

    Also, if done well, it doesn't give me headaches. I am quite susceptible to headaches. So is my mother - in fact, she used to get horrendous migraines from the flicker of film movie projectors and CRT TVs! She much prefers 3D digital projection!

    The weird thing is that some people who don't like 3D keep telling us that it's physically impossible for us to like 3D! Um... if I didn't like it, I wouldn't watch it! This is not some kind of weird con act we're playing at. I think that Cameron and Jackson are 100% sincere in their desire to make 3D movies - because they like the medium. And also... from interviews I've read, Nolan did take a look at converting Inception to 3D and liked the results - but he said it would have delayed the release by too much.

    Heck, to be honest, when we were working ideas for the 3D cityscape for the teaser (you know, where the city becomes a maze which becomes the word INCEPTION) I remember thinking "wow, this would look awesome in stereo :)"

    Oh boy, now the anti-3D camp is really gonna come at me with torches...

    Bruce Allen
    www.boacinema.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    I hope that you guys respect my decision to shoot in 3D then :)

    I personally like it and think it fits the stories I want to tell.
    Ditto.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    264
    3D is definitely still in it's infancy and everyone is still very much in the process of learning the craft. Give it some time and I think you'll see 3D start to really blow you away soon. I love it, and every time I see a 2D film these days, it just feels flat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Peter Strietmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern California and NYC
    Posts
    1,111
    Avatar was the last 3d film I will ever intentionally see.
    A Peter Strietmann
    plaidass1@mac.com
    [url]https://peterstrietmann.com

    "Read or bleed people, learn or burn."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    I think what will change a lot of people's attitudes is when the first large, really well-done dramatic non-effects-driven features are released in S3D. A director who really understands S3D and how to create dramatic scenes with S3D in mind...

    Best example I can think of is "Dial M For Murder." It was shot as a 3D movie with 3D in mind, but was almost never seen that way. Seeing that movie in S3D with a master like Hitchcock at the controls is an "a-ha" moment - how dimension can really be used in a controlling emotional context. That hardcore boxed-in feeling of so much Hitchcock is made more visceral... the birds-eyes are distorted and bizarre...

    We will soon see more movies like that - dramatic S3D with *good* S3D.

    Lucas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Winzar View Post
    3D is definitely still in it's infancy and everyone is still very much in the process of learning the craft. Give it some time and I think you'll see 3D start to really blow you away soon. I love it, and every time I see a 2D film these days, it just feels flat.
    As a director, I also hadn't planned on shooting 3D, mainly because I perceived it to not have any storytelling value -- because I didn't see that I personally could do anything with it (it felt like just a visual effect or a gimmick). Boy was I wrong! After some very illuminating discussions on CML, I'm pumped to shoot 3D. There are so many decisions to be made about 3D that can add or subtract from the story being told. I love having ANY tool I can get my hands on that enables me to tell a story better. 3D is just such a tool.

    Every time a new film comes out, the stereographers talk about the choices they made on CML. The 3D medium is still very much in its infancy. Count me in the "let's give 3D a try and see where we can take it" camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Wilson View Post
    I think what will change a lot of people's attitudes is when the first large, really well-done dramatic non-effects-driven features are released in S3D. A director who really understands S3D and how to create dramatic scenes with S3D in mind...
    Couldn't agree more, and hope to be a part of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Brent J. Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,779
    Can we get over color now please?

    Can we get over talkies now please?

    Can we get over moving pictures now please?

    Mr. Rasmussen, have you ever seen a well-shot, properly stereo-imaged, appropriately projected 3D film? There is a huge difference between the crap AMC projects and what 3D should look like. Bad presentation will look bad whether it is 2D or 3D. I prefer to watch 3D at RealD theatres (better brightness, no ghosting) or on official iMax screens (not at converted cineplexes).

    Like sound or color, 3D is another tool in the storyteller's toolbox. It can be done badly or it can be done well. (And with digital cameras we can shoot at 48fps with the motion blur of 24fps by using a 360 degree shutter. If you have never seen 48 frame projection, you should. It has an amazing solidity that adds an nice level of reality.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Nick Gardner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    2,372
    We've been through all this before. If the public wanted 3d, we would have had it 60 years ago. We'll see if the market wants it now. I sure hope not. The arguments about color and talkies and such don't hold any weight. Actually, they are great examples of why 3d probably won't go anywhere. Color was adopted right away (relatively). So was sound. Because the audience wanted it. 3D has had many mini roll outs and it always goes away.

    Just sayin......

    Nick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    We've been through all this before. If the public wanted 3d, we would have had it 60 years ago. We'll see if the market wants it now. I sure hope not. The arguments about color and talkies and such don't hold any weight. Actually, they are great examples of why 3d probably won't go anywhere. Color was adopted right away (relatively). So was sound. Because the audience wanted it. 3D has had many mini roll outs and it always goes away.
    Both sound and color were possible LONG before they were widely adopted in film, just like 3D. So the analogy doesn't really hold.

    Furthermore, 3D really requires digital capture, digital post and digital projection to be practical -- all of which we have now and didn't 60 years ago. From where I'm sitting, more and more films have a 3D release today, not less, and there is no sign of that stopping.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    If the public wanted 3d, we would have had it 60 years ago.
    Nick
    No offense - but that's a very silly statement.

    The technology and practicality of shooting and releasing 3D is rather different than it was 60 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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