Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

3D... SONY, SAMSUNG AND PANASONIC ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG...

Jannard said:
There is a no excuse passive system... coming soon.

Jim
Click to expand...

Well, Jim, I hope the Dozen Oakley glasses we just got do work on it he he...

Seriously I col dare less to loose even couple thousand dollars worth of 3D glasses in order to have a superior system... ;)

EDIT:... Only issues is that my, as new Samsung 9000 series flat LED 3D TV with AS glasses will become avery expensive 2D TV...

But I am happy if the new 3D viewing system is superior... ;)
 
It's interesting to hear that these are being released in 3D:

Coppola's "Twixt"
Scorsese's "Hugo"
Spielberg's "Adventures of Tintin"

Apparently, "Twixt" will not be 3D for the whole film; only certain shots where the viewer will get a visual cue to put on their glasses. It reminds me of John Waters cueing viewers to scratch and sniff their S&S cards in "Polyester"...

What next?
 
I don't think 3d will truly take hold till no glasses are needed.
-A
 
Really? RED getting into the display business? This should be big.
 
BTW, how about this: Sony’s HMZ-T1 Is an Amazing OLED 3DTV. That You Wear On Your Head.
http://gizmodo.com/5835977/sonys-hmz+t1-is-an-awesome-oled-3dtv-that-you-wear-on-your-head

"To date, other than watching hard core pornography on an airplane, I've not yet seen a compelling use case for wearable televisions. And then I tried on the HMZ-T1.
Not only did this sell me on the concept of wearable TV, it was one of my better experiences with 3DTV which I've likewise been skeptical of."

Sersiously, though, the best glasses-less 3D ideas I've seen are:
- the sandwiched LCD method (MIT's one looked awesome)
- the "ultra reality hologram" method of having a million pico-projectors each projecting a horizontal slice of the image - that sounds amazing because you could walk around freely and you'd get a perfect image, theoretically. If you had the data for it. And if they really can built a million little projectors. Debevec was working on it, I think?

Personally, I will be fine with a nice Red passive 3D 4K projector and my geek visor and maybe some smaller, cheaper projectors / TVs for on-set use :P

András Puiz said:
Really? RED getting into the display business? This should be big.
Click to expand...
They've hinted about it for years and years. Glad they are moving forward on it!
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Well, Jim has been saying that resolution will be more important than people realize...
 
Jannard said:
There is a no excuse passive system... coming soon.
Click to expand...
With Jeff further refreshing my memory on what's been said much earlier here - I'm going to bet that it does, in fact, involve, highly affordable laser projectors and consumer red ray players. The only question is, will you also be making nice screens which automatically withdraw into the ceiling with cool sound effects?
 
Rudi Herbert said:
...Why do people who don't care for 3D keep voicing their opinions on threads where, obviously, the value of 3D is a given, otherwise people would not bother starting such threads at all...
Click to expand...

I agree with you Rudi. Maybe 2D folks don't need to bother themselves on 3D threads. My friends and I like looking at my 3D stills and films on my 67" TV even with glasses. I can't wait for Jim's glasses-free version, a RED 3D camera, and new technology and new styles of 3D cinema in the future.
 
Jannard said:
The future is NOT active glasses. That is preposterous. Simply incredibly stupid.

The "consortium" announced that active glasses are in our future. Not. Samsung, Panasonic and Sony.

Watch here for what the future really looks like.

Trust me on this one. They have lost their minds... really. I'll bet my lifelong reputation on it.

Jim
Click to expand...

you ROCK!!!!!!!!!

S.Haskell
 
A while back, I had watched an episode of "Ebert Presents: At the Movies" that covered the trend of 3D films.

http://www.ebertpresents.com/episodes/2011-07

At the end of the episode, one of the hosts remarked that for him, he wasn't sold on the idea of 3D technology for all films, in particular indie films. Until,as he put it: "someone makes a way to shoot a $250,000 movie in 3D."

I just smiled
 
Pierre Henri Landriau said:
CHALLENGE: Find a 3D movie that has a great plot/story. Now if you found one, was it a franchise? But more importantly, did 3D really made the film that much better?
Click to expand...

Having been fortunate enough to see some of what Baz Luhrmann & Simon Duggan have up their sleeves for Gatsby... I can say that "yes, absolutely, the 3D makes the film that much better."

Pierre Henri Landriau said:
3D is also a nightmare for DPs, camera wait, re-alignment, changing mirrors every 3 hours...I admire RED for making the rigs considerably smaller though (just look at an Alexa 3D rig). But in the very end, I personally think it is just not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

What 3D are you talking about? On The Amazing Spiderman, with a total of 7 rigs between 2 units over several months of principal photography - they changed mirrors exactly... once. Re-alignment was down to about 3.5 minutes, and only when lenses were switched. The way 3ality Technica rigs work, they are constantly checking and staying in alignment.

Of course, glasses-free 3D is the holy grail. But until then - if you don't like it, ok, you don't like it. But there are quite a few A-list Directors and DPs who think differently. And these people are artists. They are not working to produce "gimmicks for the studio." They are pushing creative boundaries through their art... and they believe 3D is a significant part of their future. Baz Luhrmann, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, Martin Scorsese... these are not a few "flash in the pan" Directors who are doing what the Studio told them to do. They love 3D for what it is - an extension of their creative pallet.

Change is hard. Really hard. Many resist, and many simply like other ways of doing things for perfectly valid reasons. But because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't valid or real and valuable for others.

( Pierre - this is not targeted at you specifically - your post was just convenient to quote from. : )

Lucas
 
My feeling is this: I am not much of a fan in 3D in its current form. That said I think it's important that it survive because I DO think it will give rise to some form of technology that will knock our socks off in the coming years. Sometimes we have to go through this period to get to the really good stuff.

What's making it harder, is hollywood's natural ability to beat things to death in order to make an extra buck. This is leaving a bad taste in too many people's mouths. And they are beginning to speak with their pocketbook.. I hope the powers that be get the message... Quickly

Jay
 
Its not the people who make the 3D films that decide if it stays..its the moviegoer that spends the money. At the current levels 3D might not make it when the average film in 3D makes 40% of its gross while pushing the 3D harder than the 2D version. That alone says something.
 
Maybe it's a bit too 'obvious', but did Jim just put a gun on the wall for 'tonight'??

Mike
 
S3D

S3D

OK. This is my opinion, and underline; my opinion! Whatever comes in the future, whether we like S3D or not. I think it behooves all "Serious Filmmakers" to think about shooting at 48 Fps S3D. We just don’t know what is coming, what Red has planned, or anyone else might invent. But if we don’t shoot S3D at 48 Fps, what we know to work at the moment to shoot, we’ll be left behind. It’s that simple, you always have the option of not using S3D and just going "for-it-in" 2D, but at least you have it “in-the-can”. Just my “Opinion”!

Humberto Rivera
 
John Vonbadinski said:
Its not the people who make the 3D films that decide if it stays..its the moviegoer that spends the money. At the current levels 3D might not make it when the average film in 3D makes 40% of its gross while pushing the 3D harder than the 2D version. That alone says something.
Click to expand...

By your logic, even if Hollywood kills 3D right now, it will re-emerge in a few years.

Who spends a lot of money on movies? Young people.

Do you know what else young people like? Video games.

It's difficult to imagine the game systems of the future not being in 3D, once the consoles get fast enough for, say 4K stereo 3D at 60fps.

In the future, convincing teenagers to stop playing their amazing 3D games so that they can see a movie in 2D might be a little... difficult.

Humberto Rivera said:
OK. This is my opinion, and underline; my opinion! Whatever comes in the future, whether we like S3D or not. I think it behooves all "Serious Filmmakers" to think about shooting at 48 Fps S3D. We just don’t know what is coming, what Red has planned, or anyone else might invent. But if we don’t shoot S3D at 48 Fps, what we know to work at the moment to shoot, we’ll be left behind. It’s that simple, you always have the option of not using S3D and just going "for-it-in" 2D, but at least you have it “in-the-can”. Just my “Opinion”!
Click to expand...

Which I share 100% :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
This is really good news, even if its just news that there is going to be news. I have always hated active shutter glasses. The best I have ever seen (eXpand) are still inferior to passive using cheap Roy Orbison style glasses. Put on profesional quality 3D glasses like the Oakley passive 3D and the difference is even greater. Glasses free doesn't work well enough for viewing in a large group. Even though most passive 3D monitors have 1/2 the vertical resolution they still look better than active at 1080p. Amazing how the brain works piecing the images together better even at lower resolutions when the images are shown at exactly the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top