Digital 3-D Cinema

Discussion in 'Movies' started by andySu, Jul 29, 2006.

  1. andySu

    andySu Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,669
    Likes Received:
    501
    I have just read in Empire magazine, that James Cameron, of the Terminator fame Aliens and Titanic, is fearing cinemas are on the decline, well this is very true. Last year was a slight disappointment with some major film releases Star Wars episode 3 Revenge of the Sith, War of the Worlds and Batman Begins, where just a bit of the mark on there gross.

    Now I don’t see (Digital 3-D Cinema) saving and insuring the survival of cinema, I mean what will be the overall cost of this, and will it be easy to install into modern multiplexes as well as new ones, and see that the same film is going to be revamped and shown all over again in a slightly newer form to but bums on seats, I would rather see more THX sound system cinemas springing up like Easter bunnies everywhere!
     
  2. MarkHastings

    MarkHastings Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    12,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, when I saw the Polar Express in IMAX 3D, they showed a trailer for that underwater 3D IMAX movie. I believe that was Cameron? right?

    It didn't seem to peak my interest. 3D is too much of a novelty and doesn't enhance the story line. I've always said this before, I hate when Hollywood writes the storyline around what they can do with the technology.

    But, I guess Hollywood is going to keep trying these gimmicks to get people away from their HT's. Instead of focusing on gimmicks, they need to start focusing on enhancing the movie goers experience by doing something about the people who distract everyone else from enjoying the film.

    I saw a special on FoodTV (or Discovery channel, or whatever it was) where this one theater was setup more like a restaurant. I know there have been these types of theaters in the past, but this one took it to another level.

    Each chair had a remote control thingy and before the movie, you could play those trivia games that they projected on the screen. The winner would win some kind of free food product. Also, they served beer and pizza, etc. - On the remote control, before you entered the theater, you would find the corresponding number to your favorite beer and then enter that number into the remote button (with the big beer icon on it). During the movie, if you wanted another beer, you just hit that button and the wait staff would know which beer you wanted, where you were sitting, and they'd bring it out to you.

    Now that's something that will definitely bring people back to the movies. [​IMG]
     
  3. andySu

    andySu Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,669
    Likes Received:
    501
    Mark

    You know your absolutely right about that, I have seen several IMAX films at the Bournemouth IMAX cinema, which is now closed down due to politics!

    Now the one striking thing that impressed me with IMAX was the sound presentation incredible, it was close to being on par with some of the THX presentations that I have heard and felt in the past. So I would welcome more THX cinemas within the UK, that will bring me back for more and quite often the same film, I’ve always felt THX was an affordable productive improvement to motion picture exhibitions.
     
  4. Bryan Ri

    Bryan Ri Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    NYC Area
    Real Name:
    Bryan
    I wish there was an IMax theater at my local cineplex. I would see every major release on it. My Superman Returns IMax experience will stay with me forever.

    In regards to the 3-D element to movies, yes it is nothing more than a novelty. However, it's something that I traveled an hour and a half to see, and would do it again in a heartbeat (Superman Returns). It added nothing to the story, but it was frickin cool.

    If cinemas start going out of business, it will be due to the assinine ticket prices. Nobody wants to go spend $3.50 on gasoline, then another $10-12 on a movie ticket. Heaven forbid you want to but a snack while you're there.
     
  5. andySu

    andySu Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,669
    Likes Received:
    501
    Bryan

    That is why I have declined from going anymore to the god awful sounding cinemas in my home town, pay Odeon £7.50, I was getting less than that when I worked for Warner Village cinemas as projectionist, who do they think there Kidding.

    Now I welcome some new techniques and technology’s to keep cinema going, but not at the prices there charging, food I always take my own! And I take the rubbish with me as well when I leave!

    But I will never forget the rubbish I have just heard and tried to feel for, with effort and strain!

    One thing that I have noticed with IMAX 3D is when you move your head up and down the image remains stable, when you turn your head from left to right the image remains stable. Now when you roll you head the image becomes unstable and you lose the 3-D illusion!


    Here is a link that I have found on the (Tomato Forums)

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/c...entryid=317988
     
  6. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,231
    Likes Received:
    704
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    I Superman at an Imax (but not 3D) and I feel the same way. It doesn't add to the storyline, but it sure enhanced the experience.

    Monster House is currently playing and if you have to chance to see it in 3D (in some theaters-not IMax) do so. Its a very good movie, IMHO, and the 3D is excellent.
     
  7. WilliamG

    WilliamG Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    0

    So right, Johnny! I couldn't imagine seeing Monster House 'flat'. Talk about an enhanced experience. [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
  8. Steve Phillips

    Steve Phillips Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMAX is large format film, and Digital 3-D Projection doesn't use film at all.

    The players behind these technologies are in competition with each other, which is why you see 3-D movies playing in one format but not the other.

    Going forward, most CGI family films are going out in a 3-D version; and between newly announced live action projects and others that will make sue of "dimensionalization", it soon will not be uncommon to see a stereoscopic version of a movie playing along side a flat version.

    The good thing about these projects is that since they only play in 3-D on a limited number of screens, they must also be able to stand on their own when seen in flat, two dimensional form. They are using the process as an enhancement, and not just as a gimmick. (The same can't be said for many of the exploitation 3-D films from the 1980's.)

    However, I feel that those who saw THE POLAR EXPRESS and MONSTER HOUSE in flat form still missed out. I can't imagine seeing either without the depth.

    I really feel the digital projectors in mult-plexes approach makes the most sense; theater chains must agree as more and more are signing up each month. We went from just 85 screens showing CHICKEN LITTTLE in 3-D last November to 215 showing MONSTER HOUSE today; with significantly more already contracted for installation by the end of the year.

    www.reald.com or www.dcinematoday.com are good sites for info on DLP 2-D/3-D projection; including lists of equipped theatres.
     
  9. JediFonger

    JediFonger Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    24
    Real Name:
    YiFeng You
    saw SR in 3D. i gotta say it is a very good experience.

    the problem is the stupid goggles. as soon as the 3D is out w/o goggles, the sooner it can take off.
     
  10. MarkHastings

    MarkHastings Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    12,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, I saw the Polar Express in a flat theater before I even knew there was a 3D IMAX version.

    I saw the 3D version afterwards and I have to say that while it was cool, I did find myself being thrown out of the story everytime a 'neat' 3D element popped out at you. All I kept thinking was "Oh, they did it this way because they wanted to show off the 3D aspect."

    In the 2D version, I found myself concentrating more on the story and it was (in a way) a more pleasurable experience.

    But that's me...knowing what goes into these movies, I can always tell when something is done to show off the technology and it's frustrating.
     
  11. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,231
    Likes Received:
    704
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    Couldn't you say that about any new technological advance in movies? Widescreen for instance, sound?

    I did find myself thinking more than once, "this 3D is great!" I guess that's taking me out of the film, but I was loving it.
     
  12. MarkHastings

    MarkHastings Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    12,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with the sound aspect, and judging by the hi-res audio threads, a lot of people agree as well...I hate when they over use the rear speakers just bceause they're there. I much prefer them to be used to enhnace the story and not to say "Hey look! There are speakers behind you!"

    EDIT: I guess that should say "Hey look listen! There are speakers behind you!" [​IMG]


    Actually, what I was referring to was mainly the shot of the train (from Polar Express) when it was stopping on the ice...the scene where the camera is right on the ice and the front of the train slows right over the camera and the train comes right at you. That just seemed too obvious why they did that shot.

    As opposed to the snow (from the beginning of the movie) where the snow came out at you, but it merely enhanced the scene and while I was like "That's cool!", it didn't pull me out of the movie as the train sequence did.
     
  13. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh. When I saw The Polar Express on DVD, I found that losing the 3-D element took something that was visually very exciting and made it into a painful movie to watch.
     
  14. MarkHastings

    MarkHastings Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    12,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    but did you see the 3D version first? because that would make sense.
     
  15. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah. But, to be fair, when I saw it that way, I recognized it as a film that was pretty much worthless outside of being visually/technologically interesting. It's really some of the best 3-D cinematography ever done, and when that's stripped away... Well, I can't imagine watching it for the story.
     
  16. MarkHastings

    MarkHastings Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    12,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, it also worked in the flat theater because the visuals were just as good when seen the 'flat' way.

    I really think that that the real live 3D didn't add any more to the movie other than "that's neat" - the visual expereience (in flat 2D) was just as impressive and made the movie just as enjoyable.
     
  17. BrettGallman

    BrettGallman Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    It kind of reminds me of how arcades went into decline after the mid-'90's or so. In that case, home systems started to outperform arcade systems, and while us enthusiasts will never admit as such, the average person probably thinks the HT experience can replace the movie-going experience. That, and the theater-to-dvd window is so small now. So, theaters may be going the way of gimmicks that do things that can't be replicated in the home, much like arcades had those big machines that simulated things like skateboards, cars, etc.
     
  18. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously, I disagree, thinking that going from 3-D to flat took something well-done and made it a submediocrity. But what's wrong with "that's neat" as a goal? Strip away enough "that's neat" and you're on your way back to Greek theater.

    Besides, there's a big difference between the 3-D cinematography Zemeckis managed with The Polar Express, which was constant and excellent throughout, and something like Miss Sadie Thompson, where it was a poorly used gimmick.
     

Share This Page