My wife doesn't love Quentin ('s theatre). She had to sit 2 rows directly behind his massive noggin at a screening there for Inglorius Basterds and missed the middle one third of the movie. Not the middle of the movie, the center third of the projection onto the screen! Well, at least the snacks were free.
Originally Posted by CuS
The whole name of the game is to establish big monopolies by controlling production from capture to
dedicated distribution and projection. Independent theaters will be driven out - but that's the whole
point! No different than certain gas station chains. They find someone to take on a franchise and
build it up, then force them into a capital-intensive "improvement" contract (typically a Mini Mart),
then immediately jack up the wholesale price our their own brand of gas. They do it region by region.
So the lease holder bankrupts and the already running business reverts to the petro company itself.
I almost never go to theaters anyway - if it ain't in Technicolor, why bother?
I saw a premier of some winter sports films last September (in prep for the season) and woefully disappointed at the digital quality. I was up front and could see squares the whole time. WTF. And the weird ghosting with fast movements almost made me ill to my stomach. The silliest part is the fact that the digital technologies used for both filming and projection were advertised when we first sat down.
I'm not sure I can stomach that again. Give me film or give me nothing at all.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
A friend of mine was in management with one of the smaller Canadian gas companies. He used to say that the retail margins on gasoline sales were so narrow that every station that put in a "Mini Mart" operation immediately increased their retail profits tremendously.
And car washes made more money than gas sales as well.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
GIVE ME FILM OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Much like the 3D gimmick. It only took two movies for me to say never again, and this is supposed to be the future of cinema? I'm not even old enough to be nostalgic or anything, but it's obvious to me that things nowadays are moving in the wrong direction on many fronts. Quality, skill and craftsmanship is being replaced with cheap, fast and convenient. Film related businesses are struggling while Instagram, a cellphone app that adds some crappy filter to your low-res photo and uploads them to a website, sells for a billion dollars. I mean seriously, wtf?
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
I have seen advertisements for Titanic saying is now in 3D. How can that be? Surely it wasn't filmed in 3D?
Originally Posted by amsp
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
It's the way of the World and it's not going to change "Capitalism is savagery"
Originally Posted by amsp
No but you can fake it. Some pseudo-3D titles have objects placed in distinct layers and look really bad but computer vision is advancing to the point where it's possible to generate depth from optical flow in the scene and use camera motion as a source of parallax; very similar mathematics to synthetic aperture radar. Results vary but can be excellent with a little manual tweaking.
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
There were some good (academic) demos about 2008 showing 3D scene reconstruction (triangles meshes and textures) just using video from a moving camera. I expect by now that the process is more reliable though of course I've no idea if that's what any particular studio is doing.
A friend of mine was dabbling with this a few years ago, creating 3D pictures from regular 2D photographs. The idea was to break the picture in layers, and have custom software approximate what a stereo view of that scene would be like, based on what the surrounding looks like. It worked out OK, but it was 4-5 years ago, and a lot has happened since with technology.
Originally Posted by polyglot
I've seen one movie in 3D, and frankly will not pursue it again, as it looked awful to me. At the same time, when I go to the cinema, I usually sit far back where I can't tell enough difference between digital and film projection to care, and basically have no preference whether the film was shot with digital or with film, as long as the movie itself is good. I do care about the movie itself, how good the story is, how well the characters are developed, directing, convincing acting, cinematography, gesture, suspension of disbelief, lighting... And that's the main reason I don't find myself attracted to many of the movies out there anymore. The last inspiring movie I watched was Lars von Trier's 'Melancholia'. However it was filmed, it was a spectacular movie and worth seeing.
We, as a subset of society, are worried about this switch from film to digital, mostly for the simple fact that movie film production largely dictates still film production, and we don't wish to see it vanish. If Kodak did not make Vision movie stock, could they continue making just still film?
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh