 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I regret not having seen "Avatar" in an IMAX theater. IMAX, to my eyes, usually works well and doesn't strain my eyes -- unlike most theatrical screenings. Over the years, during revival-house 3D festivals and also during the brief flurry of new 3D films in the 80's (Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, etc.), I've seen quite a few. The brief sequences in "The Mask" are a hoot -- one can sense Slavko Vorkapich, the master of montage who is responsible for those scenes, having a blast with imaginative weird camera setups and depth effects. I used to have "The Mask" in 3D on a laser disc -- but I sold it a while ago. As I recall the 3D worked quite well in that format -- perhaps because the 3D sequences were brief and I didn't get my usual headache. More recent films like "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl" when viewed on my current equipment give me eyestrain. But I'll be curious if the new technology improves -- especially with regard to the color/print dimming that seems to be part and parcel of the usual 3D screenings. "Dial M for Murder" is my favorite 3-D film -- just fascinating to see Hitchcock using objects and characters with depth in mind. "Creature from the Black Lagoon" is also quite fun in 3D! I'm also only interested in seeing films shot for 3D -- "conversions" strike me as useless and artistically harmful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the perfection of holodecks (ala Star Trek) where you can actually place yourself inside any given film....like sitting on Morbius' desk in FORBIDDEN PLANET or watching UFOs with Richard Dreyfuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm beginning to think that 3-D doesn't enhance my experience of a narrative film (my favorite kind).
I'm also beginning to think that 3-D would be of GREAT benefit to my enjoyment of a non-narrative film, like an art film (or a partly-non-narrative one, like 2001: A Space Odyssey). Maybe even documentaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 15, 2011 - 1:21 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
I'm a huge fan of the 3D format but the problem is for the most part theatrical releases just treat 3D very poorly. Either you get a rushed conversion which is awful (step forward Clash of the Titans) or you get someone using it for cheap theme-park ride thrills, like The Final Destination.
Even when you get a film properly shot using a decent camera rig (Cameron/Pace or Red for example), by a director who actually understands the medium, the end product is let down by the cinema (theatre for you guys Stateside) because they do nothing to increase the brightness levels required to compensate for the level of light disbursement caused by the polarised glasses) What they should be doing is ramping their projectors up to the highest level of Lambert output possible, but they never do (to be frank in this digital age most projectionists are redundant since a digital film can be loaded and started at the press of a button by the same guy who sells the popcorn).
A good recent example of this is Transformers 3. I've seen that twice now, once in Imax at the AMC in LA and the second time at my local cinema in Basildon. The difference in the 3D was, almost literally, night and day. The bright, vibrant output of the AMC theatre was in total contrast to the dark, dingy, strobe-plagued showing at the Empire. And remember, Dark of the Moon wasn't actually shot in Imax format, so that doesn't play a major part in this particular argument. The 3D was spectacular first time round but in the UK it was just a handicap to the film.
Now, I'm not the world's biggest Peter Jackson fan (I hated his 27 hour remake of King Kong and The Lovely Bones was just awful) but I have high hopes for his two Hobbit movies because he is not just shooting in 3D but also at a higher frame rate (48FPS rather than the industry norm of 24FPS) and I am convinced this will be a turning point for 3D films. To quote Jackson, the higher frame rate will produce a 3D image which has "hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness". Those people - including a large number of 3D naysayers - who saw James Cameron's test footage of a swordfight at CinemaCon in April '11 were apparently unanimous in their praise (albeit this was shot at an even higher frame rate of 60FPS), so that is clearly the way to go. Doubtless Avitar 2 &3, being shot similtaniously, will be filmed at at least 48FPS and will hopefuilly look stunning.
So I don't consider 3D to be dead - not at all. And while the likes of Scorsese and Speilberg are embracing the medium (with Hugo Cabret and Tintin respectfully), it won't do. All that is needed is for the studios to shit-or-get-off-the-pan when it comes to 3D (i.e. either allow a production to shoot in 3D from the outset or simply go with a 2D format... no more sloppy rushed conversions!!) and for theatre chains to invest in equipment capable of projecting the images as they should be seen.
So to end where I started, I'm a HUGE fan of 3D. But only 3D done well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
