Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: G-Force 3D Aspect??

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » G-Force 3D Aspect?? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: G-Force 3D Aspect??

Kevin Fairchild
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: Kennewick, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 07-08-2009 07:38 PM

Here is a copy of an email I just received.

quote:
Attached please find the Quick Time of the G-Force 3D Framing Chart.

G-Force 3D employs a 3D technique that makes use of breaking the frame, in which the black letterboxes at the top and bottom of the image are usable pixels, and the image will, on occasion, employ these pixels for 3D effect. In order to project the G-Force 3D framing Chart and G-Force 3D feature properly, it is mandatory that your projector is set to 2K 3D FLAT 1.85 (1998x1080).

https://www.RelayIt.net/?c=hvGdf2pHRsKq4Bj89zDPw7s3b9DGDHbSCkKf

Please note 2D and 35mm will be projected scope.

Does anybody else find this crazy?
Let's take a scope movie and project it in flat, so we can have an extra small image!

If this doesn't make sense, follow this link and watch the video.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-08-2009 07:45 PM

Heard that James Cameron's epic coming out this winter will be using the dual format as well - Scope for 35mm prints and 1.77:1 for the 3D releases.

Looks like the usage of Super35mm is really taking a stronghold in the industry.

Or, it's all based from the 16:9 usage of home HD screens which is at the 1080i resolution.

For, 2k digital in 2.39:1 widescreen falls under the HD resolution and the 2k chip is only being partly used if the film presented in the 2.39:1 format (which is 2048 x 857) and this "857" is what under the 1080i HD requirements.

This might be the going trend on 3D digital movies - having both aperture formats assigned to each presentation format.

Now 4k is a different animal entirely ...

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 07-08-2009 08:16 PM

This movie (as well as Avatar) are all-digital. Very little Super35mm (and other film formats) anymore and only to scan them to 2K DI [Wink]

G-force is not a real 3D movie. It was shot 2D and then "converted".

quote:
But one combination CG/live-action film, Disney's August release "G-Force," took a unique approach as the scenes were converted to 3-D in postproduction, rather than shot with a 3-D rig.

The reason is that "G-Force" originally was planned as a 2-D title.

"The decision to release in 3-D was made halfway through shooting," recalls visual effects supervisor Scott Stokdyk of Sony Pictures Imageworks, which created a virtual second camera for the CG 3-D, then combined the elements in post with the live action 3-D (created by In-Three, a Westlake Village, Calif.-based company that calls its proprietary service "dimensionalization"). "We had a variety of camera rigs and setups and very tight quarter shooting, so we had to be extremely flexible."

This approach allowed director Hoyt Yeatman to work with his editorial staff and VFX crew in a normal way and deal with the stereo issues at the very end of the proces. The live-action material then went through a 3-D post conversion process at In-Three.

"You have to plan ahead when you are composing 3-D shots, but it's not so much of an imposition as when you have to work on the right and left eye throughout the process," Stokdyk says.

Why they decided to do this weird thing of framing the 2.35 movie into a 1.78 frame, therefore forcing the projection of letterbox black bars onto the screen .... who knows. Obviously it's great for the use they gave it: pretend objects of the film stick out of the screen entirely.

By framing most of the film letterboxed and then allowing some (fake 3D) elements to break the letterbox, you have the feeling said element truly came out of the screen.

Clever. Effective. Nice. Done before more subtly (called floating window).

By using a smaller area they save on pixel rendering, time, size, 3D convertion manipulation, you name it.

Of course, if your screen/masking/lens combination is optimized for Scope .... you are screwed with this movie. You may have "black bars" on the sides (pillar box, unless masked) as well as on top and bottom (letterbox), which in this case, you shouldn't even mask.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-09-2009 12:02 AM

I noticed this on the trailer for G-Force as well.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-09-2009 12:29 AM

quote: Julio Roberto
Clever. Effective. Nice. Done before more subtly (called floating window).

I disagree. I will NOT watch this movie in 3D because of this stupid gimmick and it is bound to cause lots of confusion and angry customers. When the customers see the screen they EXPECT for the image to fill it! (I am so tempted to run the digital version in "scope" anyway.)

Archive link here.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-09-2009 06:49 AM

So...if you have horizontal masking such that Scope is bigger...you must then force people to see a SMALLER image on the FLAT screen dimensions...making the audience think YOU screwed up "excuse me...something is wrong with your picture...it doesn't fill the screen"

Oh and to add insult to injury...if you have a curved screen...the letterbox bars are going to look like bannanas!

Steve

| IP: Logged

John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-09-2009 07:34 AM

Well, thankfully we don't have a curved screen, but it's still going to look like [bs]

Unfortunately, most of our patrons are not savy enough to bitch, but I could be wrong. We have several screens where the Screenvision pre-show does not fill the whole screen, and I can only recall one or two complaints in the two plus years we have had it. However, this is a feature that folks are going to have to sit through.

Should be interesting. Too damned bad we all have to deal with this.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-09-2009 11:11 AM

The reason is because nobody, and yes I do mean NOBODY gives a flying shit about Screenvision ads. They could be running upside down and the customers would not complain because they paid their hard earned money to get into the theater to see the movie. They did NOT pay to be "forced" (which is really what it is) to sit through commercials.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 07-09-2009 11:22 AM

Except, Brad, on the occasion where the person complaining erroneously thinks that the ads playing wrong means that the movie will too.

I remember having a movie that wasn't threaded yet (since it didn't start for another 15-20 minutes) yet I got a call on the radio saying that the auditorium was out-of-frame all because the slide projector didn't fill up the entire screen.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-09-2009 12:56 PM

Ok, fair enough, that is an issue occasionally.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-09-2009 02:04 PM

I had a shakey slide projector once and customers were afraid the movie would be shakey.

Anyway, why is whoever is releasing G-Force thinking that everyone has top masking? Whoever made this movie is an idiot. Or a bunch of idiots. Not that the movie would be worth watching in any form... looks ultra-retarded.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-09-2009 02:57 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Heard that James Cameron's epic coming out this winter will be using the dual format as well - Scope for 35mm prints and 1.77:1 for the 3D releases.

It's not going to be like this with scope cropped inside flat for 3D. It will be scope for 35mm and flat (1.85:1) for 3D. I'm assuming it was produced in a super35 type way where he was composing for both formats and I guess he determined the 3D looked better in flat ratio.

This stupidity is completely different. A scope ratio running inside the flat format so that a few effects can use the unused pixels in some special way??????

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008

posted 07-09-2009 03:11 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Not that the movie would be worth watching in any form... looks ultra-retarded.

I think ultra-retarded is a little too nice. I refer to this film as "rats on roids". Thank goodness we're not getting it.

| IP: Logged

Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 07-09-2009 10:54 PM

I am possibly the only person over ten looking forward to this film. The idea of a 3D film with guinea pigs working for the FBI is so stupid that it has to work.

As for the letterbox presentation, it makes some sense when you watch the video. If they establish very early on in the film that this sort of 3D effect will use up the black bars then customers will accept it, especially in a kids film. Agree though that it could suck on a screen with a curve and/or no masking. Luckily our 3D house should suit this presentation, our set-up means we might get a larger image than if it was in scope.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-10-2009 02:52 AM

I watched this movie tonight. We are having a 3-D trade screening in the morning. The 3-D was OK but the stuff that fell out into the letter boxed area didn't really add anything to the experience. Nothing that would make me say "hey this is a great Idea". I dozed off through some of it but after waking up I was still able to follow the plot, if that tells you anything.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.