Singing Dancing Moose on 29/12/2009 at 18:16
Quote Posted by dethtoll
where does SDM find these things
I don't find these things. I maintain a team of artists, writers, and wikipedia editors to create content on-demand for my forum posts. Even for this post I only provided a rough outline; the final copy you read here was fleshed-out by knucklesflash54. You may recall him from the (now legendary) 12.04.07 edit of the
Knuckles' Chaotix (Characters) subsection.
Eldron on 29/12/2009 at 20:21
From what I've heard, they wont fit every cinema with the best 3d type expensive projector there is, and I'm guessing alot of them have worse types of 3d projectors, with results as weak light and blurriness during fast scenes.
I made sure to check which one cinema here had the best projector and was quite blessed to have a sharp and non-blurry 3d experience, your brain would automaticly see the fake in the out of screen objects whenever something hit the edge of the screen.
So to fully experience the 3d effect, you'd have to sit close enough to have the whole screen in your sight.
they showed the alice trailer before the avatar showing in 3d aswell, and this in particular:
Inline Image:
http://materialisticboy.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/alice-in-wonderland-trailer.jpg...made me shit my pants, the cheshire cat came out of the screen, in its vibrant non blurry brightlit self, and it felt pretty real since it never touched the edges of the screen.
BEAR on 29/12/2009 at 21:54
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
with his hoo-rah crap.
All the stuff you said is I guess true (none of it bothered me as much as you), but he only did the hoo-rah thing ONCE. Thats worth noting.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't hate indy 4. How, in the name of god can you think this movie was bad? What are we to think of you?
Manwe on 30/12/2009 at 07:08
Quote Posted by Eldron
So to fully experience the 3d effect, you'd have to sit close enough to have the whole screen in your sight.
Maybe that's it. We had to sit at the very back of the room on the right close to the wall because all other seats were taken, and the screen seemed very small from there. I'll definitely check other movies in 3D out of curiosity and I'll get a better seat next time.
henke on 30/12/2009 at 10:04
Quote Posted by Eldron
[the cheshire cat] made me shit my pants
Haha oh god I'm so happy I'm not the only one who was freaked out by that! :D It felt like it was right in front of my face and I actually "jumped" a bit in my seat and raised my hand in front of my face. :o
Eldron on 30/12/2009 at 13:50
I'm planning to see avatar again, and try to find the optimal range to see it in, I sat mid and a bit further back,
this time I'll sit quite closer.
Avatar had so many great moments of 3d, but the illusion was quickly removed because most of the shots were panning or rotating.
Like the flying spores which were clearly ment to be both in screen and out screen.
and I have to blame cameron a bit for being afraid to let go of his depth of field :)
it would probably have enhanced things a bit if you could actually let the watcher decide where to focus, but I'm guessing he wanted to keep both the 2d and 3d movie the same in looks.
ps. anyone noticed that they have 3d pictures in the future?, grace's pictures with the natives in the mini-lab had perspective in them.
SubJeff on 30/12/2009 at 14:34
I think its part of the tech that only allows certain bits to be in focus. You do have to accept that your eyes will be led a little bit but in RL you don't have focus on your entire FOV anyway, its just you have dynamic focus.
Quote Posted by Manwe
Maybe that's it. We had to sit at the very back of the room on the right close to the wall because all other seats were taken, and the screen seemed very small from there.
Maybe in this quote does not compute. The screen was small? You did it wrong.
june gloom on 30/12/2009 at 18:21
Quote Posted by BEAR
All the stuff you said is I guess true (none of it bothered me as much as you), but he only did the hoo-rah thing ONCE. Thats worth noting.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't hate indy 4. How, in the name of god can you think this movie was bad? What are we to think of you?
He didn't hate Indy 4 but does hate Blade Runner? Man, now I know how 242 feels.
thefonz on 30/12/2009 at 19:47
Well I rather enjoyed that. Most fun I've had in the cinema for a very long time. The script is stupid; however that is my ONLY gripe about it, everything else was just what I was after. Besides, the movie of this type needs a dumb script.
Enough has been said about the gorgeous camera work and the scenery etc; but I think when this comes out on blu-ray it will push me into buying a blu ray player to experience it as near perfect. Plus a 100-foot screen for my flat to get the full experience.
I thought Sam Worthington and Uhura did a fantastic job and superbly acted their parts in a believable way. Sure the end was silly and the whole thing was entirely predictable ramming down our throats mother nature etc.
But I'm ok with all that, its just film! Speaking of the end, when I eventually picked my jaw up off the floor I realised it was the most epic battle I've seen in a very very long time.
Very impressed with James Cameron's vision and I look forward to the second and third movie to continue the story because dammit I want to goto Pandora.
TJKeranen on 30/12/2009 at 20:10
Quote Posted by Eldron
the cheshire cat came out of the screen
Hell yes. Avatar treated 3D (mostly) in a very natural way, but that trailer made me jerk my arms halfway up to protect my face.
