Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeJul 27th 2010
I'd like to see Christopher Nolan try his hand at it. He used IMAX cameras on The Dark Knight, so it seems he's one to embrace new technology. -
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeJul 27th 2010 edited
Well, the guy has been asked the question before if he had interest, and he said he didn't (one of the reasons I love the guy). On a press tour for Inception, he further mentioned how normal film already is a 3D representation of the real world (flat animation being 2D), and how he prefers filming on 35mm, which he loves, and for 3D he'd have to switch to digital (which he won't, he told EMPIRE magazine). He isn't saying he'll never do it, but don't expect Batman 3 to be all of a sudden in 3D.
Here's a link to the press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBSuSJsjBow
(the 3D talk starts at 9:25)
Once he will finally make a 3D film, I'm sure it will be a relevant and new way of using the technology, so I will go and see it. But for now, I'm all for the reserved approach he has towards it. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010
Avatar was the only film so far which was properly shot in 3D. It's a bit unfair to compare that with later-converted to 3d films during post-production 'cause if this technology ever prevails (which i highly doubt), it can only mean more films naturally SHOT in 3d, as AVATAR; then we can compare.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010
As far as lice action goes Avatar is the only one, at least. The next one will be Tron Legacy. We'll see.
And that's the whole point: post-production converted films can't compare to the real thing, but they ARE asking the same ticket price. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010
Post production 3d converted films are mostly crap; don't go see them in 3d, it's simple as that.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010
Indeed. The money-grabbing studios are threatening to derail the whole thing by doing that.
Anyway, my friend told me that the "premium" you pay for 3D actually enables you to keep the glasses and then use them in future films without having to pay the higher price. He says this is true in at least two cinema chains in this country (Vue and Cineworld) - I assume he's not lying to me, but it's certainly not a well-publicised bit of information. If it is true, then it puts a bit of a different spin on things. -
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010 edited
I've seen Up and Avatar in 3D, and that's enough. Avatar worked well but I enjoy Up just as much in 2D. -
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010 edited
Southall wrote
Anyway, my friend told me that the "premium" you pay for 3D actually enables you to keep the glasses and then use them in future films without having to pay the higher price. He says this is true in at least two cinema chains in this country (Vue and Cineworld) - I assume he's not lying to me, but it's certainly not a well-publicised bit of information. If it is true, then it puts a bit of a different spin on things.
I've seen a comment on an IMDB board that dismisses this as a myth, and goes on to say it didn't work for him. Actually, the higher tickets price is meant to cover the extra costs the studio's are putting into the film for converting it to 3D, or by making it a 3D film. The studio asks a the cinema's a higher fee to show their films, so the theatre needs to crank up the ticket price. It's something Cameron has mentioned as well, and I believe even Bruckheimer said it in a recent Q&A.
In the Netherlands, they're pretty strict on checking that you return the 3D glasses. Also, if you see the prices of these glasses when you want to buy them for home-use to go along with your 3D tv... it's not something you can buy with an extra 5,-. -
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010
According to Cinematographer Wally Pfister, Warner Brothers executives approached Christopher Nolan about making [Inception] in 3D, but he refused the idea, claiming "it will distract the storytelling experience of Inception".
-
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeJul 28th 2010
BobdH wrote
Southall wrote
Anyway, my friend told me that the "premium" you pay for 3D actually enables you to keep the glasses and then use them in future films without having to pay the higher price. He says this is true in at least two cinema chains in this country (Vue and Cineworld) - I assume he's not lying to me, but it's certainly not a well-publicised bit of information. If it is true, then it puts a bit of a different spin on things.
I've seen a comment on an IMDB board that dismisses this as a myth, and goes on to say it didn't work for him. Actually, the higher tickets price is meant to cover the extra costs the studio's are putting into the film for converting it to 3D, or by making it a 3D film. The studio asks a the cinema's a higher fee to show their films, so the theatre needs to crank up the ticket price. It's something Cameron has mentioned as well, and I believe even Bruckheimer said it in a recent Q&A.
In the Netherlands, they're pretty strict on checking that you return the 3D glasses. Also, if you see the prices of these glasses when you want to buy them for home-use to go along with your 3D tv... it's not something you can buy with an extra 5,-.
That's right, but I think the ones you get in the cinema are passive (ie they're low-tech) whereas the ones that work with most 3D tvs are active, ie need their own power source, which is why they're so expensive. A bit of googling suggests the passive type used in cinemas cost well under a dollar to produce but the active ones you need for home are pretty complex things.