What Movies Are You Watching Lately - Page 351

yea seeing the chick from quantum topless was def worth the watch.

My biggest complaint about 3D is that it takes you out of the film. I like the immersion. When I see a sword come out of the screen towards me, I jump out of the movie and into the technology. Its a distraction.

I consider that one of the things that divides 3D that was used well versus 3D that wasn't used well. It's one of the reasons why I don't rank Avatar among one of the better uses of the 3D that I've seen. The big problem is that far too often it's used poorly.
Edited by Gradstudent78 - 12/6/12 at 5:37am

The only place I've seen it make sense are animated kids movies.

You mean like Avatar?

 

The biggest problem with 3D is that it takes you out of the environment of the theatre. A movie screen is on the same plane as the rear wall which makes a natural transition to the sides of the theatre. Your eye can easily flit to different parts of the screen or even off and there's no fatigue as there's no disruption of that plane. You understand the space you're in.

 

3D falsely pushes the images of the screen toward you and your eye is forever trying to reconcile the discrepancy with the periphery and the background.

 

That and the luminance issue which should be an easy fix, but they can't seem to figure it out.

 

It's fun as a novelty, but that's about it.

 

lefty

ok, so i watched it last night.

i would not say i did not like it, or that it was bad, but i will say the following.

on the minus side

it had no real plot or even story that really engaged me or even fully interested me.
it played on a lot of exaggerated stereotypes.
all of the characters were annoying as hell, i dont think i liked a single one of them.
i dont know how a non hebrew/yiddish speaking person, with a pretty firm grasp of general jewish concepts and cultural knowledge could even know wtf was going on in the movie.
it left almost everything hanging, which im sure was intentional, but it just ended with no ending. i understand why they did that, but it was still annoying imo.


on the plus side

it did present a fairly accurate representation of a certain segment of jewish society. not one i grew up with or live with, or necessarily am a fran of, but one i am familiar with, and understand how it works and why it holds meaning among those that do experience jewish life in that manner. more often than not, movies that try and depict any segment of judaism usually make some errors, intentional or not, that really get under my skin. this movie did not do that.

the introductory, made up, folk tale, was cute. though even with the subtitles, there is no way anyone who does not know yiddish and have a lot of jewish cultural knowledge could possibly appreciate or even fully understand it.

and the biggest plus, it had a fantastic sound-track.

Going to see pulp fiction in a theater tonight. Should be cool.

2 of the people I am going with have never seen it before...so we will see how they take it.

The luminance issue actually seems kind of hard to solve to me. Pumping twice as much light at the screen (since each eye only sees half of it) without blowing the contrast is difficult. Especially if they are using digital projection.

I just hate that it feels obviously fake and has forced depth of field. I like to explore the frame with my eyes--if the filmmaker wants me to look at something, he should draw my eye to it somehow, not stab me in the eye with it. When you have something in 3D, your eyes start to think "hey, this is real, so let's see what's up in the background...oh, why's it still out of focus? we are focusing further away now and it's not getting better, oh wait, it is just a flat image on a screen...these glasses are just playing tricks on us".
Basically 3D only works if you look at exactly what the director wants you to look at for the entirety of the shot.

The HFR 3D of the Hobbit is supposed to be absolutely amazing.

I'm really torn on this one. Hoping that there's a HFR 2D version, but I'll probably have to go to the 3D just to see how the  48fps looks.

 

lefty

Just make some 2D Glasses from two pairs of 3D glasses (or buy a set)
Won't solve the luminance issue, but will solve the 3D issue. You just have to decide if you would rather watch the left eye or right eye version of the movie.

Just did a little checking. I fear the HFR will look like video.

 

lefty

Thats another complaint about 3D. I wear glasses. So annoying to wear 2 sets. And why are they dark? Do people go to the movies in sunglasses that you know?

I really hope the hobbit comes out in 2D. I'd prefer to wait for vid to see it if it doesnt.

Looking for an asian movie. Pretty new one.

 

It's about a young rich asian guy who play girls then falls in love with someone or something like that. Anyone know which one i'm talking about? Might be from 2011 or 2012. 

 

/ H

Edited by Hampton - 12/6/12 at 11:42am

To be fair, that's actually a problem with the framerates used in traditional movies. We are trained to think wide horizontal pans should stutter slightly and that action should look the way it does on film. Using a higher framerate is a good thing--it works better with our eyes and makes things look smoother and closer to they actually are. Unfortunately, we have also been trained to associate that effect with video cameras and soap operas.

Until we get used to it, it is going to look off, but unlike 3D, I think this trend is definitely for the better.


They have to be dark for 3D to work. Each one cuts out half of the light in the theater, your left eye gets half the frames and your right eye gets the other half. The projectors are polarized opposite to each other and the glasses make it so each eye can only see light polarized in one direction.

That's why the glasses don't actually work as sunglasses--they only block one precise kind of light.