Claimed: Séries

[boubabi 4,725]

[Will 4,662]

where i put my 3d glasses

[boubabi 4,725]

at imax centre des sciences 

[Will 4,662]

2 minutes ago, boubabi said:

at imax centre des sciences 

 

fun fact my eye doctor once told me i will never get the full effect of a 3d movie because my right eye is apparently extremely dominant over my left eye 

[boubabi 4,725]

yea, like 10% of people can't fully appreciate a 3d movie due to a medical issue or something. You don't miss much imo 

[Beketov 9,101]

10 hours ago, boubabi said:

yea, like 10% of people can't fully appreciate a 3d movie due to a medical issue or something. You don't miss much imo 

Further reason 3D should go die in a hole.

[boubabi 4,725]

Meh, its a step forward to a more immersive experience I guess, but thats just not by cup of tea for the moment as I feel like 3D just adds sensationlism to a movie, which isnt what I weight in a good movie or not

[Beketov 9,101]

25 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Meh, its a step forward to a more immersive experience I guess, but thats just not by cup of tea for the moment as I feel like 3D just adds sensationlism to a movie, which isnt what I weight in a good movie or not

I find about 10% of the time movies are actually shot with a 3D camera and have actual elements of depth that look good. 85% of the time they are just digitally sliced to bits and have next to no elements where the 3D adds anything.

 

Meanwhile the last 5% is reserved for times when it wasn’t shot for 3D but you can tell in the 2D release that you should be watching it in 3D because elements look terrible and out of focus. So basically because the 3D version exists the proper version suffers.

[boubabi 4,725]

Meh, not quite sure about those numbers. Dont see how hollywood wouldnt shot with 2 cameras (for 2 different perspectives to our eyes) for a better result. Faking 3D with 2D shots was done in the early days and it looked quite awful and it was obvious.

 

Anyway, 3d movies were a trend for some time, it slowed down a bit in recent memory, which is good

Edited February 4, 2018 by boubabi

[boubabi 4,725]

I could see a place for 3d in Imax movies, as I feel it could add to the whole "spectacle" and "amazement" of the thing. But 3d in a movie with a plot and such, its a no no

[Beketov 9,101]

55 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Meh, not quite sure about those numbers. Dont see how hollywood wouldnt shot with 2 cameras (for 2 different perspectives to our eyes) for a better result. Faking 3D with 2D shots was done in the early days and it looked quite awful and it was obvious.

 

Anyway, 3d movies were a trend for some time, it slowed down a bit in recent memory, which is good

3D isn’t Shot with 2 cameras, at least not anymore. It’s shot with a special kind of camera that has two lenses and 2 sensors. Those camera don’t tend to have the same kind of cinematic feel that you can get from something like a RED or an ARRI though and don’t work with 35mm equivalents which a lot of films still shoot on for the quality.

 

For that reason most shoot on whatever camera they like and the digitally add the “layers” later. Results in a very different look than something that’s shot for 3D because the layers never look quite as distinct and the director likely never shot with the intention of having things be separated.

 

From the perspective of Filmmaker’s it’s usually a Cash crab that the publishers want. Very few people want to make a narrative film 3D because it’s more work to add nothing.

[boubabi 4,725]

By 2 camera,s I meant 2 lenses. 35mm is overrated. I mean, not everyone is Christopher Nolan who can still film on those films. Anyway, I think 3d camera in hollywood uses to lenses, and they use a mirror to bounce the second lense to not have too much of a perspective difference anymore. I can be wrong,  However, I think it's normal to composite the 3d shots later because you can adjust manually the perspective of your 2 shots to get more depth in some things, and less in some other, so I think the whole digitally added thingy is necessary.

 

But yes, mostly cash grab. I mean, after the avatar hype, everyone was trying (and many failed) 3d movies. I mean, the hobbit in 3D was horrible and made people barf because there was just too much thing going on.

 

btw, have you looked to the TVs that convert 24 fps to a fake 60 fps ? It's horrible. It makes every hollywood movie fake as hell. It's quite an interesting thing to see.

[Beketov 9,101]

Admittedly I probably exaggerated the numbers a bit but still. Animated movies in 3D are effectively real since they are Digital the entire time anyway but most of the live action 3D films that come out just do the job in post.

[Beketov 9,101]

2 minutes ago, boubabi said:

By 2 camera,s I meant 2 lenses. 35mm is overrated. I mean, not everyone is Christopher Nolan who can still film on those films. Anyway, I think 3d camera in hollywood uses to lenses, and they use a mirror to bounce the second lense to not have too much of a perspective difference anymore. I can be wrong,  However, I think it's normal to composite the 3d shots later because you can adjust manually the perspective of your 2 shots to get more depth in some things, and less in some other, so I think the whole digitally added thingy is necessary.

 

But yes, mostly cash grab. I mean, after the avatar hype, everyone was trying (and many failed) 3d movies. I mean, the hobbit in 3D was horrible and made people barf because there was just too much thing going on.

 

btw, have you looked to the TVs that convert 24 fps to a fake 60 fps ? It's horrible. It makes every hollywood movie fake as hell. It's quite an interesting thing to see.

The issues with the hobbit were more of the issue with high frame rate than 3D. It wasn’t motion sickness inducing until people watched it at 48 FPS. Same issue that those TV’s you mention have. Certain frame rates are used for certain reasons. I blame gamers for the most part, even though I am one. Too many people make game content now and claim that anything under 60 is bad but really anything higher than 30 should only be used for slow motion footage. 60 at real time has a look that feels like soap operas.

 

And yes, I don’t mean to say stuff shot for 3D isn’t messed wth digitally after the fact; it is. Just that there’s a lot of stuff Shot 2D and digitally converted after.

 

35mm is a whole other conversation. Some like the look, some don’t. I find it looks better (and can be scanned up to 8K) but it isn’t worth the extra cost and pain in the ass of having to get t all scanned. Digital is cheaper and easier.

[boubabi 4,725]

Oh right, the hobbit was in 48 fps, that's right

 

what a horrible idea 

[Beketov 9,101]

1 hour ago, boubabi said:

Oh right, the hobbit was in 48 fps, that's right

 

what a horrible idea 

If it isn’t a video game and it isn’t slow-motion nothing should be higher FPS than 30. 23.98 is the film standard for a reason.

[boubabi 4,725]

well, 24 fps wasn't decided for a particular reason. I mean, lets all agree that at least 16 fps is required the illusion of motion but the rumors are told that was a pretty random number and it was mostly due to economic reason that 24 fps was chosen. I mean, 35mm film isnt free lmao 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by boubabi

[Beketov 9,101]

28 minutes ago, boubabi said:

well, 24 fps wasn't decided for a particular reason. I mean, lets all agree that at least 16 fps is required the illusion of motion but the rumors are told that was a pretty random number and it was mostly due to economic reason that 24 fps was chosen. I mean, 35mm film isnt free lmao 

 

 

It’s a combination of things. 16 is the lowest for perceivable motion more or less but it didn’t work well with sync sound. 24 synced well and was the slowest (aka cheapest) that did so.

 

It’s more or less still the standard because people have gotten used to the amount of motion blur it creates. Even kicking it up to 30 generates less blur and therefore ends up looking too smooth to many people. Anything above 30 creates next to no motion blur which is jarring, especially in high action, which is what made the 48 FPS hobbit so motion sickness enduring. Our eyes naturally add motion blur to things we see. That’s what I meant by the reason it’s standard. It was created for a different reason but t has stayed even beyond its need of being cheap because we have adjusted to that being the regular rate.

 

Fun fact, television is broadcast at 59.94 (interlaced 29.97 FPS) so it doesn’t broadcast at 24 anyway even though most Footage is shot that way. Most films remain screened at 23.98.