James Cameron, Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Lucas to Do CinemaCon Panel Together — Page 2

Yeah, one of the reasons I really don't care for 3d is the fact that it puts noticable strain on my eyes to look through those lenses for a full length movie & the artificialness of it (for lack of a better word) gives me a headache after a while.  I had a mild headache by the end of Creature from the Black Lagoon by the time it was over.  It's not bad enough to keep me from seeing a 3d movie if that's really what I want to see, but I can definately feel the effects of it.

My wife on the other hand, who has long been prone to motion sickness, really can't stand 3d movies b/c they really give her headaches & make her feel miserable by the end.

I also see 3d as a one trick pony.  Sure it's fun at first but the novelty (for me) wears off very quickly and I find I'd enjoy the film much more if I wasn't distracted by the 3d effect and those uncomfortable glasses (which I have to put on over my normal glasses).

I guess 3d doesn't enhance my film viewing experience and is really more of a novelty for the shear spectacle of 3d as opposed to actually adding something valuable to the movie.  It's like a flashy summer FX film that has no plot and cardboard characters.  It's shiny & colorful & pretty to look at (I'm being figurative here) on an occasional basis, but it's not something I want to be a regular part of my movie habit.

twooffour said:

TMBTM said:

I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".

I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.

 

Interesting points, although I admit I've never really paid attention to depth of field in movies, and its effects on the viewer.

Does a lack of it (or at least, uttermost lack of it?) strongly impact the way one perceives a 2D image?

 Yep. See this picture:

Here depth of fields "forces" your eyes to focus on the foreground object. It's a 2D way to simulate what your eyes do in real life. There are shots like this in Avatar but I feel it is "redundant" when used in 3D movies.

What I would call "real life 3D" would be to have the background as clear and precise as the foreground. Resulting the eyes of the audience to focus on what they want. With depth of fields in 3D movies you of course can focus on the background BUT it still looks blurry, and that is not how we see 3D in real life.

TMBTM said:

twooffour said:

TMBTM said:

I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".

I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.

 

Interesting points, although I admit I've never really paid attention to depth of field in movies, and its effects on the viewer.

Does a lack of it (or at least, uttermost lack of it?) strongly impact the way one perceives a 2D image?

 Yep. See this picture:

Here depth of fields "forces" your eyes to focus on the foreground object. It's a 2D way to simulate what your eyes do in real life. There are shots like this in Avatar but I feel it is "redundant" when used in 3D movies.

What I would call "real life 3D" would be to have the background as clear and precise as the foreground. Resulting the eyes of the audience to focus on what they want. With depth of fields in 3D movies you of course can focus on the background BUT it still looks blurry, and that is not how we see 3D in real life.

Agreed - the illusion is stronger in the lower picture, even though the other one obviously still has it.

Can't judge about the 3D, but complete realism would allow people to shift focus between the various "distance", as opposed to seeing everything equally focused or blurry. Not sure how to achieve it - probably something with flexible mini-lenses inside the glasses... wait, how's that supposed to AH FUCK it.

Not sure what to say about that - the entirety of the picture being precise and clear would certainly result in a prettier image, though. 

Harmy said:

But then, it's a movie and it is an art form, be it 2D or 3D, so it should be the director's choice what he wants us to focus on.

You are right. But for 3D movies I think the medium could be used differently. Letting the audience choose to focus on what they want would be a side effect of using the 3D that way, indeed. And the directors would then need to shoot and edit movies with that in mind. Could close some artistic doors, but could open news ones.

SilverWook said:

You've actually seen Creature projected in it's original 3D format? I'm envious! 

Yeah, on halloween last year, no less!  It was a beautiful 35mm print that must've been struck fairly recently (or at least not shown much since it was struck) as it was in really good condition.  It was a real treat that we barely found out about in time (thank goodness the theater ran a few tv ads on local channels for a few days before the show)!

red and blue

But he didn't say sound made it better ;)

Lucas: Look, I’m bringing out Star Wars for the third time. Newsweek asked: “does he have no shame?”

Well we’re into the third generation that are under 12 who haven’t seen Star Wars. And I’m betting that people who have seen it many times will still join this new generation to see it again if it’s in a social experience.

Here's an idea George....why don't you show this 3rd generation of 12 year olds the prints you made in 1977, 1980 and 1983?

Why didn't you show those same prints to the previous generation of 12 year olds?

Would've cost you less money too. IMO Cameron is the next George.  There's a time and a place for shooting digital and/or 3D, doesn't mean it's great for everything.  Thankfully Aliens and T2 were made when they were.  If made today they'd almost certainly suck.  More focus would go to effects and 3D and less to storyline and emotion.

doubleofive said:

 

RATLSNAKE said:

Thankfully Aliens and T2 were made when they were.  If made today they'd almost certainly suck.  More focus would go to effects and 3D and less to storyline and emotion.

A lot of people would tell you that that is already the case with those two movies.

 

Really?  What's wrong with those people?

*suspicious look at OO5*

RATLSNAKE said:

Lucas: Look, I’m bringing out Star Wars for the third time. Newsweek asked: “does he have no shame?”

Well we’re into the third generation that are under 12 who haven’t seen Star Wars.

Oh now I see, it's for the children. Got it.

I thought that was actually a very well spoken and informative panel. I agree with pretty much everything everyone said, though I do agree with those here that Lucas should not have used judgemental terms with regards to sound/colour being "better" (in his defense, I don't think he meant it in those terms but merely that it was truer to life or more immersive which is the main argument he seemed to be making, as he is a longstanding fan of both black and white and silent cinema, especially the latter which he has compared his own films to).

I also believe him when he says that the 3D re-release is a way to give a generation a chance to experience the films on the screen for the first time while giving everyone a chance to experience the films in a way that no one has before. But then I am looking forward to the 3D release.

I'd be more excited if I thought it was going to look as cool as they say it will. I don't think 3D is even close yet but I would love to be wrong.

doubleofive said:

 

TV's Frink said:

doubleofive said:

RATLSNAKE said:
Thankfully Aliens and T2 were made when they were.  If made today they'd almost certainly suck.  More focus would go to effects and 3D and less to storyline and emotion.

A lot of people would tell you that that is already the case with those two movies.

Really?  What's wrong with those people?

*suspicious look at OO5*

I'm just saying that there are some here who don't appreciate sequels to those movies.

 

Wow, really?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but honestly when someone tells me all sequels suck I always give the examples of Godfather II, T2, and Aliens as being proof you can do a sequel very well.  Hell, let's not forget about Empire Strikes Back, but of course we all knew that, and arguably Lucas didn't "make" that one. :P

I'll admit that Aliens could be questionable in the sense that Alien was a horror/thriller movie and thats Aliens was a war movie, but I think it still stands.

Oh as a side note, to those that may never have heard it but 'The Godfather Part II' was the first MPAA movie to use the 'Part x' in its title.  Just a little bit of trivia.

zombie84 said:

 But then I am looking forward to the 3D release.

As am I to an extent, as it will be interesting to see how well they can retrofit 3D immersion, seeing as I agree with Cameron's comments about "knowing and remembering" the distance between objects etc does have an effect on your finished product and can determine between a dodgy result and a great result.

However doesn't it concern you George will take it a step further, in the sense that by 2020 these 3D releases of all six films will be George's new preferred versions in place of the current 1997 SE and DVD edition hybrid?

SilverWook said:

canofhumdingers said:

red and blue

You were subjected to an anaglyph reissue print then. That system sucks. No wonder you got a headache!

The original 1954 release used the system with the polarized glasses.

 Interesting.  I knew it had to be a reissue as there's no way an original print could've looked that new & clean....  Even if it's not as good, I was still surprised at how well the 3-d effect worked.  But I can imagine how the polrarized glasses might be better, without forcing your eyes to see different tints.