Page 32 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2228293031323334353642 ... LastLast
Results 249 to 256 of 344

Thread: The DM Movie, TV & Music Thread

  1. #249
    Moderator drew's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    15,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haroon View Post
    Coming back to the thread .....

    3D is a new technology .... but it is here to stay this time. There are two main technologies for 3D.

    One is ACTIVE 3D which uses the heavier glasses which use batteries (rechargeable/non-rechargeable). Both eyes get full 1080p resolution and the shutters in both glasses open and close extremely quickly. You can experience headaches. The resolution is more but the brightness decreases in this method. The screen used is the normal white screen. For TVs it doesn't matter. The glasses are more expensive as well.


    The second method is passive 3D. The resolution is less. The glasses are the cheaper lighter variety but there are no shutters. The picture is brighter and the reason for that is that a silver screen is required. Most cinemas will opt for this probably because of commercial reasons. I guess the catch is to look at the screen or rather the glasses which will reveal which type of 3D you are looking at. Each eye has less than 1080p.


    In both scenarios the images of the left eye and right eye are blended together and your brain forms the image. In Filli's case he didn't feel the 3D as much which also signals that maybe his brain is not sharp enough to join the images of his left eye and right eye to form a proper 3D image! In other words he might be a dumbass! It's not his fault. Everybody's medulla oblangata is not necessarily the same.


    The purpose of watching a movie in 3D is not to focus on when the 3D effect is coming. You just watch a movie as normally as it is and where there is some action some effects will be in 3D. That's the best way IMO. If you go to watch a 3D movie and expect a lot of 3D action then I am afraid the director has been focusing more on the effects rather than the script, acting and cinematography.


    As an example .... the potential for Green Lantern to have much more 3D effects is high compared to POTC while Captain America: The First Avenger might not be suitable for a lot of 3D.


    The best thing to to do is pick the right cinema .... the one that has crystal clear picture and sound quality. It's very important IMO. Then pick the best seats in the house. For 3D you have to be in the exact centre of the screen. You should not have to look up or down at the screen ... rather straight ahead. And you should not be to the left or right. For this to happen you need to book in advance for the money seats or wait till the popularity of the movie wanes and then pick the best seats in the house.

    That's where the best 3D effects will come from.
    What worries me, is that movies will start adding scenes and parts of scenes that cater for 3D. Like in POTC where swords are coming out into the audience. Is that nescessary, or something added to make a wow factor because of 3D technology.

    This is why im waiting to but my new TV, i want to see where 3d goes.

  2. #250
    Moderator drew's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    15,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haroon View Post
    Glory and Waterworld suck! Waste of money. Braveheart is fine but Drew hates that movie! Get THE UNTOUCHABLES on BD.
    Braveheart is a pile of tripe by that anti-semitic arse faced piece of dog shit Mel Gibson! Historically inacurate, and a complete pile of anti-english bullshit! Robert the Bruce lived 200 years after Wallace, and just basic shit, he shouldnt and wouldnt have been clean shaven!!

    Gibson is a wife beating piece of crap

  3. #251
    Registered User Haroon's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    12,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drew View Post
    What worries me, is that movies will start adding scenes and parts of scenes that cater for 3D. Like in POTC where swords are coming out into the audience. Is that nescessary, or something added to make a wow factor because of 3D technology.
    That's the catch 22. Do Directors film movies the same way as they used to or do they adjust the cinematography angles every so slightly to cater for the 3D effect? They will opt for the latter because they too have stakes in promoting new technology. Money talks.

    When Dolby Digital was introduced films started having planes flying from the screen to the left or right (ref: Air Force One, Broken Arrow & Pearl Harbor) rather than through the middle because the side surrounds had discrete surround effects and they wanted to utilize that technology to WOW the audience with the discrete sound of only the left side of the cinema with the sound while the right channels went blank.

    It is all but natural because this is a new and exciting time for 3D. Once the dust settles, it will feel normal. Right now the critical portion of our brain will question such things but in some time this will become normal.


    This is why im waiting to but my new TV, i want to see where 3d goes.
    Buy it next year in 2012 when Passive and Active sets have gone through multiple generations. 2012 X-Mas will be a good time. I will force you to spend by then!
    ___________________


    M I L A N

    Riferimento d'Europa
    ___________________

  4. #252
    Admin Call Me 7 Cups's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    14,460

    Default

    buy 3d by 4-5 years, not yet lol

  5. #253
    Admin Call Me 7 Cups's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    14,460

    Default

    i think accuracy is a rarity in cinema, most go with fantasy, others try to go close to reality (but fake it depending on the view or lack of the historical facts) i would say there is NO movie highly close to accuracy (u get it)
    even the most accurated (?????) movie of the world, you can name it, will have pieces changed by the director's mind.

    judging a movie can depend on a lot of facts, your race-religion-age-taste

    one might dislike Master and Commander because of a slow, always in the water, ancient story, movie, another might like a latest 3d hitech movie

    imho Braveheart is still one of the best movies ever (historical accuracy doesnt exists, taste can vary from white to black)
    would an anti Western(cowboys) movies accept-admit-rate the best movie of its kind 10/10 ? no, not because the movie is not worth 10/10 but because he just likes 3d hi-tech movies.

    cinema is fiction by definition.
    and fiction is not reality
    and 100% historical accuracy is not a reality of this world


    Last edited by Call Me 7 Cups; 23rd May 2011 at 16:00.

  6. #254
    Admin Call Me 7 Cups's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    14,460

    Default

    plus, i forgot

    every movie got it's sense in its time-frame

    as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy made laugh zillions of americans first and europeans later
    such a couple today would have less success (just like the first people watching a train coming in the end of 1800 in the first movies(tapes) in Paris etc, that was their 3d)

    then Waterworld today might look like an average-ok movie, but we are talking about a decade or similar ago, today it's easy to say yuk or yak

    read and judge a movie also from its time-range (type of story based on knowledge, level of movie technical possibilities etc).
    Last edited by Call Me 7 Cups; 23rd May 2011 at 16:10.

  7. #255
    Admin Call Me 7 Cups's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    14,460

    Default

    for example II, waterworld might give you some hints about growing waters and the recent world crisis (from banks to icelandic volcano to osama bin laden to the thousend of people being fired here and there = the people fighting in a post crysis world toghether with environmental changes and lack of resources)

    that's it, not if Costner is gay or the story not accurated or no 3d or no hd or i hate water or i hate england

    BUT HEY IT'S MISSING 5.1 AUDIO !!!! YUFFF

    Last edited by Call Me 7 Cups; 23rd May 2011 at 16:25.

  8. #256
    Admin Call Me 7 Cups's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    14,460

    Default

    DISCLAIMER :

    Can we dislike a movie ? ABSOLUTELY
    Can we have our own opinion ? ABSOLUTELY

    but beware to give your opinion is a thing, to judge a movie in terms of total-final-global (whatever) absolute ? you really require to NOT DISLIKE any kind of movies (because if you do dislike some kind you will be biased on your judgment, will you like and want it or not, you will just be biased)

    i myself have seen a lot of kids saying music A B C D E sux because they liked music F G H I J K (and i dont mean that you are kid = bad, but that is the process, the way of evaluation of the masses, prefer something dislike somethingelse)



    and an unbiased judger doesnt hate an actor just because he likes to. (as i readed one comment above)
    Last edited by Call Me 7 Cups; 23rd May 2011 at 17:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •