The 3D Experiences you had! - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

48fps, when done natively, looks AMAZING. What those HDTVs are purporting to do are pretty much a snake oil sale, and they do the "averaging more frames between the real frames" business that look just absolutely shitty. That's what people mean when they harp about 48fps not looking right--you're basing it on something that's being played at a frame rate it's not meant to be. The Hobbit, shot and projected at 48fps, won't give any real noticeable difference in movement, other than the 3D is going to look much smoother and brighter.

Sadly no, they're not talking about all the motion smoothing bullshit that TV's do. I hate that too. They are actually talking about higher framerate video. About how it feels less "cinematic." 

The very first 3D experience I had, years before Avatar Day, the one that first opened my eyes to the possibility of true 3D, was a showing of TOM CRUISE'S SPACE STATION 3D at the Smithsonian in 2002, the day after the film premiered. I was visiting family and doing a tour of the capitol, only to stumble in to SPACE STATION 3D the night after Tom Cruise had been there to open the film

It was a good film, but more importantly it gave me a chance to experience first hand the astounding advances in 3D imagery being pioneered for film. Debris whipping past my head as a shuttle took off, and then clinging to the camera lens was an awe inspiring sight in itself, but the space station crew member who gently floated an M&M out towards the camera is what took the cake. As I breathlessly told anyone who'd listen upon my return home, it was as if a 30 foot high astronaut had floated a real M&M right at my head

I knew then that what I'd seen was the future

My first actual 3D experience was when they ran Gorilla at Large in syndication and you had to pick up 3D glasses from 7-Eleven or the newspaper or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

My first actual 3D experience was when they ran Gorilla at Large in syndication and you had to pick up 3D glasses from 7-Eleven or the newspaper or something.

Holy Shit! I remember that!

If I remember correctly, there were only around 1 or 2 3D shots during the entire 2 hour movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

That's GOOD NEWS.  It's exactly what I wanted to hear.  

 

Where were you guys every time I asked whether or not 48fps would feel different or not!?!?!  Hahahah

It's like noticing the weird movement while watching a BBC show here in America--if you watch the same show on a TV built for PAL standards instead of NTSC, it looks fine. But NTSC, the American standard, uses a different framerate than the European PAL. So when the shows cross the pond, you get the funky motion trails and "video" look. Running the medium in which you're viewing something at the correct framerate that the media will always result in a natural movement; extrapolating new frames in between existing ones (which is what those overscan HDTVs try to shill) is what results in the crappy, blurry image everyone complains about.

As someone who used to be all about importing DVDs, I've experienced the first-world-frustrations of PAL-to-NTSC conversion!  Hahahaha

I'd been reading about certain people (Cameron, Jackson, Ebert) championing higher frame-rates for production and presentation for years.  But every time I read about them, I always wondered if something would feel different.  I was aware of the perceived resolution of the image improving (less motion blur).  That made me wonder if that stuttering-blur (something I admit FEELS like cinema to me out of pure habit) would be gone.  In lieu of actually watching a film natively shot in 48 fps, I actually dreaded what that would mean for movies in the future.

I have talked to a guy from the visual fx industry and brought up the 48 fps issue.  He expressed doubts about it as well, but he was someone who just loved the 'cinema of 24 fps.'  Of course, the guy admitted to a certain bias.  48 fps meant a LOT more workload for vfx artists and animators.  Hahahahahah

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I have talked to a guy from the visual fx industry and brought up the 48 fps issue.  He expressed doubts about it as well, but he was someone who just loved the 'cinema of 24 fps.'  Of course, the guy admitted to a certain bias.  48 fps meant a LOT more workload for vfx artists and animators.  Hahahahahah

See, Greg? This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about.

So the new Underworld movie is in 3D?  And there's a following shot of Kate Beckinsale's ass as she crawls along a vent?

I could give two shits about the Underworld franchise but that's an impressive ass.

Sold.

EDIT.  Thanks to the CHUDverts for bringing this to my attention

EDIT EDIT.  And by CHUDverts I don;t mean perverts on CHUD, I mean advertisements on CHUD. (Although I am more and more impressed with the Salma Hayeks booooooobs thread)

Going from previous Underworlds, that shot will be about 3 seconds long and the rest of the time she'll either be framed from the waist up or the lighting will be so dark and blue that you won't be able to see much of anything, let alone her ass.

Felix, go see Hugo.

But that won't be because it's in "3D", will it?

Yeah I wont be seeing anymore 3D unless it's 48 or 60fps.  At 24fps 3D, the stuttering is really noticeable and irritating to me.  Everyone will definitely be embracing 3D once they see it used properly with the higher frame rates.

24fps 3D doesn't have to stutter. If you can find a theatre that employs twin projectors instead of alternating-field, the difference is huge.

I saw this in about 1986...

...it didn't deliver on any level.

If you saw Starchaser in 3D, the year was 1983 and the presentation was in the dreaded over/under format.

I think it's a fun enough movie, made far enough outside the mainstream industry for the (PG) sex & violence to rise a bit above average. And the computer-modeling of the spaceships was a significant innovation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

24fps 3D doesn't have to stutter. If you can find a theatre that employs twin projectors instead of alternating-field, the difference is huge.

Hypothetical or are there actual theaters that employ this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Hypothetical or are there actual theaters that employ this?

In my immediate neighborhood there are at least two, and I go there when I can.

Last I heard about Star Wars is that we will be getting an Episode 2, its just that Lucas was possibly finding a new company to do the work.  I'll catch Jurassic Park for sure.  I was happy with the conversion of Titanic so I hope that love and attention is used on Dinosaurs running wild.