Ernest, is you company only involved in conversions? Do they do any shooting?

I'm available

 

I haven't used Pace's rig...but I'm not 100% fond of his ideology. And there are a lot of newer rigs.

I worked a day on Jackass 3D adn they had the Element Technica Rig with red cameras. Which is now one of several.

One thing I disliked about Avatar's 3D was Cameron buys into the theory of locking Convergence with Focus.

From what I've seen, my eyes have a more satisfying response to having convergence pulled separately. There are situation where you do want to lock them. But overall, I think the convergence point should be free to float. Granted I know convergence can be altered in post, I dont feel it has the same effect.

 

There still is a major push coming. More 3D networks are coming out. And the TV manufacturers are starting to put it out in affordable sets. I think I saw a 50" with 3D 720P under $1,000. Those with PS3's already have the player with firmware updates. I think once the glasses get cheaper is where you'll see a big jump. $150 per hurts a lot of folks' pocketbooks. Bundles help so hopefully by Xmas you'll see more discounts.

As for content 3D gaming is already here for PS3. The latest Super Stardust HD update has 3D effects. You can see w/o a 3D setup how asteroids come flying at you so it must look badass in 3D. Again a luxury but so was HDTV and DVD players.

Toy Story 3D was pretty cool in the theatres but taking kids to that is pricey at nearly $20 per ticket.

 

We just opened a north hollywood office which is mostly post work but we are working on doing some native 3D ourselves. I actually need your information I thought about you when we started discussing contracting and possible camera guys.

eforsyth@hdlogix.com

 

I actually saw Alice in Wonderland in 4D... I saw myself leaving before sitting down and watching it.

 

I worked with 3ality their rigs looked complicated as fuck but the pulled convergence from their truck.

Look at Parralex, they have a NICE rig looks like a stealth bomber. It's a split beam but SEXY.

 

:lol:

All those rigs looked big, unwieldy, and complicated as fuck to me.

And I meant 3ality Rig.....I havent seen the Element Technica. Those two get me confused though.

Look for a picture of the split beam rig carrying 2 panavision genesis cameras....how many did it take to carry that beast. Its like we are going back to the days of beginning of movies where cameras where big beasts that couldnt have much movement.

 

K this is getting too

 

I " Wtf'd " the first half of your statement... then read the rest.

 

This.

3D Conversion is downright HORRIBLE!

If the film was not shot in 3D....stay away!....at least that's what I do.

2D>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3D conversion.

Avatar was excellent, Tron Legacy will probably be the same. (3D trailer was fantastic).

Do I want to see all future films in 3D? (as in shot in 3D not converted)



It's great for "some" films....distracting, and pointless for others.

 

I wouldnt say 3D conversion is horrible. Its not as good as originating in 3D...and its MUCH harder because hours upon hours are spent rotoscoping. But everyone will use Clash of the Titans as an example...and its a good example of a bad conversion. The studio behind that movie isnt or wasnt really behind 3D...and it was last minute decision to rush the conversion to to try and bank more money. Its a sloppy conversion.

Currently, Green Hornet and Priest are being converted at Sony...a studio 110% behind 3D and both release dates of those films were pushed to accommodate the conversion process.

And if you go see Nightmare before Christmas at its annual El Capitan 3D screening...thats a VERY well done conversion. I actually really like watching that movie in 3D.

So, reserve judgement on conversion for the moment.

As far as Avatar being "good"....some of it was...mainly the CG. Some of the live action was good...but a lot of that was totally CG manipulated.

Honestly, I thought most of the live action 3D in Avatar was mediocre. Cameron just covered it up with enough eye candy to get people to look over it.

 

Conversion done well, you would not know the difference. Especially in movies. Conversion meaning rotoscoping post.

 

Who the hell wants to see Judas Priest in 3D?

 

well that should tell you something...

 

Yeah, they are very pro-3D...yeah they want to fuel the fire. They make the Ps3, and the TVs...they have a vested interest.

So, other than that means they want to do things right...what does that tell me?

 

Yeah, home sales are slow with 1080p and they need another gimmick to get people to buy more home electronics.

 

Personally, while I have seen and used 3D TVs...and they are pretty awesome...I do not see the 3D TV home market taking off.

In fact, IMO, the 3D home market is going to fuck things up more. If you walk into Best Buy...ten to one they currently have a new 3D TV playing Avatar...in 3D.

Except Avatar doesnt exist in the home market on 3D....these TVs interpolate and FAKE 3D and it look like total shit. And people are seeing this, thinking its real 3D and are going to get turned off. And of course the people selling the TVs are so stupid they tell you its real 3D and they honestly believe it too...even when you tell they are wrong.

I have no plans to buy a 3D TV. Not even for gaming.

 

I think a lot of people are tired of Sony's proprietary formats. Not that 3D is proprietary, but when they find out Sony is behind a technology, a lot of people get automatically turned off from their experiences in the past.

 

Seeing as its not just Sony, and there is nothing proprietary behind this (other than sony, of course, wanting people to use their high end cameras) People wont get turned off because, really, they'll never know.

 

Sony doesn't have a very good track record of "being behind" new technologies... I think their only real victories over the past 30 years were the Walkman/Discman and Blu-Ray... and arguably the Playstation.

 

yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote.

 

1) Its not a new technology by any means.

2) Sony is just one of MANY studios behind

3) There is nothing about this that is made by, designed by, or sold by Sony.

So, again....what is there to know about this?

 

That's my main beef with it, they can't do it right across the board, so why bother. The will take half ass steps for it at the movies, to charge people $5 more for it. Forget it.

I saw a great 3D adventure at an Imax in Virginia Beach, underwater adventure, but from start to finish it was 3d. And I don't care to see it at home having to buy a new TV and/or player to watch it here with glasses.

Hell I still don't own a BluRay player. I get my HD movies from premium channels.

 

Has nothing to do with they can't.....But instead of saying...this is a 3D TV and you need a 3D player with a 3D created Disc or a 3D TV channel to watch the content...they have built in this fake 3D you can turn on or off...so consumers feel like they are getting their monies worth.

I dislike that.

 

1. its a "new" technology as in nobody was talking about it / doing it before Avatar.

2. the fact that Sony is very interested leaves a sour taste in many mouths (I kind of do a muted , myself) btw I am a fan of Sony, generally.

3. doesn't matter to the public - seeing the name and association does

look, I am just thinking out loud. I don't know what's going to happen.

 

1) Lots of people were doing it before Avatar. Up? G-Force? Nightmare before Christmas? etc etc...not mention the era back in the 50s when 3D was in the theaters much to the same effect that it is right now.

Avatar just made it popular again because of how much money it banked.

2) The fact that Sony is interested does shit for anyone because they are paying attention to that when they see a movie trailer. They are interested in whether the movie will be good or not.

3) Funny...Seeing how Most of the movies I mentioned will come out under the name Columbia Pictures....how many people know thats Sony? And people dont associate seeing a movie with the words Sony pictures...with their electronics side of the business...

 

that's what I mean.
good to hear your side of the story.

 

Not sure how its "my side"

4 of the top 10 grossing movies for the week are 3D...wouldnt matter whether any of them had Sony/Columbia's name attached to it or not.

I didnt see anyone shunning Casino Royale because it was Sony Studios...

And 3D was coming no matter, it was here in fact...its just Avatar lit a fire to make it happen even more.

 

being involved in the industry, you have a different interest and understanding than I do. that's what I mean by "your side".

I would be more than happy to see Sony be successful. That's great to hear they were behind Casino Royale, I didn't know. Good work by Sony.

 

I think you underestimate the consumer, especially those in the know.

 

They are available in 3D/2D, I want to know what the breakdown is between 3D and 2D for each movie.

Casino Royale, yes good movie, where are their asses for the next Bond movie, that was canceled?

Lets not forget Sony's great spyware/worm that fucked up anybodies computer when they wanted to copy a Sony music CD.

 

I have yet to see a good 3D conversion in the theater....and have seen so many bad conversions that I will not see a film in 3D...even if the same price as a 2D....I avoid 3D...because it's bad.

Perhaps studios are dropping the ball and pinching the pennies on 3D conversion...who knows....but if they want to continue down the 3D conversion road, they better step up the quality.

At this point I will only see Tron in 3D....everything else in 3D can go pound sand for all I care because the quality and movie experience sux.

 

I just hope that they didn't rush GT5 in 3D since the game had already been delayed for years. I pray that the 2D graphic are just as

 

I know he was doing this for optimal sound location, but I couldn't resist. ( I love this show)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1zIY6DQSlbY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1zIY6DQSlbY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

loved that epsiode!!

 

Ok, with that out of the way, I have to say; You guys sound like a bunch of crotchity, old farts that refuse to accept the new. Siding with Sarlacc is not something I have done a lot of, but man you guys are so anti 3D, and although an old concept and technology, it WILL get better. It's technology, it always improves. Once the industry puts their money behind something, you just have to wait a short time and they will deliver. It was not so long ago that HD came out and everyone was saying, "I am not getting a new tv just to watch HD. Its not that great anyway. There is no point in paying more. yada yada yada". There is a lot of opinions being thrown out there under the guise of fact. When they are in fact just opinions. I love how people are even commenting on how consumers don't want 3D. Even with VERY little 3D content out there now, EVERY, and I mean EVERY customer asks me about 3D tv's and projectors for their home. There is interest, and coupled with the industry push, this is not going to just go the way of beta max and HD-DVD.

 

I definitely think 3D is here to stay, but I don't think it will become mainstream until they solve those two issues I have, the blur and the glasses. I'm sure they will find solutions for those problems eventually, and then I'll happily buy 3D tvs.

 

and like Sarlacc, you have an interest that the rest of us don't have - you want to sell TV's.

 

No, SD to HD was a revolution to TV, just as going from black and white to color was. I have always been an early adapter when it comes to something that is good. I bought a CD player in the 1983. I bought a DVD player in 1996 or 1997. I had HDTV before 9/11.

When they can't do it in the theaters well. When you have to buy a NEW TV, NEW BluRay player and have to have a special cable/or Sat box, forget it. I tried of having to buy something new every two years, what I have works and it is just fine.

The problem is it will have to improve and you will need even a different source player or cable/sat box. Every time I read that Sony has spun down a new firmware for the PS3 or their BluRay players, there are SO many stating that it fried their units. It's one of the reason I haven't bought a BR player.


It is being pushed to get more sales for the companies behind it, Sony is the major player. They have you from the theater to your home.

 

great movie theatre clip