Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Entertainment Technology

Hollywood Going Digital and 3D 207

Posted by samzenpus from the touch-the-stars dept.
teutonic_leech writes "Last weekend the Directors Guild of America hosted its annual Digital Day event, which gives filmmakers a look at revolutionary new movie-making gear. Judging from a Wired article reporting on the gathering, Hollywood's future not only seems to be digital - there are also indications that stereoscopic 3D has caught the attention of filmmakers in and outside tinseltown. One Indie filmmaker even went so far as to build his own homebrew stereolens attachment enabling him to film in 3D."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hollywood Going Digital and 3D More

Hollywood Going Digital and 3D

Comments Filter:

  • From the Article: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04, 2005 @05:51AM (#13238325)
    Ray Bradbury: "I hope we start making better films..."


    I hope so too. I hope so too.

    • How does 3d make a better film... Whatever happened to plot, cinematics and suspense...
      • How does 3d make a better film... Whatever happened to plot, cinematics and suspense...

        They'll use it for pr0n first; expect more in-your-face schlongs (cough) and beach-ball style fake breasts rubbed against the camera.

        As for plot, cinematics and suspense.... frankly, most porn does this so badly, you wish they didn't bother.

        If they're going to do those at all, I wish they'd do them properly. Personally, I can't stand watching most porn with the sound turned up because it's very badly (and more im
        • There actually already is a pr0n flick in 3-d that was done back in the seventies. I went and saw it with some friends at the Egyptian in Seattle. Very funny stuff.

          The only problem was that apparently 3-d film from that timeframe (possibly still?) degrades over time so it had less depth than it used to have.
      • If a movie already has a good plot, ideas, characters, originality, pacing, cinematography, performances, and/or style, then 3D will add* to them; if it doesn't then 3D won't compensate for them.

        In that respect, it's just like the addition of colour, stereo, surround sound, CGI, special effects, or any of the other common features. None of these can make a movie, but they can all enhance one -- if used well.

        [* I'm sorry, I couldn't bring myself to put 'add an extra dimension to them'.]

  • For Homebrew blockbuster 3D Videos.

    This could bring a whole new meaning to the porn industry.
    • Sorry - it's been done. Emmanuelle 4 in 3D showed at my local fleapit in around '84/5. It was... strange.
    • "This could bring a whole new meaning to the porn industry."

      Early 3D movies always had things shooting out at the camera. So, no, I don't see how this would affect porn.

    • Re:Homebrew Lense (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Actually no.

      I have seen porn filmed before, it's where I bought my high end video camera used, I had to go into the studio with the owner to retireve the camera. They switched from regular DEF to HD and were selling off their XL-1s's you do NOT want to see porn in high def or 3d. Those "actors" you really do not want to see that clearly.

      BTW, it is amazing how lively the porn filming industry is in Chicago. They had 4 studios in that building on the south side. 2 were filming, 1 was setting up, and the l

  • ...Going Digital and 3D (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04, 2005 @05:58AM (#13238338)
    TOO LATE!

    Video Games have gone digital and 3D like 15 years ago.

    Movie and TV are doomed to death!

    End of story... Nothing to see.. Move along...

  • Almost everything for the blockbuster market... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ragoutoutou76 ( 832439 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:00AM (#13238346)
    ... 3D stereoscopic, dolby Digital 14.2, environmental simulation, smell replicators, ... ... only one thing missing: good movies ...
    • Exactly right. The key word being blockbuster. But what if Alien or Terminator or Lord Of The Rings had been done in 3D? The summer blockbusters might benifit from more technology, but they'll always be in the minority. 3D will never be ubiquitous the way sound and color have become. I'm not sure Casablanca would be better in color, I know it wouldn't be any better in 3D.
      • > I'm not sure Casablanca would be better in color, I know it wouldn't be any better in 3D

        But, assuming equal levels of skill involved, it would have been done differently in 3D, just as it would have been done differently in color, or silent, or as a stage play, or as a book.

        They key to 3D will be when they stop treating it as a gimmick and start exploring how extra depth might make a movie *better*, not just doing things exactly as a flat movie that just happens to be 3D. Perhaps as 2D filmmakers disco

    • Yeah, without decent screenplays everything on your list turns to crap. I mean,

      3D stereoscopic

      It's SCTV 3-D theater: Eugene Levy and John Candy lunge toward you, Eugene Levy and John Candy move away.

      dolby Digital 14.2

      The next cinematic release of Battlestar Galactica sure will have clear rumbling sounds when the battlestar goes past. Hoo boy. Just like "sensaround" sound for the first cinematic release of Battlestar Galactica...

      environmental simulation, smell replicators

      Speaking of sensaround

      • I loved the SCTV 3-D Theater. The joke, of course, for those too young to have seen it, was being poked at the whole useless 3-D genre. As you mention, the skit would be Levy and Candy taking an otherwise normal scene and adding gratituous 3-D features like picking up a pencil and making a very obvious point of pointing it at the camera, then away from the camera. It was funny because it was true; the crappy 3-D movies had to go out of their way to obviously work in things that would stand out in 3-D.

        B

  • Viewing? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:01AM (#13238347)
    But isn't equipment needed to view these 3D images? People aren't going to be using them much if they need to wear special glasses to see the movies.
    • Exactly - mentioned in the article are LCD glasses with the old 'blank one eye out every odd/even frame' trick. Bearable as a novelty for short IMAX films, but never likely to be a regular occurrence with feature films...
    • That depends on how cool glasses you get when watching the film!

  • I once saw a stereoscopic aerial photo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:01AM (#13238349)
    Once, when I was little, I saw a stereoscopic spy photograph at the Smithsonian. They had a viewing port through which two images would be superimposed on each other giving the resulting image a 3 dimensional quality.

    I don't know how well they can bring that sort of 3 dimensionality to a film without requiring strange and uncomfortable glasses (remember Jaws 3D?). The closest I've seen is in plays where the actors and props are all in three dimensions (naturally).

    But the improvement in 3 dimensional rendering in digital filmmaking has been absolutely outstanding in recent years. Just compare old movies like Tron and Dungeons and Dragons with their blocky and obviously computer-rendered scenes to today's Toy Story 2, Incredibles, even Star Wars. The difference is night and day.

    I hope that digital film making becomes more than just special effects, though. The medium allows for such a broad range of uses that it is virtually limitless. Take the anime film Grave of the Fireflies as an example of pushing a medium to its limits. Who could have thought a cartoon could have such an emotional impact? Now figure that whatever was done there is only scratching the surface in what can be done with digital films and a whole universe of possibilities opens up.

    • 3D nowadays (Score:5, Informative)

      by samael ( 12612 ) <Andrew@Ducker.org.uk> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:05AM (#13238478) Homepage
      I've seen 3D IMAX films three times so far, and the glasses are, indeed, large. Which is good, because it meant they fitted over my glasses. But they aren't heavy, or unwieldy.

      Modern 3D uses polarised light, with the left eye filtering out horizontalally polarised light, and the right eye filtering out the vertical. This means that a very light pair of plastic glasses can allow for proper 3D without changing the colours at all.

      It looks _fantastic_.

      • The problem though is that if you tilt your head, even slightly, the 3D effect is lost and the image looks awful. I would prefer it if they used the "double the frame rate and block light to alternating eyes" technique. The glasses aren't much heavier just a bit more expensive. It would also mean that anyone without glasses would be able to enjoy the film in 2D as well.

      • The lightweight polarized glasses are used in theaters that use two projectors, each with a polarizing filter over the lens.

        The article is talking about a different approach, usually called "alternate-eye" or "active stereo" where the movie is shown on a single projector at 96 frames/sec, and the glasses black out to prevent one eye seeing frames intended for the other. These glasses contain electronics and LCD filters; they are quite a bit bulkier and heavier than the polarized glasses, which are basically
      • "Modern." Funny. This has been common for about 25 years--Friday the 13th 3 [imdb.com] in 1982, and Jaws 3 [imdb.com] and SPACEHUNTER [imdb.com] from 1983 spring to mind. People older than me might remember examples from the '70s. Not sure when it became common, but it was quit the fad in the early '80s.
    • Some films made for IMAX are in 3D and use 2 projections each polarised 90 degrees to the other. In this way the only glasses I'd expect you'd need are a specially made pair of polaroid sunnies. I saw one of these films a few years ago and used those massive polaroid glases they have, does anyone know why such large devices are required?
      • One reason may be that if you wear glasses (e.g. for being short-sighted), the polarizer glasses have to fit in addition to them.
        • Hmm, true. But the glasses they give you seemed to have some form of light sensor+battery+feedback to the LCDs that compensated for brightness or something. From memory I tried putting my finger over the light sensor but it didn't do anything on my set but did on others so I suspect the battery in mine was just dead, they still worked fine though.

          However, this was about 7 years ago and it's likely that by now the glasses have either 1) been upgraded or 2) I'm remembering facts wrong.
    • ... was done by drawing hand-painted cels on a grid. Really. The computery-looking stuff was done by human animators, which made the rendered stuff look even more amazing.
    • Tron and Dungeons and Dragons with their blocky and obviously computer-rendered scenes

      Tron was SET INSIDE A COMPUTER! You've got to expect a teensy bit of computeryness in the scenery!

      What was more surprising was that 90% of it was carefully drawn by human animators to get that 'computer rendered' look just right...

      D&D didn't have blocky graphics -- those were real people, just acting _REALLY WOODENLY_!

    • I don't know how well they can bring that sort of 3 dimensionality to a film without requiring strange and uncomfortable glasses (remember Jaws 3D?). The closest I've seen is in plays where the actors and props are all in three dimensions (naturally).

      For the home viewer, stereoscopic shutter glasses are relatively light, most users don't experience eyestrain, and can be had for about $30. If you've got an nVidia card you can even shell out a little bit extra and play your videogames in stereo 3D (awesome..

  • 3D could work... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <pathighgateNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:04AM (#13238359) Homepage Journal
    But somewhere along the line a stigma was attached to it which keeps anything other then sci-fi/horror filmmakers away from the format.

    Hitchcock saw 3D as an exciting new direction to take the art of films, and originally shot and released one of his pictures in 3D format. Aparently, this wasn't enough to get it to catch on in serious film making circles.

    Ultimatly the push towards 3D may simply be found in the new technology. Directors who never considered 3D--because of the 'out of sight, out of mind' nature of the "novelty" of 3D--might see the new and exciting equipment and processes for 3D production and give it a shot.

    3D stands as one of the last methods in film making which has yet to be explored artistically (Alfred Hitchcock's single effort aside). I for one would be delighted if serious film makers picked up the process and did something more then "we can use this to make the audience feel like a shark is floating right in front of them, read to attack" or "watch as the blood splatter appears to fly out into the audience". In other words, I'd like to see a director try to do more with 3D then just gee-wiz novelty special effects and try to make a serious, artistic film which uses 3D to compliment the overall value of the work.

    • Re:3D could work... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are several artistical and technological problems with 3D films which cause the restriction to novelty movies.

      Artistical problems: Movie makers use depth of field blur to direct the eye of viewer. In theory this would work exactly the same in 3D movies, but in practice 3D scenes invite the viewer to look around more. That's when the illusion collapses because the viewer has no control over focus as he would normally have in a real 3D scene. Another problem is that certain lens effects can't be mixed f
      • In regards to the artistic problems you mentioned: yes, a good deal of traditional methods of film making will have to be reevaluated in order to accomidate the different format. But that's kind of the point; filming in 3d can let the director try new techniques to bring out the qualities of 3D.

        The Hitchcock movie I was thinking of is "Dial M For Murder". From the IMDB: Filmed in 3D, which explains the prevalence of low-angle shots with lamps and other objects between us and the cast members. There was

        • Re:3D could work... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dschuetz ( 10924 )
          I was lucky enough to see "Dial M for Murder" as a double feature with "House of Wax," both in 3-D. Also, "Kiss Me, Kate" was filmed in 3-D, but by the time it was released, they decided to show the flat print, as 3-D had got too much of a schlock reputation (and deservedly so).

          I *know* I wrote a good comment once on various 3-D display technologies, but I can't for the life of me find it right now. Anyway, 3-D displays can be lumped into two categories: Auto-stereoscopic and those requiring glasses.

          The g
      • There are several artistical and technological problems with 3D films which cause the restriction to novelty movies.

        There are several artistical and technological opportunities with 3D films which demonstrate the potential of the new medium.

        Using CGI you can make the whole scene in focus if necessary. Also, I don't recall the focus being a big problem when watching IMAX films. Yes, it's noticeable sometimes, but hardly a showstopper. The lens effects you are talking about are just new cool things that can b
    • Check out the 3D movies at Busch Gardens and similar parks. I remember one where bees dove at my face and I really couldn't help but flinch or close my eyes. Very good stuff.

      Similarly, I'm working on the development of an inexpensive (under $40k) portable CAVE [uaf.edu]. We held a demo session Monday and I had a lot of fun making things fly past peoples' faces. About half of them would sway, fall over, or try to grab at the air.

      We're working off the clock to get Quake et. al. working in there.

    • Hitchcock saw 3D as an exciting new direction to take the art of films, and originally shot and released one of his pictures in 3D format.

      That's doesn't jibe with the story I've been told. I heard Hitchcock considered 3D too gimmicky, but the studio insisted that he use it for Dial M for Murder. In protest, he eschewed compositions that would emphasize the stereoscopic effect. In essence, he made a very flat 3D film.

      Ironically, stereo enthusiasts consider it one of the best 3D movies, because it does

  • Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LividBlivet ( 898817 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:05AM (#13238361)
    Crap with depth.

    I found 1d radio broadcasts like Alan Shepard in the 60s more interesting than most of the ooze oozing out of my TV set today.

  • How about meaningful content? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    IMHO They should focus a little more on story and meaningful content. What's next? 6 new star wars remakes? --yawn

  • saw lots of these (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:21AM (#13238390) Homepage
    Just came back from the Futuroscope in France where they have plenty of this 3D shit. Some is with LCD glasses (heavy and annoying), but some also with simple polaroid filter glasses. This is great for 10 minutes demo movies, but I think that after 1 hour, a lot of people will leave the theatre with a serious headache. Not only are the polaroid glasses not perfect, but you are still tricking the eye: the eye is focussing on a fixed distance (screen), but seeing objects all over the depth field. This could be good for some wild action movies, but don't hold your breath for mainstream 3D movies.
    • This is great for 10 minutes demo movies, but I think that after 1 hour, a lot of people will leave the theatre with a serious headache.

      Slashdot: commenting on shit you don't know shit about.

      How about you people just stop trolling and think before posting. Same goes to the mods. Who cares what some retard on Slashdot thinks, when we know the facts. And the facts are that in IMAX theatres people sit for 1-2 hours watching 3D films with polarized glasses and noone "leaves the theatre with a serious headache".
      • I haven't seen a 2 hour 3D IMAX movie, correct. I did spend an entire day in +/-10 different theaters watching 5-15 minute demo's. And I did feel a headache with some. I gues the active (LCD) glases are better because they will have less crossover (light destined for the left eye reaching the right eye and vice versa). They are however more cumbersome then the lightweight polaroid glasses. My point is that this is an extra burdon to the movie goer. It will be ok for the third sequel to starwars, but p
        • Some people have problems with watching stereo images, may be you are one of them. Consult your physician. But please don't extrapolate your personal medical problems on everyone else. The vast majority of people can comfortably watch 3D video using either polarised or shutter glasses. This is a fact.

          Also, polarised glasses do not have crossover if you keep your head straight. Your guess is wrong. Your point is wrong too - this isn't an extra burdon (sic!), this is something to be taken care of by the theat
      • And the facts are that in IMAX theatres people sit for 1-2 hours watching 3D films with polarized glasses and noone "leaves the theatre with a serious headache".

        I recently saw an IMAX film... looked absolutely stunning, but by the end of it my eyes were really bothering me. So much so that I actually wanted the film to end...

  • George Lucas Rumoured to be 3D-ising Star Wars (Score:5, Funny)

    by wild_berry ( 448019 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @06:34AM (#13238421) Journal
    ...because the 2D editions aren't as he imagined them, not to do with making more money or anything. It's like a generation of Sci-Fi fans cried out "Nooooooooooo!" and were silenced.

    Greebo is rumoured to be 3D'ed first. Before Han...

    (some of the above may not be true)

  • Bad storylines (Score:2, Informative)

    by mporcheron ( 897755 )
    When are they going to learn? People think the quality is fine (could be better though) but it's all the stupid storylines that's the problem.

  • At last! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Phidoux ( 705500 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:05AM (#13238480) Homepage
    We'll have some actors that aren't shallow :)

  • The 3D "killer app" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <pathighgateNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:15AM (#13238498) Homepage Journal
    I can't help to think that 3D hasn't taken off yet because, to date, there hasn't been a really good movie to take advantage of the process, which could explain that while 3D has existed in various forms for the last 60 years, it's rare to see a wide released feature film.

    I can remember, as an example, computer animation. When it first hit the scene, it was more of a novelty, and I can remember thinking to myself "computer animation will never be successful, it's doomed to stay a novelty for all time, even if it does get better".

    Then Toy Story came out, and my opinion instantly changed. It wasn't because I thought the graphics were especially good, it was because as a whole I really, really enjoyed the movie. They did some things in it that you couldn't do in convential ink and pen animation, and ommitted several traditional animation techniques commonly found in previous hand drawn films.

    When I first saw Toy Story, it was on video shown at the free 'mini' theatre on my college campus. I avoided it at the box office because I thought "why spend money on something that's going to be a fad?", and only went to the free showing because going to the free movies was a great way to kill time while procrastinating on that paper you're supposed to be writing.

    I really was taken aback. "This is a pretty good movie" I thought, and realized I was compleatly wrong about computer animation. Since the release of Toy Story, computer animation has become the rule instead of the exception, with (it seems to be, at least) more computer animation movies being released now then the tridtional hand drawn animated features.

    If 3D could score a toy story, it could really take off. But since the bulk of all 3D movies are usually really bad, and nobody has yet to release a "masterpeice" in the format, I think most people's impressions of 3D are akin to my initial take on computer animation; that is, it's kind of neat, but not something I'd go out of my way for.
    • I can't help to think that 3D hasn't taken off yet because, to date, there hasn't been a really good movie to take advantage of the process, which could explain that while 3D has existed in various forms for the last 60 years, it's rare to see a wide released feature film.

      3D hasn't taken off because filmmakers just won't do 3D. Even computer animation studios (hello? Pixar? you listening?) won't be bothered to re-render a film 2" to the left and hand the dual-view print to Imax.

      Every 3D movie gets caught up

    • I can't help to think that 3D hasn't taken off yet because, to date, there hasn't been a really good movie to take advantage of the process

      Not even one? [imdb.com] Or even two [imdb.com] or three? [imdb.com] And that's not even counting classic horror films like House of Wax and Creature from the Black Lagoon.

      Granted, it was half a century ago, but it would be hard to argue that 3-D was never given a chance. Maybe those movies were really good in 3-D, but they are also really good in 2-D, and I can't imagine that there's really th

    • "which could explain that while 3D has existed in various forms for the last 60 years, it's rare to see a wide released feature film."
      People have been taking stereogram pictures for a hundred and sixty years. As soon as emulsions were discovered that are fast enough to allow you to take one picture and move the camera, photographers started taking stereos. It's quite neat to see an ancient tintype of some ruffian in the old west in all 3 dimensions...

  • Head tilt & viewing comfort (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:17AM (#13238502)
    The core challenge for 3-D is creating a system that works when a person tilts their head. Current 3-D filming and multi-person viewing systems assume that the viewers left eye is a fixed horizontal distance to the left of the right eye with no vertical displacement between the eyes' pupils. This assumption is only true when everyone is sitting upright in their chairs. If the viewer tilts their head, then the parallax of the scene appears unnaturally displaced and gives the viewer eyestrain, headache, or a sensation of double-images. With 3-D, you can't rest your head on your partner's shoulder, tilt your head to see around the person in front of your, or lie on the couch and watch it without some visual discomfort. I'd imagine that most people won't consciously notice the problem but might subconsciously become aware that they get eyestrain, neck-pains, headaches, or a vaguely nauseous disoriented feeling when they see a 3D movie -- not a recipe for repeat business.

    One nearterm solution to the problem is constructing tilt-dependent parallax for each viewer. The person with their head tilted to the right needs to see a different pair of images than the person who is sitting up straight or who has tilted their head to the left. This pushes 3D into the realm of more awkward and more expensive personal viewing headsets and the need for tracking head tilt and recomputing/rerendering the scene parallax in realtime.

    The longterm solution is holographic or volumetric systems that create/reconstruct an optical 3-D field. This solves the head tilt problem, although adds the minor cinematic problem that the people on the left side of the theatre may have an obstructed view (relative to the people in the center or right-side) if, for example, the main character's hand covers some important object from some angles.
    • While very insightful (I think the moderation on /. has ground to a halt), your "recomputing/rerendering the scene parallax in realtime" betrays your having forgotten that we're talking about film here...
      • your "recomputing/rerendering the scene parallax in realtime" betrays your having forgotten that we're talking about film here...

        Film records a fixed perspective but human heads and eyes are not fixed. And that's the problem with film for use in 3D. FIlm is not an appropriate medium for visually comfortable 3-D because it forces the viewer to hold their head in the same fixed orientation used by the cameras.
    • Last but not least option, for single person viewing: Camera tracking the head movement and adjusting the images accordingly.
    • ...a system that works when a person tilts their head. Current 3-D filming and multi-person viewing systems assume that the viewers left eye is a fixed horizontal distance to the left of the right eye with no vertical displacement between the eyes' pupils...

      Yes, when my eyes wander fruther apart it makes 3D films really uncomfortable.

      Nessus.
    • I've got a better and simplier short-term solution for you.

      Just sit straight. It's a movie theatre, not a bedroom. And there is no eyestrain, neck-pains, headaches, or a vaguely nauseous disoriented feeling, because to sit with a tilted head for 15 minutes and unsuccessfully try to watch a 3D film you need to be a total moron.
    • The easiest solution to this would be to figure out a system to keep the polarizing element of the lens at a constant (parallel or perpendicular) orientation to gravity and the screen. Two ways to do this would be a weighted, free-floating element inside the lens (probable recipe for headaches due to oscillation, but maybe with dampening...), or an accelerometer / small motor combination.
    • One nearterm solution to the problem is constructing tilt-dependent parallax for each viewer. The person with their head tilted to the right needs to see a different pair of images than the person who is sitting up straight or who has tilted their head to the left

      Wow what a concept!

      Forget the strange tracking apparatus and all that... what about holographic projection?

      look at it this way; you put on a pair of polarised glasses. The left eye sees the horizontally polarised light and the right eye the vertic

  • Hollywood, Show me something new! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Neticulous ( 900423 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:18AM (#13238503)
    Ok, so they have some new "tech" available, will we see some impressive movies yet? I hope so. The movies coming out these days, are just rediculous. Dont get me wrong, there are some decent movies out there now, but none of them strike me like a movie did 5, 10, 15 years ago.

    Over the last few years, have we been so overstimulated that nothing impresses us? Possibly, but I dont think so. Lets get some unique things out there! Hollywood always bitches and moans about low box office earnings, well come out with something new!! Kind of interesting, an article at a gaming site I am an editor for wrote an article about this a few days ago [houstonvehicles.com], hollywood needs to friggin show some unique ideas, new tech alone wont do it, it will help, but we need some new ideas and some innovation.
    • Ok, so you finally convinced me to go to Slashdot settings and penalise all postings by new users with -2. Don't get me wrong, there are some decent posts by new users here now, but overall they seem to be written by idiots who can't spell "ridiculous".

      but we need some new ideas and some innovation.
      Liar. I am sure you don't watch anything but the biggest blockbusters, because you are so stupid. What kind of innovation you want after a 100 year of cinema? And what idea can stay new after it's instantly copie

  • No Depth perception (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ZeroExistenZ ( 721849 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:33AM (#13238539)

    I always didn't really get the whole 3D or the effect got mostly lost on me with the silly glasses as I lack depth perception.

    I just don't like the sound of "stereoscopic" in my case. I hope they can also be viewed comfortably in mono if this gets a new cinegraphic standard.


    • I hope they can also be viewed comfortably in mono if this gets a new cinegraphic standard.
      I wouldn't count on it.

      I mean, they didn't care about deaf people when they introduced talkies, did they? And those don't really make sense if you can't hear anything - without additional subtitles, that is.
    • Well that's odd, I've got no depth perception and it shows up just fine for me.

      I have achromatopsia, and I've only used the polarized lenses (not the old two colour glasses).

      Do you have colour vision?

  • Multilingual opportunities (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IPFreely ( 47576 ) <mark@mwiley.org> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @07:45AM (#13238562) Homepage Journal
    A generated digital film has new opportunities for multilanguage (if you plan ahead).

    If you have all of the original material, models, images and so forth, you can recreate scenes of the movie with different text showing, with mouth motions different, relevant to a dfifferent language, and even with different cloths or cloth patterns on the characters. You control the emersion of the characters completely, so take advantage of it.

    Make the film in one language. But when the time comes, change those elements that are relevant to another language and remake it in that language completely.

    These days, all you get is the spoken language dubbed in, and that usually does not match the mouths of the characters speaking it. Text is untouched. That is a relic of live action movies. It doesn't have to be in digital also.

    • Interesting possibility in the long term... but given that the software industry still has trouble dealing with localizing text-based applications, it may be a while before we see localization of movie content.
    • Along with dubbing in language, fancy 3D images and the like, what happened to captioning?
      Geez, being Deaf means I experience movies in a very different manner. Either I must:
      Wait for them to come out on DVD
      or
      Wait and view them on a cable station
      or
      Pay full evening price on the rare occasion a captioned film is shown in my city.
      Now even when the captioned film makes it to my city, it's way behind the opening date, admission is abysmal because of the showtimes which are only on Tuesday and Wednesdays (again,
  • I've seen a couple of 3D IMAX movies, and in general they are visually awesome, very realistic and impressive. But certain conventions of 2D movies don't translate well into 3D.

    The simple crossfade, for example. In 2D, everything is in the same plane of focus; your eyes don't have to adjust during the transition. However, 3D crossfades broke my brain. As one scene faded out and another in, I couldn't figure out what to focus on, and until the transition finished I just saw a confusing blur.

    Maybe that's just me, and kids raised on 3D will be able to sort it out. But I rather think that entirely new visual metaphors will be developed as 3D becomes mainstream.

  • Some claim 3D so marvelous, incredible, great. No, it isn't. It's improvement, true, but not all that big. I'd say stereo sound vs mono is better.

    In theater (real, with actors playing on the scene) you get full 3D, 100% realistic experience, real multi-sourced sound, you can smell gunpowder from a gunfire. The camera position changes once in 20-40 minutes maybe, and the special effects are somewhat limited and sometimes cheesy, but you can't deny the realism of the scene. But somehow the live theatre seems

  • Priorities? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
    How about new technology that can be used to write better scripts?

  • Stereoscopic limitations (Score:4, Informative)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @08:27AM (#13238683) Homepage
    The big problem with traditional stereoscopic 3D isn't the need for glasses. It's problems with geometrical distortion. Sitting in a theatre, everyone sees slightly different images with their left and right eyes. But a person sitting front left sees a VERY different PAIR of images than a person sitting in the back right.

    With the traditional two-image processes--versions of Wheatstone's nineteenth century stereoscope--everyone in the house sees the SAME thing through their left eye and the SAME thing through their right eye.

    This has serious intrinsic limitations.

    The audience view appears geometrically distorted, except for a few lucky members sitting in a fairly small central "sweet spot."

    3D tends to make every movie look like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari."

    Suppose Ann Miller is twenty feet from the camera, and she chucks a handkerchief at the camera, and it lands ten feet away. In the theatre, EVERYONE sees the handkerchief chucked straight at them, and landing halfway between them and the screen. People near the front see a flattened version of the original space. People near the back get exaggerated depth. People at the sides see rectangular geometry as rhomboidal.

    Even in the sweet spot, there is only one camera focal length that reproduces depth accurately. If the cinematographer chooses to use a long lens for a closeup, rather than physically moving the camera closer, the picture will look wrong.

    These geometrical distortions actually apply to ordinary 2D films as well, but you do not notice them because the image is already so spatially distorted by being flat that you are not processing it as an accurate representation of reality.

    (Warning: ageist/sexist alert): Another issue is that 3D is unflattering to actresses, as it reveals the true spatial contour of their faces regardless of makeup. A forty-year-old actress can be made up to look twenty-five in regular films, but not in 3D.

    They struggled with all these things in the 1950s, both with stereoscopic 3D and with the ultra-wide-angle processes like Cinerama.

    All of these problems suggest to me that 3D will be fine for fantasy, science-fiction, and generally surrealistic subject matter, but I don't see how it can ever be used for traditional mainstream cinematic drama.

    • This post points out a problem which is covered in other posts, but perhaps in the best way.

      I haven't seen any Slashdot coverage of the digital cinema spec, the loss of celluloid will change the movie industry I think. If anyone is interested in the full tech spec you can see it here [fruey.free.fr].

  • I can't find the note I once did on this, so this is largely from memory...

    My thesis was that there is a long history of 3D photography and cinema, with the level of interest bouncing up and down on about a 20 year cycle - about the expiry time of a patent. The 3D views had a short-term novelty value, but they always lost out in the long run to conventional photographs with sightly better resolution.

    Wheatstone produced the first hand-drawn stereographs in about 1834.When his friend, Fox Talbot introduce

  • The technology is not the issue. Poor story-telling is. In fact increasingly cheaper technology is allowing more mediocre movie makers put more crap out there. I am very bored with movies about conflicted superheroes chasing bad guys. The computer is a tool, not an end.
  • I'm sure, somewhere, somebody in Hollywood was simply thinking of a way to make it so people could not pirate movies. Voila! Encode the movies to the human eye, make it so you need a special De-coder to view them! No more piracy. Okay, its a stretch, but we'll no longer be able to 'observe' bootlegged copies of professional films.
  • You know which industry is going to make 3D movies for home projection first.

    I think that's one thing you could watch without getting a headache.

  • The cost of converting a film to 3-D varies, but the conversion price tag for a possible stereoscopic re-release of Randal Kleiser's '70s blockbuster Grease was estimated at around $8 million.

    "Grease"? Nifty new 3D technology, and we're going to get "Grease" in visual stereo? WTF?

  • Now THAT was a film which could have given me a head-ache even without the stupid glasses.

    Having had that experience burned into my memory, I can tell you honestly that unless somebody comes up with a way to make 3D films which don't involve glasses or lousy scripts, I will never go to another such production again.

    Unless, that is, a girlfriend or child wants me to take them because they've never seen one before and are really excited about going. --If that's the case, then I'll happily pay for all the adm
  • Sorry, but no matter how clear, bright, and judder-free a digital projection is, the resolution still isn't there. I go to movies to inundate my senses with sound and light, to immerse me into a work of fiction. When you can clearly see video scanlines (ala Star Wars Episode II), the illusion is ruined.

    Cineon resolution for 2.21:1 film prints is 4096x1888. Wake me up when digital projection can equal that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close