You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema? | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
stereoscopic cinema has been a long time in coming to the mainstream. by stereoscopic, i am referring to cinema in which a slightly different image is delivered to each eye, giving a sense of 3d to the experience, and something of a feeling of actually being in the film.
stereoscopic interfaces have been around in computing circles for several decades now, and there are a plethora of different methods available. some require special glbumes, whilst others do not. cinema has always had a tendency to stick with anaglyph systems, as represented by the all-too familiar coloured glbumes:
Log in to see images! anaglyph glbumes
has the reliance on this method of projection, with polarised colour filters for each eye, held back widespread adoption of 3d prior to this point? they have had a ‘dork’ stigma since the 80s, does that factor into things? or do you simply feel mainstream audience was not ready for the effect, regardless of the technology used?
Log in to see images!
still from an early anaglyph film print (1950s) |
||||||
Posted On: 03/13/2010 3:55PM | View Tesfan's Profile | # | ||||||
|
The problem is that it was used as a gimmick, not as a technique.
It was used as a cheap scare tactic to titillate audiences rather than helping to provide an immersive film experience. This damaged its reputation as a legitimate technique in the film world. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/13/2010 4:08PM | View Shii's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Short answer: No Long answer: No, Avatar sucked.
But in all seriousness anaglyph is much easier to create than other forms of stereophotography and requires less equipment. It also is the only form that is easily adapted to film. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 11:06AM | View CarlieGotfingere...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
The problem, until now, with 3D has been that movies have gotten visually more impressive without it. Now that CGI can do anything, and do it so that it looks as real(at least as real it can look), there is a burning need to evolve the visuals to the next dimension. That said the new technology has been essential in spreading 3D world wide.
Oh, and Avatar rocks. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 11:30AM | View UnlimitedTyyppi's Profile | # | ||||||
|
UnlimitedTyyppi Posted:
Smurfs in Space + Pocahontas
Also CGI has nothing to do with it. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 11:47AM | View CarlieGotfingere...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D just recently, and the effect of it was pretty cool… not entirely necessary, but still good.
I guess from an industry-eye view, it’s also a way to get people back into cinemas… |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 12:10PM | View man-man's Profile | # | ||||||
|
CarlieGotfingered Posted:
If you say so. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 1:01PM | View UnlimitedTyyppi's Profile | # | ||||||
|
UnlimitedTyyppi Posted:
It’s just as easy to create 3D from something real, if not easier since there is no animation required.
CGI has always been “as real as it can get”, Go watch Star Wars Episode 1, or better yet, the awesome YouTube review of it (and how it sucks) and look at the visuals. Then compare them to the movie you’re yiffing over now (Avatar). Both movies were described in the same way, but came out nearly 10 years apart. In 10 years someone will use Avatar in the same way, to show how CGI has gotten better and that it’s constantly referred to as “as real as it can get” (or something like that, i know those aren’t your words).
Also, take a look at this blast from the past: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5x5OXfe9KY
I remember when that appeared and people remarked at how lifelike the baby looked.
3D has been around for a long bum time, and it will never be perfected until the brain in hacked and video is inputted directly into the optic nerve replacing what your eyes are seeing. Until then it’s going to be a series of gimmicks that require you too look very special and pay way too much money.
Also: Movie tickets are too damn expensive, i’m not going to pay any extra $6 to see some ****ty movie in 3D.
In conclusion: CGI has nothing to do with it and Avatar is just Smurfs in Space acting out Pocahantas.
P.S. Serious about the Star Wars EP1 review, not only does it show clips from the movie, but the first installment has clips from Terminator and The Original Trilogy that were for thier time examples of realistic special effects and CGI.
Also: I can think of worse ways to waste 70 Minutes. CarlieGotfingered edited this message on 03/14/2010 5:55PM |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 5:20PM | View CarlieGotfingere...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
Ferngully not Pocahontas. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 5:22PM | View Call Me Diego's Profile | # | ||||||
|
man-man Posted: Why can’t we just be happy with watching T.V/Film/Whatever the way it is now? Timothy Leary Posted: Not sitting on your bum watching T.V |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 5:43PM | AIDS woman's genitals | # | ||||||
|
AIDS woman's genitals Posted:
Why can’t we be happy watching Howdy Doody on our 12 inch black and white TV’s? |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 5:57PM | View CarlieGotfingere...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
CarlieGotfingered Posted:
Let’s not be pedantic now… T.V is evil,too many people watch far too much of it. So why make a gimmick to suck people in deeper,because let’s be honest,that is all it is, a gimmick. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 6:04PM | AIDS woman's genitals | # | ||||||
|
CarlieGotfingered Posted:
What exactly is wrong with Star Wars EP1:s CGI? ten years ago they could not pull off everything they tried, but at the best points it is up to par with the more mediocre stuff around today. Same goes, even more so, with stuff like Matrix and the Mummy that were out in 1999. The CGI has not improved in any drastic way in ten years, only thing is that now a movie can have more of everything, and still be affordable.
And, yes, it is easier to create 3D from real stuff, and then it can be considered a gimmick. That is the point of 3D actually breaking through now, since the visual look of movies hasn´t really evolved in ten years, even though practically all limits have been removed. And furthermore on 3D, I live in Finland, north Europe, and we got our first 3D movie theaters about three years ago. I can´t say for a fact, but I´ve gotten the impression that globally actual 3D theaters have just started to pop up recently, no matter how long the technology has been up.
And yes the price of the tickets is horrific. I´m just glad no-one goes to see movies during weekdays around here, and ticket-packages or whatever their called cost around 7$ per ticket in total to see any movie, including 3D.
And about Avatar, it is a story told many times, just now it is told in space, and directed well. You just have to known what kind of a movie your going to see. In Avatar the point is the 3D and the visuals, the story, dialog and whatnot have to be only good enough so they don´t distract from the main point, and they are. Of course, had they been above average, that would have been a plus, but nothing more.
And I enjoy story driven movies as much as the next guy, but it is not the only thing that can make a good movie, at least when watched in the theater. |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 6:10PM | View UnlimitedTyyppi's Profile | # | ||||||
|
CarlieGotfingered Posted:
Seriously, why can’t we? Have you ever seen Howdy Doody?
UnlimitedTyyppi Posted:
Avatar’s pretty, but it’s no Koyaanisqatsi. sdgrbass09 edited this message on 03/14/2010 6:18PM |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 6:15PM | sdgrbbum09 | # | ||||||
|
UnlimitedTyyppi Posted:
The quality in CGI has gone up in a manner that i would consider significant. CGI is now easier to create faster, allowing more time to be used for perfecting models and such. Thus allowing for higher quality. Thats not saying that the CGI in Hot Tube Time Machine is better than EP1, we need to compare apples to apples, but the sheer fact that small outfits and low budget films are now able to take advantage of CGI in ways they never would have been even 10 years ago is proof enough that there has been significant advance in the technology.
I can tell from looking at the pixels, and from seeing quite a few CGI’s in my time.
Also: watching a movie for the visuals is like reading a book because it uses a pretty font. It’s stupid and reduces you to a 3 year old. Stanly Kubrick is rolling over in his grave right now.
Edit: Also Alts, lol. Missing Semicolon edited this message on 03/14/2010 6:23PM |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 6:22PM | View Missing Semicolo...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
AIDS woman's genitals Posted:
Just Like:
Pre-recorded shows 24 Hour Broadcasts Color TV High Definition TV |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 6:26PM | View CarlieGotfingere...'s Profile | # | ||||||
CarlieGotfingered Posted:
It’s more like Dances With Smurfs. Pocahontas wasn’t three hours long.
People who saw Avatar in a normal theater were cheated of the primary reason for seeing the movie, imo. |
|||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 7:48PM | View Sneaky27's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Sneaky27 Posted:
1) Fair Enough, but people are more likely to have paid attention to the story of pocahontas and not fall asleep.
2) Thus proving that the movie has no right to exist
Edit: lol, “Dances with Smurfs” CarlieGotfingered edited this message on 03/14/2010 8:07PM |
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 8:07PM | View CarlieGotfingere...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
That Reaction Face Guy Posted:
Log in to see images!
|
||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 8:48PM | View That Reaction Fa...'s Profile | # | ||||||
That Reaction Face Guy Posted: |
|||||||
Posted On: 03/14/2010 9:02PM | View mterek's Profile | # | ||||||