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

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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.

"real" means a genuine 2-channel stereo native image. This could be live-shot with cameras or computer generated like with animation. But both examples are completely different than a mono-channel image that's then "processed" to simulate dual-channel video stereo.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by maxwell everett

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.

?

Rah

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

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

It's certainly easier/cheaper to get it more "right", more often, within the current production ecosystem.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

"real" means a genuine 2-channel stereo native image. This could be live-shot with cameras or computer generated like with animation. But both examples are completely different than a mono-channel image that's then "processed" to simulate dual-channel video stereo.

As I've said, I understand the shorthand that the terminology is going for; I just find the "battle lines" attitude to be unhelpful and counter-productive. 'This is real and that is fake' is an arbitrary, artificial, disingenuous and pretty pointless way to segregate subjective aesthetic experiences. There's a big tool box and a lot of artists who use all those tools in myriad ways and we all process and interpret the results differently.

You could compile a list of movies using only practically-sourced music and call those "real" and another list of movies using off-screen music and call those "fake"... but what would be the point?

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

As I've said, I understand the shorthand that the terminology is going for; I just find the "battle lines" attitude to be unhelpful and counter-productive. 'This is real and that is fake' is an arbitrary, artificial, disingenuous and pretty pointless way to segregate subjective aesthetic experiences. There's a big tool box and a lot of artists who use all those tools in myriad ways and we all process and interpret the results differently.

You could compile a list of movies using only practically-sourced music and call those "real" and another list of movies using off-screen music and call those "fake"... but what would be the point?

Would native and converted be better terminology for you?

To me, it's a lot like the early days of CD when every disk had a three digit code for how it was recorded. DDD was all digital, AAD was analog recording and mixing with digital output, etc.

For some people, it makes a difference whether it was shot native, or gimmicked in post production, just like some people hate autotune with music and others don't care.

If I were a proponent of 3D (and I'm not), I'd want everyone to know what films were shot native (or mostly native) and which were converted. That way, when a converted movie is awful (like Clash of the Titans) the blame goes on the process and not the 3D concept itself.

[kpkelley]

Jeff,

With Miramax finalizing a digital distribution deal with Netflix for 5 years and 100 million dollars, could we finally see them release some of their back catalog on Blu-ray?

[SpaceDog]

I don't see a particular problem with the shorthand. I myself tend to use NATIVE and CONVERT. I understand why there is a perjorative though, as I've not been convinced that any convert is worth the extra cash - and honestly I think I'd have a better time enjoying it in 2D.
I certainly won't mind being proven wrong - but without a review to the contrary, the next time I'm liable to try a convert myself is for Phantom Menace.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Would native and converted be better terminology for you?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Objectivity

That way, when a converted movie is awful (like Clash of the Titans) the blame goes on the process and not the 3D concept itself.

Part of my issue with the antagonistic "real vs. fake" approach is that it's not even necessarily a problem of the process, either, but of the application of the process. Subjectively "better" and "worse" results can be (and are) achieved with either method and with any combination of the two.

[ole geezer]

My wife and I saw Thor last night and we thought the 3D imagery was absolutely astounding. I'm a lurker on these forums and not very versed on the technical side of these things as some of you. But, I think it's rather silly to label 3D as fake or real, native or converted when you've seen something as delightful as Thor in all its' 3D splendor. What's more important to the audience is did 3D bring something extra to the table to justify the added cost and in our opinion it did. We both feel that those that saw this in 2D ....quite frankly, blew it!

This was my wife's first 3D movie and she raved about the experience and we already made plans to go see the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie just because it's in 3D. Oh...and we could care less about what 3D process they used.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

...To me, it's a lot like the early days of CD when every disk had a three digit code for how it was recorded. DDD was all digital, AAD was analog recording and mixing with digital output, etc...

No, DDDD is all digital. Wendy Carlos produced one album this way.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

My wife and I saw Thor last night and we thought the 3D imagery was absolutely astounding. I'm a lurker on these forums and not very versed on the technical side of these things as some of you. But, I think it's rather silly to label 3D as fake or real, native or converted when you've seen something as delightful as Thor in all its' 3D splendor. What's more important to the audience is did 3D bring something extra to the table to justify the added cost and in our opinion it did. We both feel that those that saw this in 2D ....quite frankly, blew it!

This was my wife's first 3D movie and she raved about the experience and we already made plans to go see the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie just because it's in 3D. Oh...and we could care less about what 3D process they used.

I suspect you'll find POTC:OST a bit more spectacular. Will be interested to hear what you end up thinking.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Wendy Carlos

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I suspect you'll find POTC:OST a bit more spectacular. Will be interested to hear what you end up thinking.

Spectacular OR a bit more spectacular, how can we lose.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Spectacular OR a bit more spectacular, how can we lose.

True enough. Apart from being natively shot - the series is not known for subtlety. They definitely fall squarely within the definition of "Hollywood Spectacle".

[Jeff Kleist]

With Miramax finalizing a digital distribution deal with Netflix for 5 years and 100 million dollars, could we finally see them release some of their back catalog on Blu-ray?

Well, Echo Bridge has already released such fine product, it hasn't kept you satisfied?

Lionsgate has all the "good" stuff, and they have lots of it coming. They're not going to spam the market though. Pulp Fiction, English Patient, Shakespeare in Love and a bunch of others are on the way in the next 12 months.

[Steedeel]

Jeff, could you clear something up for me if you know please?

Will all future bluray players with Ultraviolet integrated into them still allow you to play blurays and dvds that are not ultraviolet branded. In other words could a future Ultraviolet bluray player block your none registered (old collection) of blurays therefore forcing you into registering or making a collection obsolete?

Also i read somewhere Ultraviolet may not offer HD. Have you heard that?

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Will all future bluray players with Ultraviolet integrated into them still allow you to play blurays and dvds that are not ultraviolet branded. In other words could a future Ultraviolet bluray player block your none registered (old collection) of blurays therefore forcing you into registering or making a collection obsolete?

I cannot fathom a hardware manufacturer selling such a creature. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. That would be epic fail on the level of Divx.

[Jeff Kleist]

Will all future bluray players with Ultraviolet integrated into them still allow you to play blurays and dvds that are not ultraviolet branded. In other words could a future Ultraviolet bluray player block your none registered (old collection) of blurays therefore forcing you into registering or making a collection obsolete?

Also i read somewhere Ultraviolet may not offer HD. Have you heard that?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what UltraViolet is all about.

UltraViolet is strictly for digital copy type situations. The idea is that instead of a seperate disc, that the player can create a DRM'd copy either by sucking it off the Blu-ray itself (like the iTunes system works now,where it embeds your personal ID into it, but the DC is still on the DVD), or actually encoding you a version direct from the source material (SD copy free, 720p copy $5, 1080p, $7.50, prices are made up)

The entire concept is to make your collection portable while hopefully keeping you from distributing it. One of the biggest benefits has actually been proven by Netflix. The piracy rate on catalog films has plummeted because of Netflix streaming, and they're hoping that the more of your catalog you can easily reach with a few clicks, the less inclined you'll be to participate in torrents of them (yes, we all know that creating your own copy is easier, but that's not how a lot of people think)

Ultraviolet will offer whatever the property's owner is willing to provide.

Seriously, you're really worried about nothing. UV is no more insidious than today's digital copies are, and it's way better, because it's a universal system. 1 DRM for the world.

[Steedeel]

Jeff, so why do i keep reading and hearing that Ultraviolet is going to kill off bluray and dvd? I fear for a future where there is no HD source (especially Bluray) So, could this UV offer an exact copy of a bluray's picture quality in the future? See, i don't have any need for portable devices and the likes. I have a dedicated home cinema with a Plasma 50 inch screen and have already seen how poor streaming looks like on it.

I do respect your views and you obviously have greater knowledge than me but hearing that bluray will be phased out if this UV is a success just makes me paranoid and quite frankly i would be devastated if i couldn't enjoy bluray anymore. I have been watching films since the age of 5 and it is a huge passion of mine. to go back to pixelation and picture break up would be a backward step no matter what the convenience!

[Jeff Kleist]

Jeff, so why do i keep reading and hearing that Ultraviolet is going to kill off bluray and dvd? I fear for a future where there is no HD source (especially Bluray) So, could this UV offer an exact copy of a bluray's picture quality in the future? See, i don't have any need for portable devices and the likes. I have a dedicated home cinema with a Plasma 50 inch screen and have already seen how poor streaming looks like on it.

For the same reason you've been reading about how digital downloads and streaming are the future in general. It's a buzzy topic that generates traffic, typically done by people that can't be bothered to do a lot of research, or pundits with a client list to satisfy.

Managed copy has been part of the Blu-ray spec since the beginning (in fact I worked on one of the first, if not the first Blu-rays to actually support the feature). While there are prototypes that have been shown that support it (most notably from Pioneer), there hasn't been a standard DRM scheme for that, as everyone was waiting on Apple hoping they'd come around.

Ultraviolet should be fully capable of creating a legitimate direct Blu-ray rip wrapped in their DRM.. It's entirely dependent on your hardware, and what the content provider is willing to let you do. While the early rollout may not be full featured, you can relax that the underlying system doesn't carry the limits you're worried about.

Here's a good summary of the tech end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraViolet_%28system%29