| Author |
Message |
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:31 pm Post subject: Ebert steps up to the plate about 3D.. |
|
|
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110/page/1
Gotta love it, at least he states an opinion, and doesn't write an article that's PC for the masses.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw that last week... I meant to post it here and got busy with other stuff. I could have almost written that article - it's pretty much how I feel about the whole thing.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
+1 to that. 3D is just a distracting gimmick to squeeze more money out of theatergoers and theater owners. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | 3D is just a distracting gimmick to squeeze more money out of theatergoers and theater owners. |
... And give people a reason to keep coming back to the theater to stand in line, put up with obnoxious moviegoers, crummy sound, and pay ridiculous prices for sugar water and popcorn... Instead of just staying home to avoid all that.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather scratch my nuts in my HT than have 3D in it.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | I'd rather scratch my nuts in my HT than have 3D in it. |
So nothing would change for you then?
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | I'd rather scratch my nuts in my HT than have 3D in it. |
So nothing would change for you then? |
Still enjoying the wonderful relief that scratching provides. 
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | dturco wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | I'd rather scratch my nuts in my HT than have 3D in it. |
So nothing would change for you then? |
Still enjoying the wonderful relief that scratching provides. |
Heard that.
But the article was a good read and maybe the fact that someone like Ebert has an opinion like this will resonate with more of the general movie going public.
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying 
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucaf
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: Ebert steps up to the plate about 3D.. |
|
|
| Curt Palme wrote: | http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110/page/1
Gotta love it, at least he states an opinion, and doesn't write an article that's PC for the masses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | +1 to that. 3D is just a distracting gimmick to squeeze more money out of theatergoers and theater owners. |
Well, widescreen was originally just a gimmick to get people to go to the theater (since they could not get that at home). After widescreen, surround sound was the next gimmick (which I'm sure was seen as distracting to some).
What we are seeing now is 2nd gen 3D technology. It is still not all the way there. I'm not going to write off tech when in its infancy. Although I've not completely warmed up to 3D, I don't think it is the technology itself that is usually the issue. It is the director, et al that use it in gimmicky ways (filming scenes especially for "popping out" things, etc).
I believe the use of 3D will mature. Avatar was a good example. He used the plane of the screen as your "window". The depth of field was almost exclusively into the screen. Nothing "popped out" and only a couple things actually stuck out from the plane of the screen. So, the screen did become much more of a "window".
Once directors drop the "gimmick" aspect, I think 3D will become more sophisticated. The one significant challenge is focal point. in 2D we are used to focusing on what they want us to--what the camera is focused on. In 3D, since I'm looking more at a "world", I want to be able to focus on what I want to. I often find myself trying to focus on things that the director did not make the focal point of the scene--this of course causes a bit of a disruption.
In the end, this "gimmick" will become refined in both its tech and its use and chances are it will be seen eventually as an enhancement just as worthy as widescreen and surround sound.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akajester
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 934
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | In the end, this "gimmick" will become refined in both its tech and its use and chances are it will be seen eventually as an enhancement just as worthy as widescreen and surround sound. |
Only time will tell, but in the end my opinion is that it's crap only worthy of kids movies and a few "made for 3D" movies like Avatar. It's another way to pull more money from your wallet either to buy stuff or get you into the theaters. Buy a new TV, player and receiver, that's what it's all about. Once you get 3D in the home ticket sales will go down and it won't be "cool" so the tech won't be worth more money investment by the corporations. I believe we'll look back and say, "remember when we were buying "3D" tv's and players and how stupid that was? It's not even real 3D!"
Again my opinion. Maybe I'm just getting old and jaded when it comes to tech stuff. 
Dale
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | The one significant challenge is focal point. in 2D we are used to focusing on what they want us to--what the camera is focused on. In 3D, since I'm looking more at a "world", I want to be able to focus on what I want to. I often find myself trying to focus on things that the director did not make the focal point of the scene--this of course causes a bit of a disruption. |
This is the biggest problem to me. It really isn't 3D - not like a holograph would be. It's stereoscopic. It's a simulation of 3D. That "disruption" you're talking about is exactly what I don't like... Stereoscopic images create this 3D wind you can look into, but you can't "look around" like you can if you look out a window because of the lack of depth-of-field. This why, in my opinion, that 3D won't take over as the norm like widescreen did over taller aspects, or color over black-and-white.
<creative soapbox>
The other thing is, what does 3D it add to the storytelling experience? I mean, what does it REALLY add? Widescreen added field-of-view that better matches our own eyes... It added horizontal dimension - spaciousness. Color added emotion and realism... An angry person's face can turn red... That beautiful woman's eyes are green and her hair is red... The forest fire is red, orange and yellow... The blue lagoon is blue... The sunsets over the grand canyon looks like a sunset. What does 3D really add? Simulated depth. I don't get any more real sense of spaciousness or depth with 3D than I do with 2D. All I get is... "Cool, I can see where that guy is behind that monitor because I can see a little more of his face with this one eye..." Yeah, and with 2D I can see he's behind the monitor because his face is obscured by the monitor.
Sorry, but I think it's a gimmick... Just like feature films on IMAX is a gimmick. My opinion.
</creative soapbox>
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
The other thing is, what does 3D it add to the storytelling experience? I mean, what does it REALLY add? Widescreen added field-of-view that better matches our own eyes... It added horizontal dimension - spaciousness. Color added emotion and realism... An angry person's face can turn red... That beautiful woman's eyes are green and her hair is red... The forest fire is red, orange and yellow... The blue lagoon is blue... The sunsets over the grand canyon looks like a sunset. What does 3D really add? Simulated depth. I don't get any more real sense of spaciousness or depth with 3D than I do with 2D. All I get is... "Cool, I can see where that guy is behind that monitor because I can see a little more of his face with this one eye..." Yeah, and with 2D I can see he's behind the monitor because his face is obscured by the monitor. |
I think you are splitting hairs here. Hard to define the "storytelling experience" in a meaniful way that supports some "advancements" and not others. The obvious answer is that 3D adds realism--just like color did. I don't see the world in black and white and I sure as hell don't see the world as an image on a 2D surface.
I'd say the "storytelling experience" of many a book is pretty darn good--and none of them have any of these aspects!
Since I have not (and still really are not) a fan of 3D I used Avatar as an experiment since it is the best 3D example I've seen (the least gimmicky). So, I did this:
1) Watched it in a VERY good theater in 3D.
2) Watched it in the same VERY good theater in 2D.
3) Repeat step 1--this time "playing along" and only focusing on what he wanted me to focus on.
When I "played along" the experience was not bad at all. There are a couple scenes I still thought didn't "look right" (for instance, I like the waking from cold sleep in 2D better than 3D) but other scenes were really quite well executed in 3D. Overall I don't have a strong preference for one version of it over the other (although I have friends that joined me in this experiment that strongly favor the 3D) so I'm not really willing to say "3D is CRAP!"
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow you watched Avatar in theaters three or more times?!
Or did you mean in home theaters?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | Wow you watched Avatar in theaters three or more times?!
Or did you mean in home theaters? |
I don't have the ability to do 3D in my theater. So yes, I watched it 3 times in my local theater which has the Sony 4K projectors. First time was mostly just to see it. Second two were to assess my reaction to the 3D since it seemed to have the most well done 3D to date IMO.
I've watched it once in my home theater to evaluate that against my local good theater.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | The one significant challenge is focal point. in 2D we are used to focusing on what they want us to--what the camera is focused on. In 3D, since I'm looking more at a "world", I want to be able to focus on what I want to. I often find myself trying to focus on things that the director did not make the focal point of the scene--this of course causes a bit of a disruption. |
I wrote about this earlier but that's one of the big challenges that I think the DP's will face: They'll have to end up shooting stuff with their lenses really closed down (high f-stop) to increase the depth of field so that everything is in focus -OR- people (the audience) have to train themselves to not keep trying to look around. They have to 'follow the ride' of what the director/DP intended and keep their eyes glued to more or less the center of the screen.
I noticed this in Avatar 3D myself: I wanted to "look around" but in some scenes you could not because the depth of field (DOF) was limited. The result was somewhat jarring - your eyes try to focus there but it just doesn't work. In the end I found that you can't really spend your time trying to swim around the scene in the new 3D movies: You have to instead keep your eyes fixed on the center of the screen and let the director/DP take you for the ride they intended.
It's an interesting issue none the less.
Personally I think 3D is still somewhat gimmicky. It's come a long way but I think there are still a lot of obstacles to overcome. This DOF issue is quite a big one I think too. Normally the director and DP try to tell you what to focus on by the lens and f-stop choice they use. That somewhat goes away (or becomes jarring) if they try and keep doing that in 3D as 3D mostly only works if the DOF is very deep so that people can 'look around'. Like Dave mentions above, it just doesn't work in 3D.
Take a scene where the DOF is fairl narrow and the shot is one someone's head talking. The phone in front of them rings and the focus shifts to the phone instead of their face. Their face is now blurry. You see shots like that all the time in movies but that wouldn't work in 3D. You'd probably make people want to throw up!
We'll have to see what happens. It's an interesting issue. Directors and DP's (and possibly the audience!) have to completely re-train themselves if they want to get the most out of 3D.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I also think 3D is pretty gimmicky and doesn't necessarily add to the movie viewing experience.
But, I have to work around the limitation of already wearing glasses, too. And my frames are rather large since I really like the wide
field of view they give me, almost frameless. This means that it's hard for me to even be able to use 3D glasses as they aren't made
to fit over glasses that are bigger than they are.
Also, the only 3D glasses I've worn for more than a few seconds are the ones handed out in the theater, and they are atrocious pieces
of trash with incredible problems with undamped reflections. Did the manufacturer even KNOW about this thing called an "anti-reflective coating" which has been standard on camera optics for over 50 years now?
So, I've never been able to even get the best out of 3D as it is right now. Having seen a movie in the theater in both 2D and 3D presentations, I'd have to say that, given the limitations of the 3D glasses as a viewing requirement, I do prefer the 2D showings,
especially if the 2D theater is a good one.
I think that 3D will improve. Maybe not in the next five years, but there will come a day when 3D is really excellent and achieves its
objectives in a realistic yet unobtrusive manner, and that will be dependent on the display technology being 3D to the naked eye without
the need for polarized or shutter glasses or any form of external optical aid.
Still, I do want 3D capability in my home theater. My PJ will need a lot of performance mods to be fully ready for it, and I want it to
be that good.
My guess is that as codecs advance and processing power gets even cheaper with time, in the future, even higher resolution formats
than 1080p will be first informally and later formally added to the ATSC standard. Will there ever be a 2160p? Given enough time,
maybe...and I can almost predict when there'll be a 2160i format. Mark my words, it'll happen....eventually. I think that the push past 1080p will start within three years and the first higher formats will become formalized within five.
CJ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
