Ebert exposes Sony and ultramegacineplexes

  On 5/27/2011 at 1:48 PM, Braintree said:

I never noticed the brightness thing since my eyes are already very sensitive to light.

  On 5/27/2011 at 6:10 AM, jefferoo said:

RE: "Dark and Muddy" 3D projections.

 

This is such a simple fix. Ebert is right to say they need to be brighter. If you think about basic photographic process, if you are shooting something with a filter on the lens, you open up the aperture to let more light in so that the image isn't underexposed.

When you are in a movie theater and wearing 3D glasses, they basically act as sunglasses (or filters, for that matter). The result is an underexposed image in your eyes. They definitely should brighten the projection in 3D screenings because everyone basically has fucking sunglasses on.

 

totally agreed. while i'm sure there's a limit to the brightness produced by digital projectors, i don't see why the projection can't just be brighter.

  On 5/27/2011 at 1:41 PM, Iain C said:

Until recently, I hadn't been to the cinema for about 5 years because it's crap. But thanks to my lovely girlfriend, I've recently discovered the joys of independent cinemas that show old movies - the kind of movies I'm willing to pay to see.

 

No 3D junk, no multiplex bullshit, no kids... and it's easy to sneak booze inside. In fact, if you're watching a film from the 40s I'd say sneaking booze inside is mandatory.

I'm a big fan of the Prince Charles.

you guys realize by saying 'how could 3d not just be a gimmick' is effectively the same thing as saying 'how could stereo speakers not just be a gimmick' 3d is here to stay, HD is here to stay. It's not the formats in and of themselves that's the problem it's that with more freedom and flexibility and higher quality formats people tend to do even more cookie cutter things. It's the old philosophy that with more technical limitations the more creative people were.

It's more like an argument for 5.1 to be standard. Making Citizen Kane 3D wouldn't change how good it is.

Really, it's only useful for films with a lot of action in them.

has anyone even made a straight up drama in 3d? not to my knowledge, i think that the fact that 3d is only seen as a tool to enhance action is part of the problem, it should be seen as a way to increase immersion and suspension of disbelief across the board just like stereo in music gives one the illusion of more 'realism' like a band is actually playing next to them.

if you've seen Aliens of the Deep you will see how beautiful 3d an be with absolutely no action

edit: and to completely throw out any credibility i still have left on this board or the thread, im really looking forward to the Green Lantern, mostly because it seems like it's the first 3d movie since avatar playing on the same visual /brightness/color strengths.

imo 3d doesn't make it any more real or immersive and actually makes it less, simply because of how focusing on depth works. on 2d you never try to focus your sight on something the camera isn't, with 3d you (me) are trying to do so constantly because your eyes are tricked. with stereo your ears aren't really tricked, the added depth is real.

  On 5/27/2011 at 11:14 PM, GORDO said:

imo 3d doesn't make it any more real or immersive and actually makes it less, simply because of how focusing on depth works. on 2d you never try to focus your sight on something the camera isn't, with 3d you (me) are trying to do so constantly because your eyes are tricked. with stereo your ears aren't really tricked, the added depth is real.

That's an excellent point. Staging dynamics with stereo makes for a poor analogy to 3D technology, which, let's be honest, is fucking gimmicky at this point. That's a cultural issue within Hollywood more than anything, but hey, the proof is in the pudding.

I do, however, agree with Awepittance's general argument about the reactionary treatment of new technologies.

  On 5/27/2011 at 5:20 PM, Dan C said:

  On 5/27/2011 at 1:41 PM, Iain C said:

Until recently, I hadn't been to the cinema for about 5 years because it's crap. But thanks to my lovely girlfriend, I've recently discovered the joys of independent cinemas that show old movies - the kind of movies I'm willing to pay to see.

 

No 3D junk, no multiplex bullshit, no kids... and it's easy to sneak booze inside. In fact, if you're watching a film from the 40s I'd say sneaking booze inside is mandatory.

 

I'm a big fan of the Prince Charles.

Yeah, they really don't care if you bring booze in. Half the time the bar's not even open.

i really don't think this is the case for everybody, while it's true that it is a 'trick' it's no different than say binaural audio recordings or 5.1 surround headphones that only use 2 capsules that trick you into feeling more immersed (edit: modification of original flawed analogy). I think the difference for 3d that you've pointed out is that it's not consistent for everybody (especially those who wear glasses or contacts) how effective 3d is. Its gotten to the point now where most blurriness and problems of 3d past are gone but there will always be a percentage of the population where the illusion is more annoying than it's worth.

edit: has anybody here tried out one of those newer Panasonic or other brand 3d televisions? I was pretty surprised by how crisp and high quality the 3d looked, probably has something to do with being in the perfect viewing position as opposed to sitting farther away from a big screen slightly off to the side.

edit2: i still haven't seen anything like the 3ds where you can actually see in 3d without glasses, maybe that eliminates these problems you talk about?

  On 5/27/2011 at 11:21 PM, The Overlook said:

 

I do, however, agree with Awepittance's general argument about the reactionary treatment of new technologies.

i just think we're too early into 3d becoming a standard to really judge how artistically it can be used. Imagine a movie like the New World with nothing differently done to it except for it being filmed in 3d. In my mind this would only add to the movie's enjoyment and richness of the cinematography. Maybe you disagree with this, but i completely agree that right now it's being churned out by hollywood very badly. There has not been a great 3d movie made yet with the modern technology.

mmmm, Stalker in 3D....

it was actually filmed in 6D anyways.

3D 2001 mmmmm..........

  On 5/27/2011 at 11:28 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 5/27/2011 at 11:21 PM, The Overlook said:

 

I do, however, agree with Awepittance's general argument about the reactionary treatment of new technologies.

 

i just think we're too early into 3d becoming a standard to really judge how artistically it can be used. Imagine a movie like the New World with nothing differently done to it except for it being filmed in 3d. In my mind this would only add to the movie's enjoyment and richness of the cinematography. Maybe you disagree with this, but i completely agree that right now it's being churned out by hollywood very badly. There has not been a great 3d movie made yet with the modern technology.

I think, with a few quibbles over details, I agree with you about this topic.