Hey Everyone,
Just a quick post summing up my day.
All and all pretty bland, did some cleaning and saw Pacific Rim again.
This time in 3D, 3D is highly overrated. people say it makes a difference, but apart from the occasional film like Avatar or Hugo, it just doesn't work. I don't know whether it's my eyesight (slight astigmatism in one eye) or the face that I know it's a 2D image and I don't let my brain believe it's actually a 3D image.
On a side note, I hate how 3D is advertised, take the following pic for example:
Not only was the latest Shrek movie absolute crap, the 3D effect here is impossible. Say I'm sitting where the photographer is...
Everything outside the Red box is not seen, the wings, the flame balls, and most of shrek's face. the 3D glasses do not extend the picture past the screen.
the only thing the 3D glasses actually do is mesh 2 different images on the screen.
Here's how the current version of 3D works. there are 2 different images being projected, one is for your right eye, one for your left. the glasses filter out the opposite eye.
so your right eye sees the image for your right eye. pretty simple.
now how certain films like Avatar, Hugo and Hobbit are shot is with 2 different cameras, set slightly apart and focusing like normal eyes do. Below is a 3D camera used while shooting Hobbit
films shot in this 3D format usually have the depth of field that makes 3D a relatively interesting new technology. but even then, the 3D image is still being projected on a flat surface.
now how 90% of the films that are presented in 3D are shown is 'post converted' for example they get an image. say the one below.
this is a standard Over the shoulder shot. nothing special, every movie has them.
if this were a Post converted shot the woman on the right (assuming that's a woman) would be in the first plane, she'd appear slightly closer, the man would be in a second plane, and the wall in the back would be a third and possibly fourth depending on the budget.
the planes move almost like the Motion comics that you sometime see on Youtube. each of them slides around in their own plane, very rarely switching.
now not all 3D post conversions are like this, some do it better than others. some would have the man's nose be in one, then his brow then his eyes then his ears and so on. these are better looking but also tend to give a disorientating feel to the image. Green hornet suffered from this syndrome.
How movies shot in 3D differ is that the 2 images are actually slightly different, the side of the heads for example have more image on either side depending on the eye that's looking at it, giving it a rounder and more realistic look. distances are much more easy to gauge because of the parallax vision.
hold your finger out in front of you, close one eye, then swap eyes. your finger will seem to jump, that's parallax vision. the slight difference in the angle from your eyes to the subject. parallax is very tough for Post converted features to simulate because it means creating two different images instead of just sliding different panels.
anyway, i usually don't see movies in 3D if i can help it. Most midnight shows i go to are 2D then usually if i see it again later I'll see the 3D version, haven't been impressed with the technology enough yet to think its the way of the future. its a way for production companies to charge more money for tickets. Avatar sold less tickets than titanic yet gained hundreds of millions more. inflation and 3D prices are to blame
that being said, 3D can be fun in certain movies, some times the 3D works well, to me Gravity looks like a good Post converted 3D movie, and ill probably be seeing it in Imax 3D.
I forgot to mention that most Computer animated movies are now made in 3D, the actual models in the program are 3D so they are considered 'shot in 3D. some of them have been decent. but since I'm not a huge animation fan, i won't say much else.
so after all that, i; just going to say that Personally i have no real like for 3D, it feels like a gimmick to me, that's all
Just a quick post summing up my day.
All and all pretty bland, did some cleaning and saw Pacific Rim again.
This time in 3D, 3D is highly overrated. people say it makes a difference, but apart from the occasional film like Avatar or Hugo, it just doesn't work. I don't know whether it's my eyesight (slight astigmatism in one eye) or the face that I know it's a 2D image and I don't let my brain believe it's actually a 3D image.
On a side note, I hate how 3D is advertised, take the following pic for example:
Not only was the latest Shrek movie absolute crap, the 3D effect here is impossible. Say I'm sitting where the photographer is...
the only thing the 3D glasses actually do is mesh 2 different images on the screen.
Here's how the current version of 3D works. there are 2 different images being projected, one is for your right eye, one for your left. the glasses filter out the opposite eye.
so your right eye sees the image for your right eye. pretty simple.
now how certain films like Avatar, Hugo and Hobbit are shot is with 2 different cameras, set slightly apart and focusing like normal eyes do. Below is a 3D camera used while shooting Hobbit
films shot in this 3D format usually have the depth of field that makes 3D a relatively interesting new technology. but even then, the 3D image is still being projected on a flat surface.
now how 90% of the films that are presented in 3D are shown is 'post converted' for example they get an image. say the one below.
this is a standard Over the shoulder shot. nothing special, every movie has them.
if this were a Post converted shot the woman on the right (assuming that's a woman) would be in the first plane, she'd appear slightly closer, the man would be in a second plane, and the wall in the back would be a third and possibly fourth depending on the budget.
the planes move almost like the Motion comics that you sometime see on Youtube. each of them slides around in their own plane, very rarely switching.
now not all 3D post conversions are like this, some do it better than others. some would have the man's nose be in one, then his brow then his eyes then his ears and so on. these are better looking but also tend to give a disorientating feel to the image. Green hornet suffered from this syndrome.
How movies shot in 3D differ is that the 2 images are actually slightly different, the side of the heads for example have more image on either side depending on the eye that's looking at it, giving it a rounder and more realistic look. distances are much more easy to gauge because of the parallax vision.
hold your finger out in front of you, close one eye, then swap eyes. your finger will seem to jump, that's parallax vision. the slight difference in the angle from your eyes to the subject. parallax is very tough for Post converted features to simulate because it means creating two different images instead of just sliding different panels.
anyway, i usually don't see movies in 3D if i can help it. Most midnight shows i go to are 2D then usually if i see it again later I'll see the 3D version, haven't been impressed with the technology enough yet to think its the way of the future. its a way for production companies to charge more money for tickets. Avatar sold less tickets than titanic yet gained hundreds of millions more. inflation and 3D prices are to blame
that being said, 3D can be fun in certain movies, some times the 3D works well, to me Gravity looks like a good Post converted 3D movie, and ill probably be seeing it in Imax 3D.
I forgot to mention that most Computer animated movies are now made in 3D, the actual models in the program are 3D so they are considered 'shot in 3D. some of them have been decent. but since I'm not a huge animation fan, i won't say much else.
so after all that, i; just going to say that Personally i have no real like for 3D, it feels like a gimmick to me, that's all
Comments
Post a Comment