TMBTM

McFlabbergasty said:

If you are in a spaceship at one end of the Solar System and your friend Bob was in another spaceship at the other end, then if you both travel towards each other at a constant velocity of half the speed of light, will Bob's spaceship violate the principles of relativity (your own spaceship being your reference frame)?

No.*

*No part of this answer may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of TMBTM.

Since a Rubik's cube is a figure with borders, you can't have a Rubik's cube with infinite sides. Even theories about the universe not being infinite usualy say that it has no "borders".

A way to trick the problem to get an answer would be to assume that you are yourself infinitely smaller than the Rubik's cube. So the object would be infinitely bigger than you (as it was stated in your question) BUT it will still be part of our world at its normal size. So the answer to your question is: no you can't solve the Rubik's cube but someone else can.

In france, it seems that the new boxsets will only have the DVD versions, no bluray.

So my guess is that they are the 2011 versions on DVD, indeed.

Jaitea said:

I hope that the next trilogy open with the same craft like the OT, it would be cool to open Ep 7 with a Star Destroyer.....only to reveal it painted with Republic livery, perhaps policing.

Yeah, but I could imagine it in a more ironic way. Like open the movie with a Star destroyer coming from behind the camera like SW 77', only to see that it is completly destroyed, cut in half and that it is an old ruin from an old battle. Plenty of wrecks everywhere. And zoom in to a little ship in the middle of them.

Interior ship: 

New republic officer: What are we looking for Sir? There's nothing here for decades.

Luke Skywalker: I don't know... I felt something.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Now I wanna see Obi-Wan scare off the sand people with a rendition of "Long Tall Sally".

Don't forget to mention that in Frink's Ridiculous Hope thread then! ;)

Anthony Daniels, Ian McDiarmid, Carrie Fisher, all replaying Star Wars scene on stage at celebartion 7. Could be uselful for faneditor to get alternative, or funny lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=098eEvhiZDA

And the prequel box is not even the 3D versions of those... so you can prepare yourself for ANOTHER 3D box set next year, IMO.

Step 2 is interresting though. Having english volume at volume level X2 could be useful to use removing filters while keeping the english voices. Only little problem would be that french audio is now in the mix and adding human voices in the mix is never a good idea. But since french would be at normal volume, english should be louder and so maybe easier to filter than on the original english audio track.

emanswfan said:

(though if this method really works, it would be well worth it.)

Nah, it's not working, step 3 is a mess. It makes the music X2, same as the voices. Does not work. 

Okay, this is a little theory of mine,

I did not try it yet, and since I'm not a math guy at all, I could very possibly went wrong with my reasoning.

So...

IF, and only IF center chanel (audio english) and (audio french) share the same EXACT mix (and it is rarely, if never, the case... so I guess all this theory means nothing in the end, lol) then:

Step 1: (audio english) + inverted audio french) = English voices mixed with inverted french voices

Step 2: (audio english) + (English voices mixed with inverted french voices) = (audio french (with french voices being inverted)) mixed with (english voices at volume level X2)

Step 3: (audio french (with french voices being inverted)) mixed with (english at volume level X2) + (audio french) = (audio english (with voices at volume level X2)

Step 4: (audio english (with voices at volume level X2) + (inverted audio english) = .... English voices at original volume level.

Step 5: (audio english) + inverted (English voices at original volume level) = (audio english) minus english voices...

EDIT: All this reasoning is based on the supposition that an inverted audio removes half of the same original audio if its level is twice the same. And this is not a given.

RE EDIT: mmmm step 3 obviously double the music.... I must return to my reasoning, lol.

Jaitea said:

I don't like the Starfighter designs for the Prequels with their impossible droid slots,

Well, X-Wings are not particulary more designed for droids; You need to have a machine to put the astromech droids on the fighter anyway, as seen in SW 77. It's just that in the prequels they invented flying R2 units that are looking silly when they jump out of the ship.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Thanks - so, in other words, it could be done, but currently isn't being done?

I suppose it's not done because filming movies with the various iris, focals and lens that directors usualy use would be a headache. Maybe it would be simpler to achieve with full CGI movies, I don't know.

I always liked Doug Chiang's work on the prequels. Didn't he left Lucasfilm before episode 3 because he was upset of seeing his great ideas being used poorly on screen or something like that?

Mark Hamill, 30 minutes talking with W.Davis from SW celebration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhcV_9XDrcg

emanswfan said:

You use the 3D to create a depth map for one of the angles, and can then allow a lens blur tool (say in AE) to reference the depth map.  You can then adjust focal point, and strength of the blur (how shallow you want it).  you can even keyframe settings to simulate rack focus and stuff.  It's extremely simple, but does require shot-by-shot conversion.  It's like controling the camera settings after-the-fact.

The only thing to make it better would to use an algorithm specific to simulating depth of field, like field blur from photoshop cs6.

Quite interresting, thanks for the details :)

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

So, when a movie is shot in 3D, and then "down-converted" to 2D, are areas of the frame chosen to be "blurred" to simulate the depth of field, after-the-fact?

That's what I personally would prefer. But I never saw such a thing, because every 3D movies I saw were shot as a regular 2D movies, meaning with depth of field (on both stereo pictures). A previous poster said that it should be doable to shoot a movie with no depth of field (but technicaly maybe difficult) and that it should be doable to convert it in 2D with depth of field by using the differences between the 2 stereo pictures of the 3D to recreate the blur. At least that's what I understood. the problem would be that in this case almost all the shots would be filled with depth of field effect if you can't specificaly choose what parts of the screen you want to be blurred or not, lol, brain explodes. Must go to bed.

SilverWook said:

Do 3D films from the 50's have this depth of field issue? I'll have to pay more attention next time House of Wax airs on TCM.

Well, depth of field in 3D is not really a problem if you just look at the movie as you usualy do with 2D movies: by looking at the clear parts and avoid the blurry parts. In other words by letting the director make the focus for you. It's just a bit bizarre to keep depth of field now that the audience can make their own "eye focus".

But as the previous poster said, it would surely be a nightmare to shoot a movie with no real depth of field anywhere. Maybe it's easier to do with CG cartoons. I tend to think that there are in fact very fiew depth of field shots in most CG cartoons and that's maybe why they look so nice in 3D. Just thinking out loud.

Oh, and to stay in the thread's subject: STAR WARS EPISODE 7, YEAH!!!

SilverWook said:

Shooting a movie twice hasn't really been done since the early 50's,

I was more thinking of a way to turn a 3D version without depth of field into a 2D version with depth of field. Don't know if it's possible though.

I think I read an interview of Nolan where he said that if he ever makes a 3D movie it would probably be in converted 2D, because A: he can shoot scenes the way he always do (well, with 3D in mind, of course) and B: because he could better control the 3D effect during the convertion.

Usualy as an audience I prefer the thought of watching "real 3D" over "converted 2D" (and most of the time the effect IS indeed better), but from a filmaker point of view, converted 2D have some advantages that are debatable. And yes, even older movies like Jurassic Parc and Titanic got some impressive 3D convertion.

My only "problem" with 3D is the depth of field / camera focus effect. In a 3D movie the audience should focus on what they want. There should not be depth of field at all. For exemple it just looks weird when your eyes focus on something on the foreground that is all blurry. Depth of field is already a way to "simulate" 3D on movies since the beginning of cinema... So adding 3D to depth of field makes the job twice, in a way. But of course it's something that the filmakers are not okay to drop, because it's a tool to lead the eyes of the audience, it's part of the director's job AND they should also make a second version of the movie WITH depth of field for the 2D release...!

About the 3D during dark scenes: to me it really depends if you are in a theater with passive glasses or active glasses. Most of the time I found that active glasses makes the movie even more dark. I prefer passive glasses in theater (the ones that you buy once and keep with you and use again next time) I rarely found the movie too dark with them. BUT on a 3DTV, where you can choose between several lighting options, the active 3D looks much better than passive that is half the definition of active 3D, so it's not really "full HD" (even if passive 3D is usualy easier for the eyes on most people.) Anyway... that's why even if I like 3D I totaly understand people who just want to watch the fucking movie without bothering about all those technical possible troubles!

Good point.

Bester said:

I think the thing to take away from that announcement is that Ep VII is due for release some time between April 16-19, 2015.

I'm french and so not english expert but by "timed with the released of EP7" I guess they just wanted to say that the event will take place few weeks just before the release of EP7. I of course could be wrong, but a May release is to be expected.

I  like 3D, I just bought a new TV that have active 3D on it and movies like Hugo and Dredd are absolutly great in that format. BUT... I am for everyone to have the choice. I know that one of the problem of the theatrical release of Dredd was that there were not so many 2D screenings.

So, I am in favor of 3D movies being made (when done right and when the material worths it) but I always want 2D screenings also available (there are also many people who simply can't see 3D at all because of eyes trouble for exmple) and if a movie is to be released in only one format, then 2D should always be the one.

As for Episode 7, I do think it will be 3D (I think they already said that it will be 3D, I must have heard it somewhere, maybe even in the first speach of the Disney's head, IIRC?). Part of me is interrested in watching a Star Wars in 3D (as long as it is not one of the prequels...) so I guess I'm going to watch it the first time in 3D, simply because that will be the way the movie is supposed to be seen. But I know I'm gonna also watch a 2D screening. Because somehow I feel it'll look more like "the Star Wars I know" instead of "the new 3D blockbuster". Hell, maybe I'll go 2D for my first screening. And if they choose to finaly don't make it 3D I'd be pleased with it too. (Either way, I win!...)

Ryan McAvoy said:

(False perspective)

Not wanting to be a smartass, just a real question I asked myself when watching the Hobbit: how could they make false perspective when shooting in 3D? I remember some behind the scene footage of LOTR and I found very interesting to use that old trick of forced perspective. But this can't work when filmed in 3D because the trick is revealed. Maybe forced perspective shots were post "3Dfied" or something.

Anyway, good news in the Star Wars universe these days!

One little gag I added in my War of the Stars first fanedit (I don't know if many people understood it well though) is that it is Obi Wan who accidentally starts the converging garbage compressor walls. He does it when he tries to shut the beam tractor down, but obviously he makes a wrong manip.

You could go over the top with this idea, like maybe having Obi Wan pushing the walls to converge (not knowing what he's doing) and R2 trying to stop them. That could go on for ever.

At this point I don't even want a new Star Wars that would change again the face of cinema, I just want a good movie with interesting characters, iconic scenes and a bit of heart. Plus, SW movies are already a bit codified: a certain lenght, a certain type of characters, of music, the wipe transitions etc... I don't see the sequel trilogy being a revolution of the cinematic experience nor even a revolution in the genre.

I just want a new movie to enjoy and talk about positively, that makes me want to see more of them instead of worrying about what they could mess with in the future.

That said... if there is ONE scene with a bad guy being caught on purpose and  interrogated inside a glass room I swear I'm leaving the theater, haha.