'Pacific Rim' (2013) - Guillermo Del Toro's Mecha VS. Kaiju film.

[Ithekro]

Most CircleVision has railing so you don't "fall" when the camera goes over a cliff or something.

The problem with touch would be what would you program the user to feel? pressure...heat....pain? Is the viewer suppose to be with the hero? A fly on the wall (not effected), or be the hero and feel what they feel?

[MakubeX2]

You know what ? For 3D to improve as a cinematic experience, I could do without the glasses. I had a slight headache from wearing those for the whole duration of Avatar.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The problem with touch would be what would you program the user to feel? pressure...heat....pain? Is the viewer suppose to be with the hero? A fly on the wall (not effected), or be the hero and feel what they feel?

You have to think beyond the traditional 3rd person/1st person genres, to where you're directly manipulating an abstract system.

For instance imagine playing tetris where you could feel the blocks. Or some kind of game where you molded imaginary clay, and you could feel it being molded with your hands.

Remember that as a kid, much of our exploration is tactile, much of the joy of playing with blocks or lego was the feeling of it in your hands. The ability to directly manipulate objects.

Going further, imagine a city building game where instead of clicking to build buildings, you instead literally pulled them up from the ground? Imagine if looking over your entire miniature cityscape, you could run your hands over it and feel the outline of all the buildings.

When I think of a touch interface, I'm more thinking of perhaps a flat panel that can be pushed upwards into various shapes, that you can directly interact with. Something that is not an image, but a physical, readily remoldable representation.

Of course there are likely many different ways to do this. I'm just imagining. We talk about holograms but why settle for that? Why not have something that is physically there, and can be remolded by the computer. Some kind of electronic clay.


Not only that, but we still don't really have computer interfaces for the blind or visually impaired. They would see real benefit from being able to feel their computer outputs.

[MakubeX2]

^

That's not 3D anymore. That's Accel World 4D. Not that it's bad.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

People are excited the first 1 or 2 times they see it and then get bored. It doesn't really add anything to the experience. The only people who love it are film executives, who see the possibilities for increased ticket prices, and electronics manufacturers, who see the chance to sell us new TVs now that everyone has HD television.

Unfortunately, beyond my powers of comprehension, a friend of mine feels the same. I don't know what his fascination is, but whenever he sees a movie it pretty much has to be 3D. I remember when we were planning to go see one of the superhero flicks a few months ago, can't remember which, the theater had different but somewhat proximate showtimes for 3D and 2D and I asked if he had a preference.

He said, "3D of course." I didn't push it, but I had to wonder, why "of course?" The picture is darker, the tickets are more expensive, the 3D barely has any depth anyway...what is the apparently obvious benefit of the greater ticket cost here?

[Ithekro]

I'm talking films, not interactive materials. A director can only do so much to make a drama without having to worry about what you are going to touch and move from his set.

The only 3D film I've seen in recent times in the new Tron film. The effect worked as it was used similarly to color in the Wizard of Oz. In the real world, everything was convential 2D feature film...inside the computer world...3D everything.

And it gave me eye strain because I was trying to take in too many details. It happens if I'm forced to sit in the closest rows to the screen as I either have to turn my head to see stuff, or hold my head still and track everything from one side of my vision to the other as the screen takes up my entire viewing area. (I normally sit farther back in a theater to avoid this sort of strain). 3D force both eyes to function in tandum for it to work. While it is true that if you close and eye in the real word you are esentially experiancing 2D, your mind compensates for that. It does not for a motion picture as easily, so when one eye slacks off, you get a strain on the system.

[sa547]

I'd rather watch this in classic 2D just like the way the director intended, in the same way old-school kaiju flicks are watched, and that's more fun with our popcorn than having to suffer eyestrain through 2 hours wearing glasses that seem to distract more (and eat some of your money) than to enhance the experience.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by james0246

To be fair, they said the same thing about sound in the 1920s and the same thing about CGI in the late 1970s...

"God, COLOR TVs? All these distracting colors make my eye hurt! What will they think of next, replacing dials with push buttons? A television set I can't smack around when I have poor receptions or else the screen cracks? I can't keep up with these youngsters, they are all mad I tell you, mad!"

[Ithekro]

"Brought to you in 'living color' by NBC". My parents can remember I think in the early 60s that one kid on the block might have a color set. Of course since color was a major draw, shows like Star Trek or Laff'In would use a lot of bright colors. Sometimes over saturated or filtered so much that they didn't register as their proper color anymore. The fanfilm productions had a bitch of a time recreating the sets from Star Trek. Not only to get the actual colors of the set correct, but also to get the filters and lighting correct so it would look like it did on NBC in the late 60s.

Also the story of the Orion Slave Girl screen test (as well as Lenard Nimoy's makeup later on) were the film developers kept tinting the prints to cut out the greens because they thought the film was filtered wrong and the person should have a more natural skin tone. Poor actress kept getting darker and darker green until someone noticed the mistake. Similar thing happened to Nimoy, but they figured it out quicker when they had group test shots and noticed Shatner was turning way too red when they tried to make Nimoy less green. New media comes at a price...even if color had been around for a few dacades by that point.

I saw a railraod club's film from 1940, 1941, and 1942 excursions into the Sierra Nevada Mountains (in California). These were some rich folks since thry used Kotochrome 10 color film. The shots looked like they were taken last week, but I know they were taken in the 40s because the engines and even rail lines they photographed were gone before the end of the War (nonessental line became recycled steel).

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Oy, guys, how come this thread turns into "3D experience & cinema advancement" discussion? I think we’re starting (or already) going off-topic here. Let’s go back to Pacific Rim shall we?

[Ithekro]

When they provide some info on the monsters, sure.

[MakubeX2]

Advent Of Smartphones, Tablets; Decline Of The Cinematic Art ?

Perhaps it's not so bad if the 3D gimmick can retain the viewership in theaters. But I yearn for the return of production of epics of old such as Ben-Hur, Cleopatra and Gladiator.

[Ithekro]

No one can afford to pay that many people on "scale" anymore.

[DonQuigleone]

And yet cinema budgets are higher then ever before...

Where's all that money going then?

And Chinese and Japanese movies can have large numbers of extras, while being made for a fraction of the cost Hollywood movies are made for. I cry foul. Hollywood is just filled with fat that needs trimmed.

[HasuMasu]

My main problem with '3D' films...well ofcourse that would be the glasses.

IM ALREADY WEARING A PAIR DAMMIT

[Ithekro]

Most 3D glasses I've had fit over my normal glasses.

[HasuMasu]

^ I've had none of those, then.

[Ithekro]

At least the ones made by READ D 3D seem to be oversized and thus fit over a regular pair of glasses.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

At least the ones made by READ D 3D seem to be oversized and thus fit over a regular pair of glasses.

they fit but they are not comfortable.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

More news from the Pacific Rim's 3D conversion here.

Originally Posted by Guillermo del Toro (via comingsoon.net)

What happened was, in the weeks and months following Comic-Con, what I asked from the studio was to agree to four points that I wanted to do," he says. "The more the ILM shots arrived, the more I realized that there were only a few shots that would miniaturize. I asked the studio, number one, that we would not hyper-stereo-lize the thing. That we would not force 3D on the beauty shots. That we would keep the giant dimensions. They agreed. Number two, they agreed to something very unusual. Normally a conversion takes a few weeks. I asked to start it immediately so we could take the full 40 weeks to do the conversion. As an example, 'Titanic' took about 50 weeks to convert. The final thing that I asked that they agreed to, which was amazing, was that I asked them to give me an extra budget, which is considerable, to actually have ILM composite the shots that are CG native 3D. We're not giving elements. ILM is giving the composite in 3D from the get-go. That's a huge, huge element. Now I'm going to be involved in supervising it. What can I tell you? I changed my mind. I'm not running for office. I can do a Romney.

Will this "good" deal makes the 3D movie better? I guess we'll see.

Btw, Toro said there are 4 points in that deal, right? It seems that he forgot to mention 1 point. We only get 3 points from that interview.