Rejoice! The Force Awakens Is A Real StarWars Picture!

[frozenchurchwarden]

3D is still a joke as far as I'm concerned.

It might be getting less grossly used lately, but as far as simulating real life goes anything more than 5 feet from the camera should have practically zero 3D effect, given that depth perception is dependant on your eyes being on opposite sides of an object, and to accomplish that with large and distant objects would require that you have a head nearly as wide as the distance to whatever you're looking at.

 

[andrew]

Hey didn't Lucas re-release the original 3 Star Wars films 22 years later and put a bit of CGI in there, then claim it's stuff he would of wanted to do originally but the technology didn't exist at the time in a blatant cash grab??

 

[perdurabo]

Andy just proved my point.

 

[perdurabo]

Sable nobody is arguing that Star Wars is Citizen Kane.

 

[dustmite]

Yeah, he re-released the original trilogy with CGI, and in doing so ruined the character development of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first in the cantina scene... I for one enjoyed episode 7, and am glad someone other than Lucas has the reigns, after what he did with the prequels.

 

[perdurabo]

My litmus test? You seem to be a bit confused Sable. Re read my post. I left everyone else's opinion open and gave mine. It is a forum and every one has an opinion. So what? I just call it like I see it. Then you pull the film making card. LOL. In The honor of fellowship, I respect your and all others opinions on whatever the topic on this forum. Some of what I've read on this thread is passé'. I don't seek to change anyone's mind, that would be a very bland world. Cheers to another film that bears the title Star Wars, there will be many more.

 

[andrew]

Ja Ja Binks was blasphomy

Why the Jar jar hate??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbrpqWkNqyo
My cousin in law who is one of the ultimate star wars fans told me Episode 2 of the prequil was supposed to be pretty much all about jar jar binks, but in a Vatican II type move they let the fans decide that he wasn't going to be a part of it.

 

[sablebrush52]

3D is still a joke as far as I'm concerned.

It might be getting less grossly used lately, but as far as simulating real life goes anything more than 5 feet from the camera should have practically zero 3D effect, given that depth perception is dependant on your eyes being on opposite sides of an object, and to accomplish that with large and distant objects would require that you have a head nearly as wide as the distance to whatever you're looking at.

There is a definite rush to use stereoscopy as a draw, and much of the time it doesn't make a crucial difference. But I've seen instances where stereoscopy has been used to very good effect, such as Hugo, where Scorsese varied the depth to create different scale, and Gravity, where Alfonso Cuaron's choices of composition and angle of view used stereoscopy to underscore scale and depth of staging.
Having supervised stereoscopy on several productions back in the dawn of digital cinema, I can tell you that the ability to perceive depth is much greater than 5 feet. It's more like 100 yards, and even there, depth between large objects set at different distances is easily perceived. What is lost is the ability to perceive small depth variations in the surface of an object. So while we would fully model objects in the foreground, more distant objects could successfully work as flats set at different distances from the camera.
The chief problem we faced was that people couldn't handle more than about 45 minutes of stereoscopy before they began to experience eye strain and/or headaches. Current stereo films have addressed this in part by altering the interocular offset (right to left eye distance offset) to reduce the depth of the stage.

 

[sablebrush52]

My litmus test? You seem to be a bit confused Sable. Re read my post.

I'm not the least confused. You labeled people as haters and wrote of rolling your eyes. Very clear. I called it like I saw it.

 

[perdurabo]

Clone Wars :rofl:

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

Sterioscopic vision is just triangulation, at what point do your eyes effectively no longer point toward each other to focus on the same spot? If something more than a few feet away is going to have any offset it needs to be extremely slight, and I've seen far too many hills poking out of the ground like a bowl sitting on a table, or people that look like a miniature bobblehead inches from your face.

Ok, just looking at the environment around me, objscts at 20 feet do still have a decent amount of shift between eyes. But the point about subtlety stands, it's way too common for movies to use the effect in ways that feel totally unnatural.

You also don't change focus between different depths when using 3D in a movie, so it's inherently never going to be a perfect reproduction and I have a feeling that has a lot to do with people getting dizzy during movies.

 

[sablebrush52]

Sterioscopic vision is just triangulation, at what point do your eyes effectively no longer point toward each other to focus on the same spot?

Stereoscopy is triangulation, but there are a number of ways to achieve it. With immersive stereoscopy one simply points the left and right eyes at infinity with an offset of between 2.5" and 2.75" and let all objects fall where they do on the spatial stage. Other approaches involve rotating the left and right cameras and animating the distance between to affect perceived distance and scale. Both work, but they produce different results. Depending on the complexity of the scene it's triangulation on steroids. It's quite possible to produce very subtle effects, but one must remember that the image is projected at different sizes. The same stereoscopic effect will appear stronger on a larger screen. One has to consider the range of screen sizes likely to be used, as well as the actual real world distance from the screen to the audience as a ratio. 3D stereo works best for the center 1/2 to 2/3 of the audience.
On one project we needed to make sure that Daffy was 4' tall at the proscenium on a 50' long screen in 2 to 1 C scope. We also needed to work out the throw from the projector to the screen in calculating how the image should be rendered. It can get a little complicated.
Then there's the matter of relating the depth of the center of interest from cut to cut. You can make people vomit if there are too many violent shifts. Cutting the depth of the stage has helped with this, but back in the mid '90's it was still largely unknown territory and we were finding paths to do this in animation.

 

[pilotage16]

Thought it was the best new Star Wars...... Empire strikes back the best

 

[andrew]

I found great enjoyment throughout the film thinking of spots they should of had Jar Jar Binks to troll star wars fans.