OT: Youtube in 3D

Anyone managed to watch it properly yet? I gotta say that this seems to be the only one that almost works...








www.strypesinpost.com

Ok...I am a newbie to 3D Technology and learning still so bear with me...

I never liked 3D. I never liked the green / red tinge everything had to be to separate the elements. The red / green glasses gave me a headache - still do. I didn't know there was still 3D made using the blue & red separations.

All the pro 3D I see now like at Disney Attractions and in theaters...the glasses are not red / green...they are smoked and look like regular glasses or sunglasses. THAT is the technology I have fallen in love with. I saw Toy Story 1 & 2 recently in 3D and it blew me away. The separation technology must be different from the old fashioned red / green technology because the glasses (that I accidentally clipped from the theater - ooops) do not work with this posted WoW clip.

That said...does anyone have 3D clips to post that have that NEW 3D TECHNOLOGY? THAT'S how 3D should be done...not suffering through red / green washed pieces. You become immersed into it because the colors stay true. If I could, I would see every movie I ever saw all over again with this new 3D technology. Are you listening George Lucas? Star Wars 3D Blu-Ray series coming soon??

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Yeah I've been keeping track for a while now - I have a variety of 3D Glasses but find the Cross-eyed technique works the best as it does not filter out any colours.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

anaglyph 3D is as old as the hills and easily displayed on something like Youtube. I prefer polarized 3D because you retain a lot more of the color. And I'll get a lot more excited when they can do it without glasses or crossing my eyes.

Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

I watched Avatar on RealD (you should check that out, Joey), no red/blue glasses. It's the new polarization screen and you need to wear glasses that remind me of Woody Allen's (not the red/blue thing). After the movie, we dropped by at an eatery for supper, and they were showing the Avatar trailer on TV, and that just looked like video.

I found this Youtube thing fascinating, because when I tried to download it, it downloaded two clips side by side. So Youtube combines both images simultaneously on the fly.

> And I'll get a lot more excited when they can do it without glasses or crossing my eyes.

A few of my friends were joking that once this thing takes off, subscription to 3D movies will come with disposable 3D contact lenses, and if you subscribe for life, you get 3D lasik.



www.strypesinpost.com

I'm not going to bother searching for it but somehow I know it's out there. Someone must have already made bespoke 3D glasses with prescription lenses, or no prescription at all, just expensive frames with the polarized lenses in them so you don't have to worry about the cooties you might get from using the ones they give you at the theatre.
That and peoples desire to spend money and demonstrate their conspicuous consumption while sitting in the dark watching movies.

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

@ Strypes...

Those are the glasses I have...REAL3D...that's how I saw Toy Story 1 & 2. Spectacular. Colors were rich. I believe that's how Shrek 4D & Jimmy Neutron attractions at Universal and Philharmagic @ Disneyworld are done. Really feels like you can reach out and touch things.

I too will be happy to watch 3D without glasses. I would love to sit facing an audience that is watching a movie with their eyes crossed. That would be a show in itself.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

You all might want to read this to get up on the latest in 3D

[provideocoalition.com]

Michael Horton
-------------------

> I would love to sit facing an audience that is watching a movie with their eyes crossed.

Yea, that would have made a scene in Cinema Paradiso.



www.strypesinpost.com

Great post Mike...awesome articles (especially the "7D 101". How come all your posts have pictures of men on a stage? Must be the Actor in you

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Not me. Thats Mike Curtis who did those.

Michael Horton
-------------------

hey, strypes, did you get my email?

anyway, the 3D is great. are they going to stick with the red and green technology or the polarizer glasses?

i think the polarizer is much better. wonder why they didn't go with that. i think it works on the same principle: two images per movie frame combined to give the 3D effect.

Polarized is much better but more expensive to implement because it requires two interlocked projectors as opposed to anaglyph(red/blue glasses)which is shown from a single projector.

Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

Oh, thanks for pointing that out, Noah. That makes sense. I thought perhaps they could place both frames side by side or one above the other one, but that won't work either because the polarized images need space between them to simulate the human stereoscopic vision.

But what are these 3D TVs being advertised? Do people have to wear green and red glasses to see the 3D programming? 3D didn't catch on in theaters because of the headache of red and green glasses induced, so why would people buy 3D TVs?

Unless they are developing some other way of doing it? I enjoyed the 2D Avatar trailer more, because I didn't have the green and red glasses to see the one posted here by Ben. I tried a combination of greenish and reddish filters from my camera case, but they didn't work very well. Here is the trailer in 2D.

> Really feels like you can reach out and touch things.

When they were running through the jungle in Avatar, I almost ducked under the seat. The folks that watched the original Great Train Robbery and thought that was real, haven't seen this.



www.strypesinpost.com

While I appreciate the technical achievements of Avatar, a big, big part of me rebels against the whole enterprise on principle. Come on, there's got to be better things you can do with $500 million than to make pretty pictures. You can feed several poor countries with that.


www.derekmok.com

While there is always something better one can do with 500 million dollars you got to remember how many people were employed during the production of this movie and if this movie is a success how many more people will be employed as a direct result of it.

Too early to tell if it's money wasted in the long run, but as of this writing it looks like money well spent

Michael Horton
-------------------

IMHO... AVITAR is a cliché script set to 3d characters. The effects were awesome but the storyline has no wow moments. But most scripts these days are like that. Rehashing the same 5 movies with a TWIST or a slightly different concentration point.

i like the polarized 3d but there is something nostalgic about the red/blue separation. No the color isn't great but the thoughts of me as an early teen watching 3d tittles is PRICELESS.

I cant wait to walk into a theater that has 3 walls as a single screen and watch a movie where the sound is done from the actors perspective. That would be better than 3d.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

The script wasn't great, but that movie makes a very compelling case for 3D. I guess the argument is that they won't spend $500 million on a controversial film that may or may not break even.



www.strypesinpost.com

Derek...what happened to you man? You telling me you would PASS on a $500 Million budget (that money, which I heard includes Advertising, btw)? You know how much that movie will probably raise in Benefits for charities down the road? What about awareness for Strip Mining? Not to mention Mike is right...the credits (from what I heard - haven't seen it yet) needed their own intermission....in a time of MAJOR LAYOFFS (last 2 years), you know how many families got fed from that film? The studio will recoupe that money in 6 months (I just took the kids to McMurders for a quick ice cream sundae and they had the Avatar toys).

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> Derek...what happened to you man? You telling me you would PASS on a $500 Million budget
> (that money, which I heard includes Advertising, btw)?

I'm speaking to the industry in general. I think spending's gotten out of hand. Now, James Cameron is a visionary and even at his worst he's better than 80 per cent of directors. I'm just saying, you can get five $100 million films out of that, or 10 $50 million films. It's so hard to get meaningful films and scripts made now, because they're always looking to make one colossal hit rather than several great films. And with one colossal hit, it's always going to be dumbed down to try to appeal to everybody. The Terminator didn't have to be responsible to $500 million worth of investors, and so it had a lot more freedom to say what it wanted to say.


www.derekmok.com

Exact-a-mondo Derek.

I am 100% with you on that, my friend.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Quote

I think spending's gotten out of hand.

Same argument was out there in the times when Apocalypse Now and Titanic were made...every year more & more $$$ in the budgets. It's a sign of the Hollywood economy which is ridiculous. If there's money to spend, git-er done.

You sound like me when I go to my Superiors at my Studio and tell them that we could be doing much higher end work if Marketing would just buckle down and create a substantial campaign. You know what they tell me? I care too much.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

>I think spending's gotten out of hand.

It's called a growing economy. A long time ago, a film shot for 100 million dollars was a lot of money. Many years later, many films are made for $100 million because the industry can afford it and it keeps people employed. It's the same as buildings or cars. You start off building a straw hut with Chief Strongbow and a bunch of tribal members, then it gets bigger. A hundred years on, you get skyscrapers and a team of architects and engineers and lines of workers. Sure we can choose not to build that huge skyscraper or shopping mall and have a bunch of smaller ones, but where do we draw the line? More could be said of the spending at Copenhagen. Costs too much and too little is done. Or having money from aid end up feeding corruption.



www.strypesinpost.com

Is it possible that maybe the more money they spend the less interesting the movie gets?

I remember a thread from about 3 years ago were some one in this thread said" people don't watch editing, effects and camera movements". Yet most of the money is going to that aspect.

now where is that bullhorn... oh here it is.....

You an buy 4 new upscale cars for less than 200k and crash them (1million buys 20 cars) so why spent 10m for some cgi folks to create it. Look at "I Am Legend" not a movie with a notable budget (not saying it wasn't a lot) but better than most other films like it. Momento, The Professional, Pineapple Express, 3000 miles to Graceland, Natural Born Killer were no where near 500mil and neither was The Matrix (timeless).

They were not small budgets but decently sized budgets with a vision. Money clouds originality and creates intellectually insulting results. The only thing that drives these budgets is greed and bragging rights.

Would i work on one of those films but it would not be because i think that it makes the movie better. It would be because i want the money and i would YESMAN all the way. Once its over i would take my 5 million and make 2 movies that were much more timeless and original.

now the police have taken my bullhorn away.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

That somehow sounds very wrong, but merry christmas anyway. With a higher available budget, usually that means that you have more stakeholders to be accountable to and more people who want a good return on investment. The same applies to any business venture. If you shoot a movie at a reasonably high budget, and it fails to make money, it's called a failure. Think Waterworld. With a higher risk, you tend to take safer bets- established cast, and the propensity to avoid controversial topics in order to make it saleable to a wider audience. So yea, in a way, you may have to dumb down the material depending on the circumstances at work.

Any professional in this industry who has worked more than a day can attest to the limitations brought about by the lack of budget- your script calls for the destruction of a building, or the apocalyptical end of the world brought about by huge floods, and tornadoes, etc.. Sure, you can think of creative ways to work around those obstacles, but what if you could shoot that story you have in your mind with the best talents at your disposal- stunt co-ordinators, directors, cinematographers, sound editors, editors, visual effects supervisors, etc.. I'm sure most of us have worked on shows where we had to massively fix stuff in post, because they went cheap on production.

"Good budget, good script", is usually how most people look at the initial part of the movie, and I'm not sure how many directors would walk up to their producers and say "hey, that's too much money, take that back!" And if you can "yesman" your way through it and still produce something substantial, more power to you, but think for a fact that you have more people to be accountable for, and if it doesn't make back at the end of it, a lot of your reputation is on the line.



www.strypesinpost.com