Latest Episode
Play

Go Back   Keith and The Girl Forums Keith and The Girl Forums Talk Shite

Talk Shite General discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-10-2010, 04:38 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
spooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWarrior View Post
I haven't seen 3D movies in a while, besides Avatar, but I think aside from the novelty factor, it's actually a pretty bad viewing experience. When a 3d object gets cut off at the bottom because it doesn't fit in the frame, it completely takes me out of the movie, or when an object pops out to be on a background of other people watching the movie (or I presume if I'm watching 3d TV at the house, the movie objects will have a backdrop of stuff around my TV).

Also, at least in the case of Avatar, generally only a specific area of the screen the director wanted to focus on was actually in focus, everything else is blurry. So it's not like in real life where you can focus on some object on the side of the screen, that's just blurry in 3d. Apparently it's possible to remove this focus and make all objects look sharp, but it costs a lot more to film that way.

Not to mention all the 3d objects have a silvery glisten to them, which just looks weird.

Maybe I'll just be an old man not understanding new technology though, who knows. I wonder if there were people against color in film when color recording technology first came out.
Was this all said in jest, or are you serious?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 05:00 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
Junkenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Italy (No Guidos Here)
Posts: 6,781
I would think of the 3d format as tangible when it becomes affordable and, mostly, is backed up by studios and tv channels. If that doesnt happen it could end up as laser discs or other technological improivements that didnt make the jump.

If it does make the jump it would be awesome, even if 3d will never reach the impact that it has on a big screen.

If you think that "all this technology is worthless and you dont like" then please keep listening to cassette tapes and watch movies on Vhs. And please stay there.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 05:13 AM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DudeEMETIB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansur View Post
nd $150 for each pair of glasses to watch 3D.
How about I just do like I usually do, and keep the 3D glasses I get when I see a 3D movie at the theater?

I don't think 3D TV will catch on for at least 5 years, but hopefully they're focusing more on 3D TV being able to play 3D movies you buy on DVD/BluRay
and NOT making TV programming 3D...that seems like just much to me...maybe some shows, but I really rather not watch ALL tv in 3D.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 07:33 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
Junkenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Italy (No Guidos Here)
Posts: 6,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeEMETIB View Post
How about I just do like I usually do, and keep the 3D glasses I get when I see a 3D movie at the theater?
The type of glasses you get at the theater are based on a technology that requires a special type of projector. The 3d tv will be at 99% based on a completely different technology and will require people to shell copious amounts of extra cash.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 09:43 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
DWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkenstein View Post
I would think of the 3d format as tangible when it becomes affordable and, mostly, is backed up by studios and tv channels. If that doesnt happen it could end up as laser discs or other technological improivements that didnt make the jump.

If it does make the jump it would be awesome, even if 3d will never reach the impact that it has on a big screen.

If you think that "all this technology is worthless and you dont like" then please keep listening to cassette tapes and watch movies on Vhs. And please stay there.
I don't listen to enough audio to comment on cassettes vs CDs, but if we got a new "revolutionary must-have" audio format every 3 years, I wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon.

As for movies, which one benefited from being on DVD as opposed to on VHS? I first saw The Matrix on VHS and was impressed, when I later saw it on DVD I don't remember going "wow, I totally missed ____ because of more visual detail". The movies that other people seem to enjoy that came after DVDs became the standard and which I can only assume benefit from being on DVD, I consider rather unimpressive: Lord of the Rings trilogy, Batman, etc., throwaway stuff I'd never watch a second time. Would No Country for Old Men lose anything from being on VHS? Doubt it. However, DVDs did add features not easy to implement on VHS: instant scene switching (which I'm not even sure is such an amazing feature), special features/deleted scenes (which I think are useful). Newer video formats don't really add anything similar on top of DVDs. Convenience-wise, you trade cassette tape distortion of worn-out tapes for digital distortion of dirty/scratched DVDs (of course, people first bought brand new DVDs and compared them to their grungy worn-out VHS tapes), and while the DVD is certainly thinner than VHS, DVD boxes are actually larger in the other 2 dimensions.
__________________

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 10:06 AM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
24-hour Marathon 2018 Fundraiser Backer24-hour Marathon 2017 Fundraiser Backer47-hour Marathon 2016 Kickstarter Backer57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer
 
Mattman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 281
I will invest when there's enough media out there. I got plasma before HDMI, so I am still watching that in 1080, and now I have 1920 LED which is awesome for HD. Only problem is that I have to download HD content as local cable has only 6 HD channels, including ESPN who broadcast NO HD programs on it!

If you want a 3D effect, you can use anaglyphic 3D with colour-glasses. Not so good as polarised (like Disney and some IMAX) or active technology requiring headsets or LCD shutter-glasses. A regular TV can do colour-separated 3D. The cinema here is still red/cyan 3D rather than polarised ..... Avatar was still stunning, although the captions were a little off-putting at times. I'll be going to see Alice in Wonderland this weekend.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 10:06 AM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
Junkenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Italy (No Guidos Here)
Posts: 6,781
Jumping on every new format that the industry puts out would be a silly move, but you dont have to fill up your point with nonsense, to make it.

Any movie benefits from the dvd transfer, simply because dvd's respect the orginal movie ratio, and the detail of the image is how it was created. Your personal taste and what you consider throwaway has no matter in this issue.

Same point is valid for blue ray vs. dvd. 3D is another thing, i still have doubts on it.

These are facts, no point to argue about this.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 12:46 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DudeEMETIB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWarrior View Post
...
Blu Ray > DVD > VHS

Sorry, just the way it is bud.

BUT I WILL GIVE PROPS TO VHS
For being awesome to use in building fortresses and towers and using as dominoes. Ooo childhood.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 01:00 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ansur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 292
I'm still confused why widescreen TVs aren't in the same aspect ration as movie screens. Why go 16x9 when you're still cutting the format or dealing with black bars? Why didn't they make them 2.39:1? We could have watched movies in their full format and have a standard aspect ratio.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 01:50 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
Junkenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Italy (No Guidos Here)
Posts: 6,781
Not an expert but recently i've been at the house of a friend who owns a godzilla sized 16x9 screen and watched "2001 - a space odissey" which, like or not, was one of the few movies to use the full 70mm frame, pre-imax.

Well the blu-ray transfer filled the screen amazingly, with no black bars and great definition. The Dark Knight Blu ray, also did the same trick, since it keeps the IMAX sequences in their original form.

On a general level i noticed a recurring path: the movie industry tries a new technological trick to drive the audience in theaters (cinemascope, Dolby surround, Imax, digital 3D), after a while the trick fades off and a format that tries to restore the experience in a home format comes out.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger