Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Titanic Real 3d or Fraud 3D?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Apr 12, 2012, 1:07:56 PM4/12/12
to
I've seen advertisements for
Titanic 3D
but it reads "Real 3D"
It's not "Real 3D" is it?
Is Cameron ripping off the American public with fraudelent 3D??? If he
is, he should be shot first, then arrested.
How do you file charges against this guy?
Why do you let these thieves get away with it?
Cut his hands off..
I'm the Neighborhoodie Watch guy...
The Starmaker
According to Eberts review, it doesn't sound like Real 3D...
"Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss
in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20
percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might
complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had
the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert
to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are
not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses,
they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know
why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby
way to treat a masterpiece. "
http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998
Titanic 3D
but it reads "Real 3D"
It's not "Real 3D" is it?
Is Cameron ripping off the American public with fraudelent 3D??? If he
is, he should be shot first, then arrested.
How do you file charges against this guy?
Why do you let these thieves get away with it?
Cut his hands off..
I'm the Neighborhoodie Watch guy...
The Starmaker
According to Eberts review, it doesn't sound like Real 3D...
"Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss
in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20
percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might
complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had
the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert
to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are
not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses,
they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know
why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby
way to treat a masterpiece. "
http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998
moviePig
Apr 12, 2012, 1:39:37 PM4/12/12
to
'Real 3D' is a trademark for theater equipment. TITANIC is post-
converted 3D ...not a ripoff, but not "real".
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
The Starmaker
Apr 12, 2012, 1:55:24 PM4/12/12
to
moviePig
Apr 12, 2012, 2:45:01 PM4/12/12
to
Invid Fan
Apr 12, 2012, 3:12:52 PM4/12/12
to
In article <4F8717...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
It is being advertised as having been converted to 3D, so it's not
fraud and it's not shot in 3D.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
It is being advertised as having been converted to 3D, so it's not
fraud and it's not shot in 3D.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
The Starmaker
Apr 12, 2012, 5:23:03 PM4/12/12
to
Invid Fan wrote:
>
> In article <4F8717...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > You mean I'm wrong...but it's not "real"?
>
> It is being advertised as having been converted to 3D, so it's not
> fraud and it's not shot in 3D.
I didn't see any "advertisements" with the word "converted". It just says 'Real 3D'.
>
> In article <4F8717...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > You mean I'm wrong...but it's not "real"?
>
> It is being advertised as having been converted to 3D, so it's not
> fraud and it's not shot in 3D.
On American Idol, it advertised, Real 3D, not "converted to 3d".
I'm not talking about 'newspaper articles', I'm talking about...Advertisements.
It's deception.
The Starmaker
I want this Cameron guy in jail...in a shabby jail.
"you cannot make 2D into 3D" -- Roger Ebert
"It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby
"many shots and sequences in this version are
"Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss
in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20
percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might
complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had
the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert
to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are
not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses,
they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know
why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby
way to treat a masterpiece. "
The Starmaker
Apr 12, 2012, 5:24:35 PM4/12/12
to
Only your hairdresser knows for sure.
David Matthews
Apr 13, 2012, 1:34:26 AM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 1:07 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
_TITANIC_ a masterpiece ? He's gotta to be kidding.
Dave M
The Starmaker
Apr 13, 2012, 1:10:17 PM4/13/12
to
Remysun
Apr 13, 2012, 1:58:36 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
> justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
> usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
> you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
> he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
> having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
> you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
> long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
> retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
Except that CGI can be made into true 3-D by creating a perspective
> "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
> justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
> usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
> you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
> he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
> having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
> you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
> long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
> retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
shift, as has been done to any computer animated film.
moviePig
Apr 13, 2012, 4:14:20 PM4/13/12
to
"shot in 3D", they weren't shot in 2D either.
Remysun
Apr 13, 2012, 5:54:52 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 4:14 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> And, rather meaningfully imo, you can argue that, if those weren't
> "shot in 3D", they weren't shot in 2D either.
Did you know that the people who fell when the stern was up in the air
> And, rather meaningfully imo, you can argue that, if those weren't
> "shot in 3D", they weren't shot in 2D either.
were depicted based on dropping rolls of toilet paper?
anim8rFSK
Apr 13, 2012, 10:05:26 PM4/13/12
to
In article
<314c91a9-b6f9-4805...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Except they don't. Very few scenes in CGI are entirely 3D. If the film
wasn't intended to be shown in 3D, they still get converted like live
action.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
<314c91a9-b6f9-4805...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
wasn't intended to be shown in 3D, they still get converted like live
action.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
moviePig
Apr 13, 2012, 11:19:46 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <314c91a9-b6f9-4805-b0a3-f2f65b6b3...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
3D, and only then is a geometric viewpoint chosen ...and thus a
stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
-- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
in 3D as well.
> In article
> <314c91a9-b6f9-4805-b0a3-f2f65b6b3...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Remysun <remysun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
> > > justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
> > > usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
> > > you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
> > > he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
> > > having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
> > > you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
> > > long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
> > > retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
>
> > Except that CGI can be made into true 3-D by creating a perspective
> > shift, as has been done to any computer animated film.
>
> Except they don't. Very few scenes in CGI are entirely 3D. If the film
> wasn't intended to be shown in 3D, they still get converted like live
> action.
Afaik (which admittedly isn't terribly far) CGI action is modeled in
> Remysun <remysun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
> > > justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
> > > usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
> > > you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
> > > he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
> > > having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
> > > you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
> > > long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
> > > retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
>
> > Except that CGI can be made into true 3-D by creating a perspective
> > shift, as has been done to any computer animated film.
>
> Except they don't. Very few scenes in CGI are entirely 3D. If the film
> wasn't intended to be shown in 3D, they still get converted like live
> action.
3D, and only then is a geometric viewpoint chosen ...and thus a
stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
-- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
in 3D as well.
anim8rFSK
Apr 14, 2012, 11:29:24 AM4/14/12
to
In article
<d594208d-0eeb-4933...@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
their minds in the middle of the night, in a darkened parking lot, with
baseball bats.
...and thus a
> stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
> -- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
> I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
> in 3D as well.
No sir. You don't want to model everything in 3D, and certainly don't
want to render everything in 3D, so you end up with cheats and 2.5D and
compositing and really can't just move the camera 90% of the time.
<d594208d-0eeb-4933...@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <314c91a9-b6f9-4805-b0a3-f2f65b6b3...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Remysun <remysun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
> > > > justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
> > > > usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
> > > > you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
> > > > he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
> > > > having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
> > > > you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
> > > > long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
> > > > retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
> >
> > > Except that CGI can be made into true 3-D by creating a perspective
> > > shift, as has been done to any computer animated film.
> >
> > Except they don't. Very few scenes in CGI are entirely 3D. If the film
> > wasn't intended to be shown in 3D, they still get converted like live
> > action.
>
> Afaik (which admittedly isn't terribly far) CGI action is modeled in
> 3D, and only then is a geometric viewpoint chosen
There are producers that think that's how it should be done. We change
> On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <314c91a9-b6f9-4805-b0a3-f2f65b6b3...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Remysun <remysun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 5:23 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has
> > > > justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D
> > > > usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as
> > > > you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and
> > > > he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as
> > > > having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did
> > > > you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how
> > > > long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is
> > > > retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
> >
> > > Except that CGI can be made into true 3-D by creating a perspective
> > > shift, as has been done to any computer animated film.
> >
> > Except they don't. Very few scenes in CGI are entirely 3D. If the film
> > wasn't intended to be shown in 3D, they still get converted like live
> > action.
>
> Afaik (which admittedly isn't terribly far) CGI action is modeled in
> 3D, and only then is a geometric viewpoint chosen
their minds in the middle of the night, in a darkened parking lot, with
baseball bats.
...and thus a
> stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
> -- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
> I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
> in 3D as well.
want to render everything in 3D, so you end up with cheats and 2.5D and
compositing and really can't just move the camera 90% of the time.
moviePig
Apr 14, 2012, 3:43:37 PM4/14/12
to
> <d594208d-0eeb-4933-bf9b-b9330b8a7...@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
I won't argue with the industry facts, but they do seem
counterintuitve ...inasmuch as it seems harder to render a real-world
object in 2D than in 3D. E.g., I find more sophistication in drawing
a cube than in building one. It's why we attribute genius to classic
painters who imbue their canvases with a sense of depth.
counterintuitve ...inasmuch as it seems harder to render a real-world
object in 2D than in 3D. E.g., I find more sophistication in drawing
a cube than in building one. It's why we attribute genius to classic
painters who imbue their canvases with a sense of depth.
anim8rFSK
Apr 14, 2012, 10:26:43 PM4/14/12
to
In article
<8f82f8cc-653c-4438...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Think of it like a ride at Disneyland, with a pop up character in 3D in
front, and behind him flat painted characters; a grade school diorama
maybe. Looks great for a short moment from a certain angle; not
intended to be seen for a long time or from the side.
<8f82f8cc-653c-4438...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
front, and behind him flat painted characters; a grade school diorama
maybe. Looks great for a short moment from a certain angle; not
intended to be seen for a long time or from the side.
The Starmaker
Apr 15, 2012, 4:29:11 PM4/15/12
to
Thumbs Up theather projector..
globular
Apr 15, 2012, 8:38:50 PM4/15/12
to
other converted movies.
~consul
Apr 20, 2012, 7:21:54 PM4/20/12
to
'tis on this 4/14/2012 8:29 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
> moviePig<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
>> -- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
>> I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
>> in 3D as well.
> No sir. You don't want to model everything in 3D, and certainly don't
> want to render everything in 3D, so you end up with cheats and 2.5D and
> compositing and really can't just move the camera 90% of the time.
I thought that the pre-vis can already be in 3-d, be it extremely blocky and flat textured, but for those shots that you are planning to use after cuts, you send those to the CGI folks to render fully. I don't think anyone was thinking that _all_ the CGI was already done and set, just waiting for folks to pick and choose the view like say in Second Life or any of those immersion games.
>> stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
>> -- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
>> I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
>> in 3D as well.
> No sir. You don't want to model everything in 3D, and certainly don't
> want to render everything in 3D, so you end up with cheats and 2.5D and
> compositing and really can't just move the camera 90% of the time.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
anim8rFSK
Apr 22, 2012, 8:14:50 AM4/22/12
to
In article <jmsr2i$h21$1...@gist.usc.edu>,
show, that half the time gets thrown out anyway. No final footage is
likely to come out of it. It's certainly not made of final elements
that could be rendered to look good; the first step after pre-vis is to
start over from scratch.
I don't think anyone was
> thinking that _all_ the CGI was already done and set, just waiting for folks
> to pick and choose the view like say in Second Life or any of those immersion
> games.
That seems to be what people are saying. If you think it's 'just a
matter of picking a camera angle' you must think there's an entire
environment there.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
> 'tis on this 4/14/2012 8:29 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
> > moviePig<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
> >> -- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
> >> I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
> >> in 3D as well.
> > No sir. You don't want to model everything in 3D, and certainly don't
> > want to render everything in 3D, so you end up with cheats and 2.5D and
> > compositing and really can't just move the camera 90% of the time.
>
> I thought that the pre-vis can already be in 3-d, be it extremely blocky and
> flat textured, but for those shots that you are planning to use after cuts,
> you send those to the CGI folks to render fully.
Um, no. That's not the process at all. Think of the previs as a puppet
> 'tis on this 4/14/2012 8:29 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
> > moviePig<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> stereoscopic rendering is a mere matter of choosing -- and rendering
> >> -- two viewpoints. If any "background" elements are composed in 2D,
> >> I'd assume they're sufficiently in the distance to leave them "flat"
> >> in 3D as well.
> > No sir. You don't want to model everything in 3D, and certainly don't
> > want to render everything in 3D, so you end up with cheats and 2.5D and
> > compositing and really can't just move the camera 90% of the time.
>
> I thought that the pre-vis can already be in 3-d, be it extremely blocky and
> flat textured, but for those shots that you are planning to use after cuts,
> you send those to the CGI folks to render fully.
show, that half the time gets thrown out anyway. No final footage is
likely to come out of it. It's certainly not made of final elements
that could be rendered to look good; the first step after pre-vis is to
start over from scratch.
I don't think anyone was
> thinking that _all_ the CGI was already done and set, just waiting for folks
> to pick and choose the view like say in Second Life or any of those immersion
> games.
matter of picking a camera angle' you must think there's an entire
environment there.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Remysun
Apr 23, 2012, 11:21:00 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 22, 8:14 am, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> Um, no. That's not the process at all. Think of the previs as a puppet
> show, that half the time gets thrown out anyway. No final footage is
> likely to come out of it. It's certainly not made of final elements
> that could be rendered to look good; the first step after pre-vis is to
> start over from scratch.
>
> I don't think anyone was
>
> > thinking that _all_ the CGI was already done and set, just waiting for folks
> > to pick and choose the view like say in Second Life or any of those immersion
> > games.
>
> That seems to be what people are saying. If you think it's 'just a
> matter of picking a camera angle' you must think there's an entire
> environment there.
In stuff like Real Steel, the pre-viz of the robots was instantly
> Um, no. That's not the process at all. Think of the previs as a puppet
> show, that half the time gets thrown out anyway. No final footage is
> likely to come out of it. It's certainly not made of final elements
> that could be rendered to look good; the first step after pre-vis is to
> start over from scratch.
>
> I don't think anyone was
>
> > thinking that _all_ the CGI was already done and set, just waiting for folks
> > to pick and choose the view like say in Second Life or any of those immersion
> > games.
>
> That seems to be what people are saying. If you think it's 'just a
> matter of picking a camera angle' you must think there's an entire
> environment there.
added to the take. Whether they threw that out and started new CG from
scratch, I have no idea.
0 new messages