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

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by JamesN

I wouldn't mind seeing Jaws3D in 3D at home after 25 years.

But I'd much rather see Dial M for Murder,
or Kiss Me Kate
or House of Wax
or Inferno
or Miss Sadie Thompson
after 50 years.

...or John Wayne's Hondo, restored and converted to the digital domain back in 2007.

[Jeff Kleist]

Anyone who's watched Married with Children knows that Hondo only appears once a decade

[JasonR]

Please, keep in mind insider threads are meant for insider questions. Chatting and especially bickering are not welcome in this part of the forum. There are plenty of other threads for that.

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

i have pics and a bit of reporting dont know where to send

[Anthony P]

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.

the old method was called anaglyph, it took the two images and colour shifted one to red and one to blue (on most of them) and then combined them into one image, then you wore the glasses with a red filter on one eye and a blue one on the other. Since the red shifted part of the image had no blue the blue filter eliminated and so it appeared as black and all you saw with that one eye was the blue image.


The issue with anaglyph is that colour is used to limit what each eye sees. If you have any movie (like Caroline, land of the lost....) where you have the 2D and 3D anaglyph you will see that in 3D the colours look week and extremely off, that is because you are lacking a big chunk of the colour range, it is also the reason that in Hulk they went with red-green since green was an important colour for that movie.


Now this is where ist gets more complicated, with the new 3D standard for BD, instead of just one image composed of both, you actually have the two on the disk. Now most of us are talking about new players and new TVs because the reason to go to two streams is that you can do what you want and we can get away from anaglyph. But as far as I know there is nothing that will stop a CE from making a player that takes the two images, colour shifts them and sends it out as one red/blue image which would work with the red/blue anaglyph glasses and your current TV. But people interested in this (i.e. new 3D aspect) are not interested in sticking with anaglyph (and none of us know what players will be released), and people who have a deep hatred for 3D are just interested in FUD.

The reality is that if you don't want to spend on equipment (let's face it you can't always be on the bleeding edge) and can wait for 3D you can buy the new 3D movie and watch it on your 2D player and 2DTV and wait until you upgrade. If you want to spend a bit then chances are that someone will make anaglyph3D player and you can buy that and it will work with your 2DTV. And if you are willing to spend more you can buy a new player which matches the 3D TV you buy.

Now how is it better? Have you seen a movie in 3D recently? Have you seen Avatar? If yes, then you can see Avatar in 3D the way it was shown in the theatres, with all the colours and richness and in 3D.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 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?

it depends. There is a nice feature on the Caroline BD, because it is stop motion and filmed in a much smaller scale, they created a special jig that moved the camera because the spacing needed to be so small that a dual camera could not be built. My point is that the difference should depend on what perspective you are shooting from.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The goal when designing the cameras is to replicate human vision.

I would say that the goal is to provide a usable range of interocular distances, inclusive of an approximation of human vision.

[Jeff Kleist]

Least now we know you're a doctor of optometry

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Least now we know you're a doctor of optometry

you guys posted on site to send in a report if one of us readers saw it i got pics and a report but dont know who to send to thanks

[Jeff Kleist]

sorry, pics of what?

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

sorry, pics of what?

the sony 3d set up in mgm vegas


"And in other news today, Sony and CBS have just opened their 3D consumer research center (a.k.a. the "The Sony 3D Experience") at the MGM Grand hotel in Las Vegas. There you'll be able to see and experience Blu-ray 3D, 3D gaming and 3D HD displays first hand, and provide feedback to the industry. You can read more here at Home Media. If any of you happen to check it out, be sure to let us know what you think. "

[Jeff Kleist]

send it to bill billhunt@thedigitalbits.com

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Least now we know you're a doctor of optometry

I spent my youth in an eyeball factory.

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

Any thoughts on the academy awards?

This year it seems like they did give out the awards to the most deserving people.

I half expected Avatar to walk away with everything. As much as I liked the film I never felt it was Picture of the year material, but rather a visual masterpiece and Im glad the Academy Awards seemed to recognize this.

The award that I was most pleased with was seeing Christopher Waltz take home the best supporting actor award. He was the best part of that film.

[Jeff Kleist]

Not really. Up should have won best picture. I'm just glad Avatar won as little as it did and people avoided the repeat mistake of Titanic.

I just wonder where the "best makeup" oscars were on the 10 real Trek films, given that they often featured far more numerous in quantity and elaborate work, often produced by the Westmore dynasty which should have at least gotten the respect of the voters.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Not really. Up should have won best picture. I'm just glad Avatar won as little as it did and people avoided the repeat mistake of Titanic.

I just wonder where the "best makeup" oscars were on the 10 real Trek films, given that they often featured far more numerous in quantity and elaborate work, often produced by the Westmore dynasty which should have at least gotten the respect of the voters.

Avatar got the awards I felt it should have gotten in that they acknowledged the film for its technical achievements.

I havent seen Hurt Locker yet, but perhaps I should now. Im mostly a fan of Kathryn Bigelow's work.

Up would have been deserving of Best Picture as would have Inglourious Basterds I thought.

Do you feel anyone got shafted?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Im mostly a fan of Kathryn Bigelow's work.

What I've seen of Kathryn Bigelow's previous work is the only reason I haven't seen The Hurt Locker yet.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What I've seen of Kathryn Bigelow's previous work is the only reason I haven't seen The Hurt Locker yet.

LOL...I haven't seen it either, but it's on my "must watch" list as soon as I find time.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What I've seen of Kathryn Bigelow's previous work is the only reason I haven't seen The Hurt Locker yet.

Point Break is too much of a classic for me!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Point Break is too much of a classic for me!

You're welcome to any copies of it that cross my path.