[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

2D films are here to stay, just like we still have books and paintings that don't need to be replaced with instructional videos or photography. 3D will remain a specialty market for a very long time, at least until we discover a way to make true holographic movies. 3D TVs look like utter shit and I don't believe the hype. Cameron making those pronouncements is just trying to psych out the competition and drum up business for his products. Fuck him. Fuck Peter Jackson too-- Lord of the Ringworms was fucking boring! Del Toro is a much more imaginative director-- Pan's Labyrinth used effects and technology to a great end.

2D will remain, but as an exception, much like some art movies are still made in B/W. I'm sure Tokolosh was speaking more generally and, whether we like it or not, I suspect Cameron and Jackson represent mainstream cinema's future more than anyone else. Hollywood is increasingly targeting a quite specific youth audience for the bulk of its profits, most of whom appear to have no interest in 'classical' cinema whatsoever. I teach a class on animation and every year I'm astonished at how each new year of students' have a lesser set reference points compared with the last, to the extent that most of this year's intake are treating Toy Story as their 'year zero', not even being that aware of Disney. (I'm starting to feel a nostalgia for the year of students who thought cinema started with Akira). These people are cinema's future as much as Cameron and Jackson in that they're the very demographic Hollywood makes movies for - not you, or me or anyone else who's yet to be seduced by the prospect of seeing cinema reduced to an endless cycle of bigger, more life-like explosions.But as a market we're increasingly irrelevant.

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

SYG never took math

I wouldn't go that far.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

I think the main advantage right now is a business/marketing one-- you have an exclusive product and you can shut out competitors that lack the resources and technology to do the same. This doesn't mean the product is good, however, it just means that you control a commodity.

Sure, business and marketing play a big roll, but I wouldn't exclude the hunger for innovation. I don't agree with the lack of resources bit. It's steadily getting easier to find and rent a relatively cheap stereoscopic rig at most rent houses. Especially in the US. BTW, Element Technica rule in that area.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

That's a HUUUUGE "if". That would be a holographic image rather than what we're doing today. Holographic mages would indeed be amazing, but they would likely require completely different filming and projection technology. I would love to see holographic film, though i wonder if it wouldn't be restricted to room-size scenarios-- how the hell do you fit in the horizon line into a limited space? But anyway, that's another thing altogether.

Holographic projection seems to be the next logical step, but we could be way off. WAY OFF! Take for example optical flow. It has drastically changed the way we deal with FX in post. It has only been around for about ten years and look at how it has revolutionized the industry. Here's an excellent article about it at fxguide: http://www.fxguide.com/featured/art_of_optical_flow/
We have only scratched the surface of what's possible with digital imaging.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

What we have right now isn't amazing-- it's a gimmick that sometimes is nice and sometimes sucks ass.

It's a no-brainer that 3D works a lot better for animations. With film/photography it's still pretty much in the dark ages.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

The fact is that we've had access to 3D film and stereoscopic images for over 50 years. It was a fad in the 50s and it went away. I think this fad will also pass because it brings nothing new to the table-- it's the same old shit in a brand new package. Once the novelty wears out there is nothing behind it.

I would have to agree with you on that, but don't ask me what my answer would be five years from now.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

That would still require a stereoscopic image that's not there, but I image one could be extrapolated and rendered by computer without excessive hassle. Actually you'd need 2 extra images to recreate the original one in the middle in 3D.

When I wrote "old stock" I was referring to stereoscopic images being shot today, dig?

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

wait, i don't get how this is possible. you can't "saturate" black and white-- you can colorize it, like ted turner did with old movies, but if there's no color information there is nothing to saturate. the opposite trick is useful however-- to shoot in color and later DEsaturate-- desaturate all or maybe just one channel for a "pleasantville" effect. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Oops, Typo! Add the D and E in there. Can't get it right all the time.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

That i suppose is true in some level, but you also kill your finances, use double the film stock (if shooting film) and have to use pricier cameras. When you consider the cost and risks of making movies, suddenly the idea of burning a ton of money out of the gate for no particular purpose ceases to be appealing.

Celluloid would be out of the question with the current climate, but it's definitely doable digitally. Even for indies.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

HDR is very promising because it offers to reproduce the way we see the world, without clipping whites and crushing blacks the way video does today, but that's completely separate from the 3D problem. Better motion capture is a good thing too, anything better than the creepy looking shit like "polar express" (yuck), but again it's a separate problem from 3D or dynamic range.

One of the major problems with 3D is how dark the images get. Something also has to be done about the glasses, which make it even darker. A while back I read that HDR can help reduce the contrast of both images so that you get "blacker than black" and "whiter than white" when masking. I'll have to look it up again before I can comment further. Industrial Lights and Magic's OpenEXR also helped improve Lucas' 3D productions. Another good read: http://www.openexr.com/

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

hell yes. goes without saying. but to understand the technology also means to know its limitations.

Sure.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

Yes, true, but when the good story isn't there the result is utter shit, like avatar. I know that movie was a commercial and technological success, but I find it unwatchable, except as a scientific curiosity ("oh, wow, look how they did that") which places me completely outside the universe of the movie.

That goes without saying, but it takes the two to tango.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

Just the other day i watched "My Dinner With Andre" for the first time, and one of the great things about it was that it filled my mind with pictures while the movie itself was just 2 dudes talking. That's what a good story can do.

I'll look out for that movie. Thanks for the tip.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

I have a friend who shoots in 16mm. Beautiful experimental stuff, some of it hand-painted, but at $50 for every 2 minutes of raw footage-- OUCH! Still, only way to get that stuff done. We've had HD video for years now, but most festivals still lack the capability for HD projection, so you end up downrezing and compressing your HD movie for consumption. BR is not as widespread as one would expect and how many people have the capability to watch HD video files? DVD is still the main distribution medium for movies even though it's theoretically "obsolete". Shit, even a lot of TV is still SD, in spite of all the advances.

Barco and Sony are moving in the right direction:
http://www.barco.com/pressrelease/2612/
It won't take long before most major cinemas adopt 4K and
TVs go UberHD.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

2D films are here to stay, just like we still have books and paintings that don't need to be replaced with instructional videos or photography. 3D will remain a specialty market for a very long time, at least until we discover a way to make true holographic movies. 3D TVs look like utter shit and I don't believe the hype. Cameron making those pronouncements is just trying to psych out the competition and drum up business for his products. Fuck him. Fuck Peter Jackson too-- Lord of the Ringworms was fucking boring! Del Toro is a much more imaginative director-- Pan's Labyrinth used effects and technology to a great end.

Again, let's reminisce in five years.

Speaking of Cameron, I read that he chose ARRI's Alexa over RED's Epic saying that 5K was overkill and unnecessary. I later read that the real reason for not shooting in 5K was because of the astronomical costs he would have animating at that resolution. 3D was not the issue.
Oh well, we'll all just have to accept watching Avatar 2 at a low 1080p. Ha!

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

The 48fps is especially interesting to me. Isn't that how they shot the fight scenes in Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan, and then just projected it in 24fps... am I right about that?

And if you're gonna raise the fps... why not just shoot digital? This is sort of confusing to me.

The first video in this link will answer your question:

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/04/peter-jackson-shoots-the-hobbit-48-fps/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

The fact is that we've had access to 3D film and stereoscopic images for over 50 years. It was a fad in the 50s and it went away. I think this fad will also pass because it brings nothing new to the table-- it's the same old shit in a brand new package. Once the novelty wears out there is nothing behind it.

Okay, that's true. But you have to admit this new RealD shit produces a MUCH clearer image than the old-school red/blue glasses.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I teach a class on animation and every year I'm astonished at how each new year of students' have a lesser set reference points compared with the last, to the extent that most of this year's intake are treating Toy Story as their 'year zero', not even being that aware of Disney. (I'm starting to feel a nostalgia for the year of students who thought cinema started with Akira). These people are cinema's future as much as Cameron and Jackson in that they're the very demographic Hollywood makes movies for - not you, or me or anyone else who's yet to be seduced by the prospect of seeing cinema reduced to an endless cycle of bigger, more life-like explosions.But as a market we're increasingly irrelevant.

Damn... how old are these kids?

It blows my mind how naive/ignorant some filmmaking students can be. People who are still under the impression that film started, and ended with Tarantino. I don't even understand how they (your examples and mine) could even be all that interested in the art-form.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

The first video in this link will answer your question:

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/04/peter-jackson-shoots-the-hobbit-48-fps/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29

Wow, thanks for that link dude!

I've always been in favor of digital over film. I have no nostalgia for the older medium, and find it a much larger pain in the ass (and pricier) to shoot and edit with. I love having the ability to hook my Canon VIXIA HFM31 directly up to my laptop, and literally drag and drop any take I want. It's marvelous, and I'm spoiled with it! I wont even work with DV tape - ha!

And that's just a pissy-ass camcorder in the grand scheme of things. With the RED cameras, and abilities to shoot at 4k, even 5k..... why anyone would give a damn about film is beyond me. I'd bet my entire DVD collection that every single one of the world's earliest filmmakers would've chosen digital over film had the technology been available in the day.

But yeah, I have no interest whatsoever in The Hobbit as a film (I adore Jackson's early works...but find LOTR painfully boring), but if it is being projected in 48fps... I may just have to buy myself a ticket to see the difference first-hand. Same reason I ever sat/fell asleep through Avatar.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

The first video in this link will answer your question:

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/04/peter-jackson-shoots-the-hobbit-48-fps/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29

The bottom line for me, whatever technology is used, is whether it ends up creating good movies. I'm not a technophobe by any means but I've rarely found movies that are cutting edge in terms of the technology used to be of any particular interest outside of that. If Hollywood could get as excited about a new hot shot screenwriter or some brilliant up and coming actor I'd be far more excited than I am about its current hysteria towards frames per second. I'll just wait and see what kind of movies it produces to see if it's capable of creating anything more than some impressive eye candy. Although if impressive eye candy is what ultimately puts bums on seats I suppose I can't blame Hollywood for providing it. Hollywood's a business, first and foremost, and I'm sure these new advances will be great for film on that level. I'm still unconvinced as to whether they''ll contribute much to it as an artform, though. As you say, though, we'd probably be better off returning to this debate in five years time, when we've seen what it does produce, instead of arguing about what some of us think it might.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Drail666, #^*&^$*&%^@*%, and Tokolosh.... you guys all produce work of your own right? Any links? I'd love to check it out.

[demonrail666]

I've helped on quite a few films by other people but nothing of my own. I am planning on doing something myself soon, though, using found footage so I won't even be using a camera. I'll put it up for dl once it's done.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

So it's gonna be more experimental than a narrative? Is it found live-action, or found animated footage? Be sure to link me to it when it's done either way man.

I've actually been looking for an animator to make me a very simple animation for the slasher feature that I'm currently working on. PM me if you're interested.

[demonrail666]

It's archive footage. Mostly newsreel with a few extracts from feature films. It'll have a narrative but only by having the footage sequenced in such a way that it tells the story through their juxtaposition (I'm basically ripping off Eisenstein, haha).

I did some clay animation once but found the whole process far too time consuming. I love animation but don't have the patience to do it myself.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson[I

]Damn[/i]... how old are these kids?

It blows my mind how naive/ignorant some filmmaking students can be. People who are still under the impression that film started, and ended with Tarantino. I don't even understand how they (your examples and mine) could even be all that interested in the art-form.

They'd generally be standard undergrad age, 18-25. It is alarming. Their reference points are getting narrower and narrower. I actually had to put a note on one of my course outlines, saying that I won't accept any essay on either Pulp Fiction, Fight Club or Blade Runner. It was becoming ridiculous.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

They'd generally be standard undergrad age, 18-25. It is alarming. Their reference points are getting narrower and narrower.

That really is alarming, especially with the wealth of information (and torrents!) available online. There really is no excuse. I mean, I just turned 20 in Feb and even I can't understand it.

Different strokes for different folks... I guess?

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I won't accept any essay on either Pulp Fiction, Fight Club or Blade Runner. It was becoming ridiculous.

hahaha!

I had to work on this kid's short once, called Johnny Jewel, and the entire plot of the film was an undercover cop tied up in a chair, in a warehouse, by a crazed gangster who slices his ear off.

I asked him, "Isn't this a little bit like Reservoir Dogs?"

"No. No way." (I can't quite remember exactly what he said)

I just shrugged. He even had an older gangster getting mad at the others, just like the Joe character in RD.

I shit you not.

It's even funnier if you consider the questionable originality of RD.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Okay, that's true. But you have to admit this new RealD shit produces a MUCH clearer image than the old-school red/blue glasses.

most 50s 3D was with polarized glasses. polarized glass (now plastic) has been around for a long time. i would make a schoolyard joke about it at this time if the board hadn't changed so much.

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

I've always been in favor of digital over film. I have no nostalgia for the older medium, and find it a much larger pain in the ass (and pricier) to shoot and edit with. I love having the ability to hook my Canon VIXIA HFM31 directly up to my laptop, and literally drag and drop any take I want. It's marvelous, and I'm spoiled with it! I wont even work with DV tape - ha!

film is a bitch to work with, and tapes can be a pain too. we sold our deck last year.

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

And that's just a pissy-ass camcorder in the grand scheme of things. With the RED cameras, and abilities to shoot at 4k, even 5k..... why anyone would give a damn about film is beyond me. I'd bet my entire DVD collection that every single one of the world's earliest filmmakers would've chosen digital over film had the technology been available in the day.

film still looks beautiful if you can afford it. you can shoot/print in film and work in digital intermediates-- film vs video is only a choice of input/output.

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

But yeah, I have no interest whatsoever in The Hobbit as a film (I adore Jackson's early works...but find LOTR painfully boring), but if it is being projected in 48fps... I may just have to buy myself a ticket to see the difference first-hand. Same reason I ever sat/fell asleep through Avatar.

i wanted to kill frodo so he'd stop fucking moaning

[The Watcher]

Avatar was the fucking worst movie I've ever seen...... all this 3D is a joke........ movies are stupid.........

[SpaceCadetHayden]

3D movies can be fantastic(Scott Pilgrim) but most of the movies I've seen have just been shit quality movies with too much effort on visual stimulus, which is not what I see movies for.

[!@#$%!]

looks like werner herzog just made the best 3D movie ever but he doesn't wanna work in that medium again

http://www.slate.com/id/2286459