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

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Sorry I have to disagree... UP is just as entertaining without 3D.

I didn't say it isn't just as entertaining. I said that the story is different between the two formats, per the question that was asked.

Say what you want about 3D and its commercial role, in the case of Up, the meaning of the film is subtly different between the two formats. For different reasons, I would say that this is the case for Coraline, as well.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I didn't say it isn't just as entertaining. I said that the story is different between the two formats, per the question that was asked.

Say what you want about 3D and its commercial role, in the case of Up, the meaning of the film is subtly different between the two formats. For different reasons, I would say that this is the case for Coraline, as well.

The story is not any different. I don't recall feeling any different about UP upon the 3D and viewing it again in 2D on my 100" screen at home. I felt the same emotions with each viewing. If fact if I can say anything, I thought the world was much more colorful without the 3D glasses.

3D done right is nothing more than eye candy. Done badly it is nothing more than a gimmicky effect.

And based on Hollywood's track record I bet we are going to get a lot more crappy 3D films than good ones.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by CraigW

The story is not any different. I don't recall feeling any different about UP upon the 3D and viewing it again in 2D on my 100" screen at home. I felt the same emotions with each viewing.

The story is different and I think I explained this reasonably in my first post on the topic. I don't see the relevance of your awareness of having felt any differently.

Tell me, have you ever seen a pan & scan version of Lawrence of Arabia? Some people might watch that and not notice feeling any differently. However, it is narratively a different movie (albeit on a subtle level). Literally, there are characters in the theatrical film that you don't see in the pan & scan version.

Originally Posted by CraigW

3D done right is nothing more than eye candy. Done badly it is nothing more than a gimmicky effect.

Is color anything more than "eye candy"?

Meanwhile, I like to see a movie- any movie- that, in its entirety, is anything other than a "gimmicky effect".

[DaViD Boulet]

Sorry I have to disagree... UP is just as entertaining without 3D. Watch the Pixar story... to Pixar the STORY comes first.... you can use all the technical marvels you want when creating a film, but if the story isn't there it really doesn't matter in the end.

Sure.

And UP is just as entertaining in 480i panned and scanned on a 4x3 television with a mono TV speaker. What does this "story come first" principle have to do with criticizing audio-visual tools? Why can't you have both? Please go join a VHS forum if you don't care to support high-fidelity audio visual media.

This notion that 3D needs to justify itself by somehow undergirding the "story" in some essential, foundational way is misguided.

Do you suggest that every other aspect of making the art of film more immersive, such as high-resolution images, subtle color gradients, or multi-channel sound, need to somehow support the "story" in some essential way or else risk being considered unnecessary?

The STORY is simply a STORY. For that matter, the story would be just fine even without a movie at all... you probably tell stories to your kids without the aid of moving pictures.

Everything else about a movie other than the "story" is the art of audio visual media, and by definition is a subjective experience that may or may not at all times directly contribute to "the story" that's being told.

Having said that, anyone who watches UP with all of its outstanding use of depth and suggests that the sense of awe the audience feels when looking across the distance of the canyon to Paradise Falls isn't an important and integral part of the film's emotional language is either unable to see 3D or is simply not allowing themselves to experience the obvious.

Did color help with the narrative of UP? Did surround sound help with the narrative of UP? It's not necessarily a narrative tool, it's an immersion tool.

Exactly.

Why some folks think that 3D needs to play be a different set of film-language rules in order to be allowed into the fold of artistic tools afforded to our movie creators is a mystery.

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

What was better Borderlands or Fallout 3?

I would pick Fallout 3, but it would be a close race, but I do feel that there were a lot of things that Borderlands did better such as keeping a nice FPS dynamic. WHile in Fallout 3 shooting was rarely done outside the VATS.

[MerrickG]

Another question and Im sure this has been answered before, but I just want a quick answer.

But why is it actually necessary for their to be a 3D TV and 3D bluray player to enjoy 3D content.

I mean how is that going to be a whole lot better than providing a 3D disc that you can watch on a normal TV with 3D glasses on.

Im just not understanding what all comes with requiring a new TV and new bluray player.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Well, that's something to bring up with your theater. Personally I wish all the theaters would go for reuseable glasses, even though there are recycling bins, it's still a lot of wasted energy to recycle the plastic and send more glasses back in. Some kinds have sterilizeable glasses, but apparently the theaters don't like spending money to have someone spend time washing them.

Sterilizeable glasses were handed out and collected at all the 3D presentations I mentioned except Avatar and the film festival ... I agree they should sterilize and redistribute in house.

I guess I think the studios (or agents of the producers/directors) should approve important aspects of the presentation, including good, glare free glasses for 3D ( the norm) the way some studios used to send so called "Sound Checkers" to first run theaters to make sure that both the sound and the visual aspects were being done justice, and the way THX established standard sound levels, and the way certain filmmakers asked that the sound be turned up at a certain point of the film (e.g., with the 70 mm version of Paint your Wagon they mandated that the sound be turned up when the wagon rolls/crashes down the hill near the beginning, so the music would be adequately loud for the rest of the movie ... it was beautiful! The projectionists (two in the booth for 70mm!) we talked to said that the studio people had found that if they started the music off at the appropriate level, a few in the audience would complain that it was too loud ... but the plausible high SPL of the wagon presented an opportunity to sneak it up after some adaptation had occurred. This kind of positive simbiosis between studio and theater is what I desire.

Originally Posted by JamesN

Are you referring to the 3D Expo(s) at the Egyptian some years back? I was at every show of both festival.

I wish! No I'm refering to the Corvallis Film Festival (which used to be part of DaVinci Days, but is now not) ... they had one 3 D film there. Lenny Lipton's 3D films were shown around San Francisco, e.g., at the Art Institute.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Another question and Im sure this has been answered before, but I just want a quick answer.

But why is it actually necessary for their to be a 3D TV and 3D bluray player to enjoy 3D content.

I mean how is that going to be a whole lot better than providing a 3D disc that you can watch on a normal TV with 3D glasses on.

Im just not understanding what all comes with requiring a new TV and new bluray player.

I think you are thinking of the old anaglyph red/blue 3D. This is certainly possible with current technology and cardboard glasses. What we are talking about is recreating the new theatrical 3d presentations in the home. In theaters, there are far more frames per second than a traditional blu-ray presentation incorporates and the polarized lenses you get in theater help each eye discriminate between which fields they should be seeing. A similar advance would be needed to bring this "good" 3D (ala Avatar/UP) into homes as opposed to the antiquated 3D (Jaws3D, FXIII3D, SpyKids3D).

To those that are presenting a very verbose challenge to 3D in film and 3D in the home, I remind you, you need not buy into either. Flat offerings are now and will continue to be made available in theaters and in the home. If you don't like it, don't partake. If you only like it for event films, but not the next Scorsese pictures, see Avatar 2 in 3D, but Scorsese Flat.

You have that choice.

Arguing against choice is lame.

[Jeff Kleist]

I do wish they could have gotten Frank Welker to voice Megatron though.

Play one of the games where he does the voice and you won't. He sounds like "Megatron at 70 on 2 packs a day"

All I'll say on this 3D thing is that they developed a system that works, has FORWARD compatibility and versatility by the ability to encode 2 1080p streams, and the technical skills to sync glasses manually simply don't exist in 99% of the population, for whom judging by the average kinds of tach questions you see posted on the net, cracking a manual is a bridge to far. I firmly believe that the solution reached serves both existing and future Blu-ray consumers the best. A single disc works on all existing players, but contains extended features for 3D for the new. The studios don't have to load up on SKUs, you can watch the same disc in either mode, and a single encode is required. If you don't want 3D, you never have to watch it. Epic win.

Another question and Im sure this has been answered before, but I just want a quick answer.

But why is it actually necessary for their to be a 3D TV and 3D bluray player to enjoy 3D content.

I mean how is that going to be a whole lot better than providing a 3D disc that you can watch on a normal TV with 3D glasses on.

Im just not understanding what all comes with requiring a new TV and new bluray player.

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

[Slim Jim]

Jeff when is Fox going to release Burn Notice Season 1 on Blu?And Prison Break Season's 2&4 in the USA on Blu

[Jeff Kleist]

Couldn't say on Burn Notice.

Prison Break, potentially sooner than you think

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

,,,

All I'll say on this 3D thing is that they developed a system that works, has FORWARD compatibility and versatility by the ability to encode 2 1080p streams, and the technical skills to sync glasses manually simply don't exist in 99% of the population, for whom judging by the average kinds of tach questions you see posted on the net, cracking a manual is a bridge to far. I firmly believe that the solution reached serves both existing and future Blu-ray consumers the best. A single disc works on all existing players, but contains extended features for 3D for the new. The studios don't have to load up on SKUs, you can watch the same disc in either mode, and a single encode is required. If you don't want 3D, you never have to watch it. Epic win.



http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

The bottom line question:
Will the studios charge more for 3D releases? In other words, will 2D viewers pay a 3D "surcharge", or will the studios throw in the 3D for free? (My gut feeling is that Hollywood ain't giving us nothing for free.)

[Jeff Kleist]

The bottom line question:
Will the studios charge more for 3D releases? In other words, will 2D viewers pay a 3D "surcharge", or will the studios throw in the 3D for free? (My gut feeling is that Hollywood ain't giving us nothing for free.)

Couldn't say. I'd say they're going to look at it more as a killer double dipper than anything else at the moment. The philosophy behind 3D has been from the beginning, 3D/2D-one disc, and reducing SKUs is a very valuable thing to many studios

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Current 3D technology doesn't actually recreate what we see with our eyes. It is a neat feature. It will work great for CGI movies (Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, even Avatar), but will never look real for live action......

Totally real?, I couldn't tell you as the technology is still evolving.

Nevertheless, I think that many filmmakers would be content with another creative tool in their arsenal to make the movie look a little more ‘real’ than traditional 2D does, in order to ultimately enhance the experience for the audience.

In this case, it seems that one 3D goal will be to make the claustrophobic moments more claustrophobic than they would be just with traditional 2D……..
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/james-...new-3d-project

[Slim Jim]

Jeff any chance that the UFC will release The Best Of Pride on Blu?

[Jeff Kleist]

I have no idea when it comes to MMA stuff.

BTW, don't go see Alice in 2D if you want Tron. I got screwed, and seriously considered sneaking into the show starting in 3D and fishing some glasses outof the recycle bin, but was too tired. I will say people are going to complain hardcore about the Blu, the movie is INCREDIBLY soft

[garyrc]

In 3D -- originally shot in 3D -- are the two camera lenses spaced the same distance apart as the average pair of human eyes, or are they still spaced farther apart, the way they were for early 3D movies?

[Jeff Kleist]

Cameras are coming out now that have 2 lenses built in like human vision specifically for 3D, but the goal is to replicate human vision

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

the goal is to replicate human vision

That's one goal. Playing with the interocular distance can help create a lot of different psycho-visual effects and I don't think most 3D artists who've given it some thought are often interested in limiting their perspectives to that which is "typically human".

[Jeff Kleist]

The goal when designing the cameras is to replicate human vision. How people then create lenses and post production FX to screw with that is totally up to them