|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3-D movie advertising
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 11-08-2009 01:41 PM
There are a few other 3D systems out there that deserve mentioning, like XpanD which is quite popular outside the USA, as well as Sony 3D ("4K").
Yet other systems, like Master Image, i.e, have a roughly equivalent mainstream system (i.e. Master Image is very similar in results and technique to RealD), so no biggie being omited.
Also, if Technicolor 35mm 3D system ever takes off, that's yet another system perhaps "worth differenciating".
But I feel the 3D system used in projection really doesn't even need to be mentioned, as the film is the same and can be output in any of those systems with theoretically IDENTICAL results.
All 3D systems offer good performance of similar quality when properly implemented. Sure it could be nice to tell polarizing systems using silver screens (Sony, Imax, RealD, Master Image, Technicolor) apart from (usually) non-silver screen ones (Xpand, Dolby), but that's the only significant difference between systems and it's not even due to the "3D" itself but the use of the silver screen (or not), which hotspotting and contrasty colors can be a bit annoying.
Otherwise, Sony and Imax may result in slightly less artifacts and better image quality (i.e. no "flicker", full 4:4:4 12bits path, etc).
Anyway. Disney 3D is "nothing", same as Dreamworks "Intru 3D" etc etc. They just like to put a marketing buzz to their movies being made in 3D. They can be delivered in whatever system you want since they all should produce the exact same result. And they do with only minor differences in "image quality" (color fidelity, ghosting) but exactly the same kind of "3D quality", if such thing even exists.
Things don't stick out more or less pronounced from the screen in any system AT ALL, they are ALL THE *EXACT* SAME result "3D-wise", in the sense that they all strive to obtain the EXACT same result on the screen and the minor differences in "2D" image quality (like color or resolution) among them are a result of physical limitations, like having to use color filters in Dolby or Silver Screens in most others.
Disney probably receives money or perks out of advertising RealD and Imax in the promos, and Dolby and Sony (and XpanD and Master Image) just refuse to pony-up and are happy with the patrons not being so aware of what system they are experiencing beforehand.
I heard the rumor that some Disney people (executives) were "friends" (i.e. had interest or ownership) with RealD, so maybe that's also why they get preferencial treatment in ads. RealD is very aggressive in their marketing as they were born thinking they would become a monopoly in digital cinema 3D and rip benefits from every single person that ever saw a 3D film in cinemas in the world in the future.
But it is annoying to claim a movie is (sort-of) "made" in RealD or Disney 3D or Imax when it's just made in "stereoscopic 3D", like every single 3D movie (just about) ever made, and then you can "print it" in whatever delivery format you want, as they all produce (or try to) the exact same result. To include in the actual movie credits for certain systems and not the others is not very responsable nor accurate.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 11-08-2009 04:36 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
As far as Sony goes, didn't they make an agreement with RealD?
Yeap. Even more confusing then, as "RealD" could mean a regular DLP (NEC, Barco, Christie, Kinoton, Cinemeccanica, etc) projector with either an active Zscreen or an XL-zscreen in front shooting a silver screen with circular polarized filters at 144hz alternating a left-right 4:2:2 10 bits signal or a Sony LCOS 4K with two over/under 2K 4:4:4 12 bits images with dual lenses mechanically converging on a silver screen through passive circular filters being simultaneously refreshed at 24hz.
Totally different systems. Yet both "RealD" if we are to give it the name of the "distributor/manufacturer".
quote: Bobby Henderson
... at Dreamworks only mentioned the phony baloney "InTru3D" nonsense
While it's true that "Disney 3D" is total baloney, Dreamworks is sort-of giving the InTru3D name to the "process and tools" they use INTERNALLY to make ANIMATED films. Basically, they just gave a stupid made-up name to their ability to see the animated film in stereoscopic 3D throught the whole process which, until recently, wasn't quite so much the case (i.e. the scene had to be "rendered" or the layers composited before the animator/operator could really see the end result stereoscopically).
But, regardless, they are both bullshitters for giving "catchy names" to internal, non-really special, processes which produce virtually the same results as any other.
But we all know the deal with Panavision etc. It is not really too important WHO manufactured a given anamorphic lense or whatnot. That doesn't define a "whole" process. It's either anamorphic (no matter who, really), Super35mm, flat, or academy, or whatever. Making a huge fuss over a very small part of the process being "so special, so different", when all it is is using a slightly different manufacturer of the same process everybody else uses, is just marketing crap.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic