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

[Jeff Kleist]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the other half of its success

[MerrickG]

Im curious did you play American McGee's Alice back in the day and do you plan to play the sequel?

American McGee's ALice is what Tim Burton's Alice in WOnderland SHOULD have been.

[Jeff Kleist]

no

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

no

Play it!

[The Duke]

My first time asking a question here, please be gentle.

Ken Brown's review of American Graffiti today and the screencaps make it look pretty disappointing, with edge enhancement and what looks to me to be DNR smearing. The information from Bill was that this was going to be a new digital master and transfer supervised by Lucas, is that still your information? I was thinking that perhaps with the new majority stake by Comcast perhaps that was axed for financial reasons? I realize the filmstock used isn't that best quality, but that sure doesn't look like a new master was the source material from the screencaps.

[Jeff Kleist]

While I'd have to ask Bill, Without any particular informationI'd say it's most likely that someone confused the fact that it was approved by Lucas (true), and it was done recently for the last DVD reissue

I really don't know anything about the movie, cars are not my thing. Maybe Lucas could make it better with some lightsabers and CG work?

[The Duke]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

While I'd have to ask Bill, Without any particular informationI'd say it's most likely that someone confused the fact that it was approved by Lucas (true), and it was done recently for the last DVD reissue

I really don't know anything about the movie, cars are not my thing. Maybe Lucas could make it better with some lightsabers and CG work?

Well, cars are actually not my thing either, as in I would never watch Days Of Thunder again, but I really don't consider American Graffiti as a 'car' movie, but as a 60s era period piece. So I'd really appreciate if you would check for clarification. Thanks.

EDIT: It's in his 5/3 My Two cents -

Now then... Universal has released more details on their American Graffiti: Special Edition Blu-ray and DVD, due on 5/31 (SRP $26.98 and $19.98). Featuring a new digital master supervised by director George Lucas, the disc will include a new Director Video Commentary along with audio commentary as well.

[al cos.]

So is the next Galactica spinoff going to present any cool cross-promotion opportunities for the original show? (like a blu-ray of the '78 movie, the one that played with sensurround. It was always turning up on the previous formats) Or is this the complete opposite situation, where they want to distance themselves as much as possible from it?

[MerrickG]

Hey Jeff,

DO you know if PotC:On Stranger Tides was shot natively in 3D or was it converted in post production?

btw, is there a database or website that shows which films are natively shot?

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

DO you know if PotC:On Stranger Tides was shot natively in 3D or was it converted in post production?

btw, is there a database or website that shows which films are natively shot?

It was shot with 3D digital camera rigs.
I don't know about databases, but if IMDB's tech specs say it was shot on 35mm film, like Thor, its definitely converted.

[Jeff Kleist]

So is the next Galactica spinoff going to present any cool cross-promotion opportunities for the original show? (like a blu-ray of the '78 movie, the one that played with sensurround. It was always turning up on the previous formats) Or is this the complete opposite situation, where they want to distance themselves as much as possible from it

There is an internal war, which the Comcast purchase may or may not have changed the game on. Certain individuals think that they, and their network own the franchise. The best chance for any sort of "Galactica Remastered" project would be if they stopped trying to block the Larson/DeSanto movie, and accepted the fact that this is not their franchise. While I'm sure it'll come out eventually, it's not on Universal's radar at the moment. The DVDs did very well for them.Buck Rogers I'd say about a zero chance of Blu before anyone asks. That did NOT do well for them.

EDIT: It's in his 5/3 My Two cents

Yes I know. That can still be a rep confusing specs on their paper, which is why we're going to get it clarified.

It was shot with 3D digital camera rigs.
I don't know about databases, but if IMDB's tech specs say it was shot on 35mm film, like Thor, its definitely converted.

As far as I know it's converted, the trailers certainly often look convertered. It could be that they shot location traditional and sets with real 3D as well.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There is an internal war, which the Comcast purchase may or may not have changed the game on. Certain individuals think that they, and their network own the franchise. The best chance for any sort of "Galactica Remastered" project would be if they stopped trying to block the Larson/DeSanto movie, and accepted the fact that this is not their franchise. While I'm sure it'll come out eventually, it's not on Universal's radar at the moment. The DVDs did very well for them.Buck Rogers I'd say about a zero chance of Blu before anyone asks. That did NOT do well for them.



Yes I know. That can still be a rep confusing specs on their paper, which is why we're going to get it clarified.



As far as I know it's converted, the trailers certainly often look convertered. It could be that they shot location traditional and sets with real 3D as well.

The reason I ask is because from here on out I am only going to see 3D films that were shot natively in 3D. I watched Thor in 3D mistakenly thinking it was shot in 3D and didn't enjoy it too much, eventhough the film was badass.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by merrick97

is there a database or website that shows which films are natively shot?

According to this site: Is it Real 3D or Fake 3D? "Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" is Real 3D and "Thor" is Fake 3D.

Originally Posted by 42041

It was shot with 3D digital camera rigs.
I don't know about databases, but if IMDB's tech specs say it was shot on 35mm film, like Thor, its definitely converted.

Can you please explain "if it's shot on 35mm, like Thor, its definitely converted".

Thanks.

Paul

[Jeff Kleist]

Yeah, that's definately not accurate. While shooting 3D digital is far easier, due to the ability to check it on the spot, 3D absolutely can be shot on film rigs, and was for decades before the current boom

[Doctorossi]

I don't find much use or benefit in that "real" and "fake" terminology.

[Jeff Kleist]

Real= Shot in 3D
Fake= Computer processed into something approximating 3D

While certainly even "real" 3D is often at least partially converted, or CG heavy films like Green Lantern or Alice in Wonderland more real than fake simply because so much is artificial.

Personally I don't think it's worth $5 if it's not real. I'm hoping that as filming techniques improve that the software solutions will become more of a tool to enhance or smooth the bumps than a catch-all cash cow

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Real= Shot in 3D
Fake= Computer processed into something approximating 3D

I understand the intent of the terminology. I just find it to be a bit of a simplification and obfuscation of the information it's really important for consumers to know about 3D movies. And I think it approaches the situation with an unhelpful attitude. 3D effects can be accomplished to greater or lesser success in many different ways, none of them any more "real" than any other. It's all an illusion, as is animation, whether that animation be accomplished by pointing a motion picture camera at a series of drawings of Mickey Mouse or at Tom Cruise.

[Maxwell Everett]

Of course, in my way of thinking, none of these techniques are actually what I would consider 3D. They are stereoscopic, either way, real or fake. Each eye is getting a 2-dimensional image from a single, director-chosen vantage point, reflected off or emitted from a 2-dimensional screen.

Multi-channel surround sound can be considered 3D because it actually envelops you from all sides. Only through holography could the picture truly be considered 3D for the audience.

Until then, we're still watching these movies the old 50s way. They're just full color now.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Yeah, that's definately not accurate. While shooting 3D digital is far easier, due to the ability to check it on the spot, 3D absolutely can be shot on film rigs, and was for decades before the current boom

I'm referring to new feature films. As far as I know, not a single "real" 3D movie has been shot on 35mm recently and that seems unlikely to change for the reasons you stated.

Here's an article about Pirates 4:
http://www.hdvideopro.com/display/fe...-the-wind.html

[Jeff Kleist]

A bunch of those movies were shot on film at least partially. You can't have a destructible camera that's 3D video, at least not yet and not blow your budget. There's still a lot of film usage, it's just not primary acquisition format

Well, there you go on the question of Pirates. It's real 3D, and bravo to Bruck for insisting on doing it straight up.

Doc, at the very least we can all agree that 3d acquired material is consistently more successful illusion than the computer fakery.

Best 3D I've seen all year is still Drive Angry, too bad the movie is so painful