Board index › Topical Discussion › Television, Film, and Video

3D movies, just a novelty to sell tickets?

Page 3 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,281
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Jun 2012, 3:17 am

there is something about very high frame rates that seems to do something quasi-3D to the picture. an example of that is to see douglas trumbull's "showscan" process in action, at certain amusement parks such as the luxor in las vegas.



xmh
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 335

22 Jun 2012, 7:49 am

Most of the theme park and special venue (eg. [film based] IMAX showing IMAX only content) can have far more intense 3D effects since the show is far shorter (the audience would be ill if they were subjected to a longer show), they are also designed to show off the possibilities of 3D filming.

Quote:
about very high frame rates that seems to do something quasi-3D to the picture. an example of that is to see douglas trumbull's "showscan" process in action,


High frame rates are available with digital cinema, with the Hobbit being released in HFR. The main criticism of HFR is it does not have the "film look", instead looking more like TV sitcoms from the 1980s.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,281
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Jun 2012, 8:39 am

xmh wrote:
High frame rates are available with digital cinema, with the Hobbit being released in HFR. The main criticism of HFR is it does not have the "film look", instead looking more like TV sitcoms from the 1980s.

not exactly like 1980s sitcoms or soaps, due to the massive amount of pixels compared with those earlier NTSC productions. it is the massive detail combined with the massively higher temporal resolution which seems to fool many eyes into believing they are seeing depth. soaps and sitcoms never looked anything like showscan, it must be seen to be believed. i could see the peach fuzz on [some of the] actor's faces! there were scenes that looked just like live people and a live set were down there instead of a projection screen- mind you these scenes were shot to look like they were live.
click this link for more info on showscan!



xmh
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 335

23 Jun 2012, 5:49 am

The comment you quoted was referring to digital HFR, specifically The Hobbit, not special venue systems (such as Showscan).

Some reviews of HFR screenings of The Hobbit

Quote:
It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production. It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic. Here, there were incredibly sharp, realistic images where colors seem more vivid and brighter than on film, but the darker scenes were especially murky (and the 3D only dims that image even more). Frankly, it was jarring to see Gandalf, Bilbo or the dwarves in action against CG-created characters or even to move quickly down a rocky passage. The whipping of a camera pan or the blur of movement was unsettling.

Source

Quote:
The change from 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second is HUGE. It completely changes what every image looks like, the movements, the tone, everything is different.

It looked like a made for television BBC movie.

It looked like when you turn your LCD television to the 120 hertz up-conversion setting.

It looked uncompromisingly real — so much so that it looked fake.

More noticeable in the footage was the make-up, the sets, the costumes. Hobbiton and Middle Earth didn’t feel like a different universe, it felt like a special effect, a film set with actors in costumes. It looked like behind the scenes footage.

The movement of the actors looked… strange. Almost as if the performances had been partly sped up. But the dialogue matched the movement of the lips, so it wasn’t an effect of speed-ramping.

It didn’t look cinematic. Not at all, even with a top filmmaker like Peter Jackson at the helm.

Source



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,281
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 Jun 2012, 5:59 am

to each his or her own, but one shouldn't deny other less hifalutin' people the choice of seeing something the way they want to see it, no matter how unrefined it seems to one. modern high-frame-rate technologies are selectively scaleable so that those who want to see old-fashioned blur and murk and ugly judder [however arty] can choose the 24 frame option, while those of us who like more clarity and reality ("tsk tsk, how uncultured!" :roll: ) can see the full high-framerate version. this visual argument is akin to the aural one about high-fidelity audio, IOW those old-timers who complained about how the "new electrical 78 rpm records" sounded screechy compared to the mellow gentle sounds of their beloved acoustic 78 records [the tinny kind recorded by people shouting and blasting into a big recording horn], or when "screechy" high-fidelity LP records supplanted those "screechy" electrical 78s, or the "unnatural-sounding stereo spread" of the new stereo LPs and 45s, or of the "screechiness/metallic/tinny etc." of the new Compact Discs compared to those relatively mellow LPs, and so on. at audio conventions i saw people wearing "back to mono!" t-shirts! 8O but the new tech always won out eventually, over the old tech. people have long adapted to higher fidelity and relegated the lower fidelity older mediums to the curb. but there will always be holdouts who long for an earlier sweeter bygone time when everybody else thought like they did, and all was in accord.

btw, seeing "the wizard of oz" in motionflow 120hz with no judder, is an eye-opener :o IOW it is like being there with the actors back in the actual days :)