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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-30-2006 02:51 PM                     I was reading an article today in Popular Science that was detailing two California companies that have come up with two different processes to be able to turn old films into 3-D. It said that James Cameron and George Lucas were just two of many more directors who are ecstatic about the new technology. Several have vowed to never make another film in 2-D again. Stars Wars Ep.I is due for re-release in 3-D next year. Hey, go figure. George has found yet another way to re-release his old films to make more money.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-30-2006 03:01 PM                    I wonder if that means that they vow to never shoot using one camera (eye) again, or if they vow to convert everything they shoot with one camera into 3D using one of these digital fakery methods.  |  IP: Logged Paul J. Neuhaus Expert Film Handler Posts: 126 From: Iraq.. Again! Registered: Jun 2005 posted 05-30-2006 03:55 PM                     I think it is just a another way for George to vow to never make another movie again!!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-30-2006 07:11 PM                        I have no interest in looking at something that was previously 2D in 3D. There is no way they could do an awesome job with it. Regardless, I LOVE taking real 3D pictures that require red and blue glasses. Below is a crappy JPEG version of a 3D picture of Red Rocks that I took that I really like (full size version is 1680x1050, no compression). Left eye is red, as always.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-30-2006 07:24 PM                        quote: George to vow to never make another movie again!! We should be so lucky. I heard he was developing a special "4-D" process. That's where part of the picture is behind you. Of course it's only there when you're not looking. (NOTE: I've been reading a Dilbert book today so my sarcasm meter is on overload.)  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-31-2006 07:19 AM                     Hey!! I actually installed a 4D system!!  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-31-2006 11:22 AM                        "Several have vowed to never make another film in 2-D again." I know one of them is James Cameron. He is currently working on a 3-D film with a projected 2007 release. I wonder how many screens will carry it across the country?  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-31-2006 12:53 PM                     3-D has been a passion of mine since an elderly neighbor gave me an old Stereo Realist camera and viewer set. Lately, I've gotten into polarized projection of my slides, and am totally hooked. My Realist is my most used camera now. I hope more (true) 3-D movies will be made. It would seem simpler, cheaper and more effective to have two cameras shooting together than spending hours fiddling on a computer to create a pseudo-effect. Having said that, I was impressed with the effect of the vintage Titanic pictures in the Cameron IMAX (video) film that were presumably turned into 3-D. The old photos showed a solidity I did not expect from a faked stereo image. Please correct me if they were actual stereo images taken during construction--but you MUST also tell me where I can find copies of them!  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 05-31-2006 02:06 PM                     While Popular Science is nothing more than an electronics industry boasting rag, to me, I think 3D could be the extra spice needed to make the inadequate/unoriginal stories Hollywood has resigned itself to creating seem just enticing enough to watch.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 05-31-2006 05:14 PM                        Joe, that picture's pretty cool. I happen to have a red/blue pair of glasses by my computer. They came with my copy of Chessmaster 10th Edition, in which you can fully experience the 3D real-time boards in stereoscopic vision. The trouble is, and I'm probably not alone here, the red/blue format isn't good for my eyes. I wear them for 10 seconds and my eyes are biased with that afterimage discoloration for 10 MINUTES or more. I think they should fully develop a system that converts movies into 3D, without the use of glasses to view it. Just turn each frame into a MagicEye image, where you have to "relax" your eyes to see "past" the image! Those people who never could see those things would just see STATIC. They deserve it. But seriously, has that technique, so far as anyone knows, ever been applied to animation?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-31-2006 06:13 PM                        quote: Steve Scott 3D could be the extra spice needed to make the inadequate/unoriginal stories Hollywood has resigned itself to creating seem just enticing enough to watch. For a couple of weeks, anyway. Then people would be griping that there are no good 3-D movies. The bottom line will always be, if a movie is GOOD, it doesn't matter what you watch it on. I can get enthralled by a GOOD movie watching it on our crappy 13" bedroom TV with the sound turned way down and the subtitles on so it doesn't disturb my sleeping wife.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-01-2006 11:05 PM                     Here is a link that the article cites. The article is titled "The Return of 3-D" I would encourage anyone interested to pick up a copy of the Popular Science June 2006 issue and read the article. It describes both processes in detail. [ 06-02-2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Joshua Waaland ]  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 06-02-2006 01:42 AM                        Check you link, Joshua... one too many "p"s in there!  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 06-02-2006 08:14 AM                     I don't think the MagicEye technique would work in motion. It takes the brain awhile to fight through the static and make sense of the image. I don't think it would work with 24 different pictures a second.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-02-2006 09:03 AM                     quote: Check you link, Joshua... one too many "p"s in there! Sorry. Fixed.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.