DeWilson
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Messages
- 2,517
- Real Name
- Denny
Too bad they are going to release Miss Sadie Thompson in 3-D, it would be nice if studios would start seeing value in releasing non-gimicy films/shorts in 3-D on DVD.
The easiest way to do this would be to add a Uservoice page to the Columbia Classics page so people can suggest and vote on potential releases, and receive replies and updates on what releases are in production or being considered: https://uservoice.com/These kinds of questions come up all the time and we are working to create a mechanism on the new Columbia classics-dedicated website (a work-in-progress site) so that fans can easily ask questions and get timely responses. Look for that in the near future.
I think you meant to say "Too bad they are not going to release Miss Sadie Thompson in 3-D" . The studios are waiting till a proper (1080p for each eye) Blu-ray 3-D standard is defined, probably in 2010, before they start releasing films in 3-D.Originally Posted by DeWilson
Too bad they are going to release Miss Sadie Thompson in 3-D, it would be nice if studios would start seeing value in releasing non-gimicy films/shorts in 3-D on DVD.
Is this a fact, RolandL?Originally Posted by RolandL
I think you meant to say "Too bad they are not going to release Miss Sadie Thompson in 3-D" . The studios are waiting till a proper (1080p for each eye) Blu-ray 3-D standard is defined, probably in 2010, before they start releasing films in 3-D.
But any lens creates depth, it converts the 3D world onto a flat piece of film that is then projected onto a flat screen, yet we recognise in the flat image the appearance of depth. Look at Citizen Kane, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or The Little Foxes, or any of Sergio Leone's Techniscope films, they all make outrageous use of depth. If we say that only 3D movies have 'true depth', then we are completely ignoring many filmmakers such as Welles, Wyler, Renoir, Leone and Mizoguchi that made deep focus and depth staging a hall mark of their styles.Originally Posted by Richard--W
3-D is a visual language, the language of depth, and it should not be used or perceived as only a gimmick.
The stereoscopic lensing brings contour, texture and spatial relationships into play in Miss Sadie Thompson.
Depth is used with subtlety and with intelligence to tell the story.
If you haven't seen Miss Sadie Thompson in stereo, you haven't seen it.
Originally Posted by Richard--W
....Regarding the stereoscopic Miss Sadie Thompson, I disagree with Bob Cashill.
I've seen Miss Sadie Thompson projected twice in perfect double-interlock, and it's a state-of-the-art stereoscopic experience.
It is thankfully free of cheap and distracting gimmicks.
3-D is a visual language, the language of depth, and it should not be used or perceived as only a gimmick.
The stereoscopic lensing brings contour, texture and spatial relationships into play in Miss Sadie Thompson.
Depth is used with subtlety and with intelligence to tell the story.
If you haven't seen Miss Sadie Thompson in stereo, you haven't seen it.....
In this case, it doesn't. It's been some years since I've seen it but there are minimal effects, if any (it's not that kind of piece), and it's not used to add dimensionality to the sets or locales, as in DIAL M FOR MURDER. The audience was disappointed; there was no reason for it to be in 3D, except for it being the in thing at the time. (Columbia's hellzapoppin 3D cheapies are a lot more fun.) Agreed that the option to view it that way would be nice, but it's not essential.
But any lens creates depth, it converts the 3D world onto a flat piece of film that is then projected onto a flat screen, yet we recognise in the flat image the appearance of depth. Look at Citizen Kane, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or The Little Foxes, or any of Sergio Leone's Techniscope films, they all make outrageous use of depth. If we say that only 3D movies have 'true depth', then we are completely ignoring many filmmakers such as Welles, Wyler, Renoir, Leone and Mizoguchi that made deep focus and depth staging a hall mark of their styles.
No, it doesn't.Originally Posted by Simon Howson
But any lens creates depth
You may create the appearance of depth by grouping actors and props in positions of distance from one another, but that is only the appearance of depth because the participation of the viewer in the actual depth is missing.it converts the 3D world onto a flat piece of film that is then projected onto a flat screen, yet we recognise in the flat image the appearance of depth.
Sophistry.Look at Citizen Kane, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or The Little Foxes, or any of Sergio Leone's Techniscope films, they all make outrageous use of depth. If we say that only 3D movies have 'true depth', then we are completely ignoring many filmmakers such as Welles, Wyler, Renoir, Leone and Mizoguchi that made deep focus and depth staging a hall mark of their styles.
More sophistry.I also don't think motion pictures in any way resembled a "language". It seems that such analogies are just a relic of a time that film theory was completely dominated by semiotics.
Sophistry! (See, I can accuse people of sophistry too!)Originally Posted by Richard--W
To create depth, you need two lenses.
If you lose sight in one eye, you lose depth perception.
You need two eyes to perceive depth just as you need two lenses to photograph depth.
Firstly, staging in depth can encourage greater audience participation, because the viewer is left more free to roam the frame.Originally Posted by Richard--W
You may create the appearance of depth by grouping actors and props in positions of distance from one another, but that is only the appearance of depth because the participation of the viewer in the actual depth is missing.
MORE SOPHISTRY!Originally Posted by Richard--W
Sophistry.
Better to dive in the pool and swim underwater than to watch other people do it.
"We" are not ignoring anybody.
Deep focus and depth staging are as old as live theater and company on Thanksgiving, but two lenses gives a tactile presence and perspective and contouring to deep focus and depth staging that is absent from a one-lens capture.
I will agree with you that films feature a visual language provided the word "language" means something completely different to what we usually mean when we use that word. If film is a language, what is the visual equvilent of a sentence, or a paragraph, or a plural, or a morpheme, or a phoneme, a noun, or a verb, or an adverb or adjective? I just think if we are going to use words it may as well be used with some precision.Originally Posted by Richard--W
More sophistry.
Motion pictures are a visual language: I know a visual poem when I see Wagon Master / it.
Stories are told visually and also through dialog and action.
Otherwise, close your eyes the next time you put a movie on, or listen to the radio.
Otherwise, what is all your deep focus and depth staging for, if not to tell a visual story?
Cinematography is a visual language that communicates without a word being spoken.
Stereoscopic cinematography does the same thing only more and better and as naturally as having two eyes.
That's not theory, it's a practice, learned and refined in the doing.
Richard
I disagree that it is purely a depth illusion. The lens records an actual space, some lenses, say 40mm - 60mm record a roughly accurate sense of perspective, whereas shorter and longer lenses distort depth. So I think it is wrong to say that all lenses create an illusory depth, some focal lengths capture an accurate record of depth.Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
Any lens creates the illusion of depth. That's not the same thing.
I have seen the film in 3D at a cinema and on DVD, I remember the paddle-ball sequence far more clearly than Charles Bronson's appearance. Again, neither of these effects are realistic, they are 3D illusions, not actually how we perceive the world.Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
There are many "Example 'A's" of how 3D can impact a film dramatically. Anyone who has seen HOUSE OF WAX remembers the paddle-ball man as a gimmick, but what they remember stronger is Charles Bronson popping out of the corner of the screen at the end of the film during the climax.
I think there is a difference between colour film and current 3D systems. Colour is inherently a more realistic medium, because we perceive the world in colour. I don't think current 3D formats are more realistic, because the 3D effects are extremely unrealistic, we just don't perceive the world the way 3D films create a 3D illusion.Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
Sure, there's no reason to have the 3D in the film. But there's no reason to have color, or stereophonic sound in it, either. 3D is just an aspect of film-- no more or less important than color is to the story telling, but done right, actually takes some skill. See how terribly any film from the '70s or '80s shot in 3D is and you'll understand it's not just pointing a camera and shooting. The '50s films, by comparison, are well rendered because they were shot by technicians who may not have been experienced with the craft, but understood it.
My point was it doesn't make sense to pretend that 3D films are the first films to exploit our sense of depth. Filmmakers have been exploiting depth to various degrees since the 1920s, and during the 1940s deep focus and depth staging became a norm throughout Hollywood at least for black and white films. I would go further and say that one reason that 3D films didn't become a standard in the 1950s is because they had no real advantage over widescreen films.Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
But I don't understand how adding a new aspect to filmmaking, or praising it, disregards the preceding technology. As with any art form, new techniques are applied in association with old ones. Does every sound film negate the artistry of silent film? Does color negate black and white photography? Does stereophonic sound negate a mono sound signal?
There are many articles about 3-D (not the crap anaglyph) Blu-ray in 2010Originally Posted by Richard--W
Is this a fact, RolandL?
Have you spoken with the studios about it?
They have been tragically and irritatingly remiss in not releasing 3-D films in field-sequential when the tube and the system were the standard.
I hope you're right.
Regarding the stereoscopic Miss Sadie Thompson, I disagree with Bob Cashill.
I've seen Miss Sadie Thompson projected twice in perfect double-interlock, and it's a state-of-the-art stereoscopic experience.
It is thankfully free of cheap and distracting gimmicks.
3-D is a visual language, the language of depth, and it should not be used or perceived as only a gimmick.
The stereoscopic lensing brings contour, texture and spatial relationships into play in Miss Sadie Thompson.
Depth is used with subtlety and with intelligence to tell the story.
If you haven't seen Miss Sadie Thompson in stereo, you haven't seen it.
It is an illusion of depth. You can't have real depth without having two views. You're confusing depth of field with depth. They're two separate things performed by two different actions of your eyes.I disagree that it is purely a depth illusion. The lens records an actual space, some lenses, say 40mm - 60mm record a roughly accurate sense of perspective, whereas shorter and longer lenses distort depth. So I think it is wrong to say that all lenses create an illusory depth, some focal lengths capture an accurate record of depth.
Of course 3D films create an unrealistic illusion of 3D. When we perceive the actual world, objects don't seemingly separate themselves from a flat background plane and come firing into the close foreground.
Then there are a number of audience members of mine who would disagree with you. Many people I spoke to thought that Bronson's jumping out of the corner was actually someone in front of them at first. It is a well lit, well composed shot.I have seen the film in 3D at a cinema and on DVD, I remember the paddle-ball sequence far more clearly than Charles Bronson's appearance. Again, neither of these effects are realistic, they are 3D illusions, not actually how we perceive the world.
Nonsense. What do you call grading the color down or up then? Do you think every science-fiction or thriller film from the last 20 years has a natural color scheme? Clearly every film doesn't use naturalistic color. It's a stylistic effect, just as much as hyperstereo is.I think there is a difference between colour film and current 3D systems. Colour is inherently a more realistic medium, because we perceive the world in colour. I don't think current 3D formats are more realistic, because the 3D effects are extremely unrealistic, we just don't perceive the world the way 3D films create a 3D illusion.
And my point is that I never said any such thing, first of all, because 3D films are older than the '50s. I'm simply defending the fact that 3D is a legitimate aspect of film, as abused as it has been in the last 30 years.My point was it doesn't make sense to pretend that 3D films are the first films to exploit our sense of depth. Filmmakers have been exploiting depth to various degrees since the 1920s, and during the 1940s deep focus and depth staging became a norm throughout Hollywood at least for black and white films. I would go further and say that one reason that 3D films didn't become a standard in the 1950s is because they had no real advantage over widescreen films.