tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2227918452434734748.post8959961107152688257..comments2011-02-14T08:29:45.424-08:00Comments on Outtakes: 3-D Movies Here to Stay?Roberto Quezada-Dardonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350414690893330828noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2227918452434734748.post-24216645451911306732010-06-14T16:48:07.090-07:002010-06-14T16:48:07.090-07:00By the way. I've seen Avatar now. The first ti...By the way. I've seen Avatar now. The first time, in 2D. Then for about an hour in 3D. I have to say that in the theater in which I saw it, which normally has excellent projection (Texas Instruments), the 3D version was slightly over-exposed. 2D was perfect. <br />But more importantly, I noticed that when some filmmakers (like Cameron) are shooting 3D, it seems to force them to make shots that are more interesting than usual in 2D. This could be Cameron, who has a phenomenal eye and uses great cinematographers, but it might have that effect in the general community. Depth is something all cinematographers should aspire to, but it isn't alwasy on their minds. If you have a director swatting you on the back of the head with a rolled up copy of script reminding you the movie is going to be projected in 3D, it might benefit the 2D experience as well.Roberto Quezada-Dardonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04350414690893330828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2227918452434734748.post-6381674104701918892010-06-14T16:35:18.593-07:002010-06-14T16:35:18.593-07:00my apologies treehousedaddy. even after you left ...my apologies treehousedaddy. even after you left your comment referring to your first comment, blogspot had it somewhere in the ether and I could not retrieve it. <br /><br />You raise some excellent points. I find that very few movies lend themselves to 3D and that more often it's a case of a shot here and there being made because "oh yeah, we're shooting in 3D". <br /><br />I'm grumpy about 3D the same way die-hards were first about sound and then about technicolor ("who needs it?"). I'll soon be the oddity I thought they were.Roberto Quezada-Dardonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04350414690893330828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2227918452434734748.post-55098627833460601022010-01-04T15:14:55.502-08:002010-01-04T15:14:55.502-08:00Is it about using 3-D for the sake of it? Or using...Is it about using 3-D for the sake of it? Or using it because the subject lends itself to the experience. Having seen Monsters v. Aliens:3D, Up:3D and Avatar:3D I observe two things. Firstly, the new generation of 3-D is fantastic, because it's being done in a new way, and secondly, we now go more often to classical music concerts at The Royal Albert Hall, or to the plays of Shakespeare in London's Globe Theater. No, we haven't fallen out of love with film, it's just more expensive now than the other options for a family special. <br /><br />About the technology, theaters no longer need two projectors aligned by a specialist. One digital projector running at 144fps alternately projects the left-eye image and then the right-eye image. The result is perfect alignment: you can tilt your head quite a long way before the picture goes fuzzy. And the 3-D works, whether it's coming out at you, as in many of the trailers we've seen, or goes away from you, as in Avatar.<br /><br />But I heard that Monsters v. Aliens:3D had something like 1,000 quad-core computers in a farm just to crunch the data. High-speed projection uses up a lot of frames. And I think that's going to be the limiting factor for independent film-makers, although I would love to see the first attempt succeed!treehousedaddyhttp://taylorstv.comnoreply@blogger.com