Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Of course "regenerated" 3D (from 2D photography) would be a trick...

... just like the trick exploiting the persistence of vision which allows us to view 24 images played back per second as animate in any movie. The challenge is not to reproduce the methodology of the universe, but to simulate that methodology's product well enough that the eyes/brain is fooled.

Just about every element of motion picture technology involves a trick or three. In response to them, we've developed a visual vocabulary which informs us, seemingly innately, of what seems "right". With the development of new technologies, this vocabulary evolves and sometimes that's a bumpy road.

Digital audio recordings can have much higher fidelity than analog tape technologies... but that's not the sound we recognize and associate with quality.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

They don't necessarily add to the story of course.

I disagree, 1,000%.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Adding to the "story" shouldn't be the litmus test of whether a technology is useful or not... adding to the experience is a good enough reason for something to be available.

The "experience" is the story.

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Doctorossi,

The "experience" is the story.

I think we're just differing on how we define "story".

I'd say that the "experience" is the *movie*, but not necessarily the "story". The "story" is something you could recite to a friend over lunch in a plot exposition, or read from a script. The story is itself not the experience if we define story in its literal terms.

An artform is defined as an experience most definitely... but the art of film isn't synonamous with "story"... the story is just one component of the art of film.... the same story could be told in a book or acted on the stage.

In that sense, the literal plot/story is not directly impacted by 3-D visuals, or color, or multichannel sound. However sometimes it certainly is... Dorothy's ruby slippers wouldn't work the same in black and white and that would affect story. There are scenes in some films where audio panning and surround use gives you location cues about characters or the action... that's story too. And there are cases in the film UP where depth-of-field is used to create a sensation of awe and really communicated just how far away something was which was part of story's information telling... that wouldn't be present in 2-D, and that's per the director's desire for you to tangibly sense that depth as part of the drama of the storyline.

My point is that color, multichannel sound, and 3-D don't *necessarily* impact the actual plot. They can of course if used that way by the artist, but they don't always.

They do always, however, impact our experince of the film. And since film *is* an experience, these things matter and are important... even if they don't affect the literal story-line 100% of the time for every movie.

I don't think we're really disagreeing, just using terms in slightly different ways.

How do you distinguish the two? If depth of the image is insignificant to storytelling, how is any other aspect of the image significant? This is, after all, a visual medium.

I agree with this. In the case of UP, I felt that there were scenes where the artists were using the depth-of-field communicated by the 3-D imagery to advance the story... because the distance of far-ground landscapes in those scenes was really part of the storytelling.

This is why I feel that *both* actual "story" as well as the overall "film experience" are valid reasons to warrant 3-D. The distinction between these two won't always be clear-cut and many people may look at the same scene differently. But since the experience of film *is* the film, it matters from that stand point plain and simple. If a director then chooses to go the extra mile and use a visual device as part of his/her story-telling mechanism, even better. Either way the tool of 3-D, just like color and multi-channel sound etc, is a benefit.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by merrick97

What are you smoking? The dvds looked fantastic. I put them in last night. The original non-anamorphic trilogy looks terrible, but the 2004 dvds look awesome.

I'm not smoking anything. Look at my post: I quoted Diesel saying something about a "terrible looking Jabba and the jerky jumping Han." There were a couple other complaints about the look of the re-done effects in the last few pages.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

In that sense, the literal plot/story is not directly impacted by 3-D visuals, or color, or multichannel sound. However sometimes it certainly is... Dorothy's ruby slippers wouldn't work the same in black and white and that would affect story.

In facts Dorothy's ruby slippers eliminated the gold/silver economic commentary in the original book. They didn't add anything to the story, but rather to the vibrant color experience.

[SpaceDog]

BTW I think it's hilarious that we're arguing for 2 pages about semantics when each of us thinks 3D is a good thing.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

I'm not smoking anything. Look at my post: I quoted Diesel saying something about a "terrible looking Jabba and the jerky jumping Han." There were a couple other complaints about the look of the re-done effects in the last few pages.

Some of the CGI looked out of place, but that didnt mean the films looked bad. They looked about as good as any current dvd and looked outstanding when considering. Yes, the Han stomping on Jabba's tale didn't work real well and Han shooting first still looked bad.

Your quote implied that the video quality on the dvds was lacking and that was simply not the case as they looked outstanding.

[al cos.]

I think it's more of an issue with the back and forth between 70s and 90s is more jarring and noticeable in HD.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

BTW I think it's hilarious that we're arguing for 2 pages about semantics when each of us thinks 3D is a good thing.

I'm not arguing; I'm disagreeing.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm not arguing; I'm disagreeing.

Again with the semantics . My point is that I think we all sort of have the same perspective and we're using different words to express it, and replying to one another as if there is an inherent difference where there is not

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

My point is that I think we all sort of have the same perspective and we're using different words to express it

Well, that's one opinion. Personally, I'd say we're just thinking along similar lines, but communicating our opinions with a subtle diversity.









BTW, what are these "semantics" you speak of?

[MerrickG]

Well I just saw Avatar and I have to say that it was pretty fantastic. The King of the World does it again.

I do wonder what kind of box office gross the film will bring in. I do believe its the type of film that could have a longer than normal box office run.

[Jeff Kleist]

All I know is that I'm going to be shoveling tomorrow instead of seeing avatar

*sigh* maybe sunday

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

All I know is that I'm going to be shoveling tomorrow instead of seeing avatar

*sigh* maybe sunday

Ah. Lawyer meeting Saturday eh?

[Jeff Kleist]

You see, outside of So California we have this thing called "weather". Demons throw moisture in various forms from the sky, in this case, frozen water in large amounts

[kjacobs03]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You see, outside of So California we have this thing called "weather". Demons throw moisture in various forms from the sky, in this case, frozen water in large amounts

That crazy stuff turned my ground white last night. Crazy world!

[mark antony]

Jeff do u know if the original run of Futurama was finished on film/digitally so it can be ported to BD?

M

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You see, outside of So California we have this thing called "weather". Demons throw moisture in various forms from the sky, in this case, frozen water in large amounts

Yeah, but with the nice weather, we end up with horrendous politicians...so you have to take the good with the bad

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, I don't consider SoCal weather "nice", too much sun. Seattle, now there's nice weather. Never hot, never cold, hardly ever sunny

Futurama was finished at 480p, DTV episodes aside, so it doesn't matter how it was done. Had it not been done digitally, it would have gone out to SD tape.

Don't forget, King of the HIll and Simpsons didn't go HD until last year

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Futurama was finished at 480p, DTV episodes aside, so it doesn't matter how it was done. Had it not been done digitally, it would have gone out to SD tape.

Don't forget, King of the HIll and Simpsons didn't go HD until last year

Thanks Jeff, talking of K of the Hill, I assume that we'll never see any more season sets of that?