GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

AVATAR Report...

POSTED BY: OUT2THEBLACK
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 14:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 19136
PAGE 3 of 3

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:40 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Shishakli:

...It's normal for standard cinematography to have one plane of depth in focus with the foreground and background out of focus... but I feel this becomes redundant with 3d.

When viewing 3d, and something in the foreground is out of focus, you can look at it, but you can't MAKE it focus. To me that destroys the illusion of 3d.

Occasionally a scene will have nearly all of the elements in focus, and they were the best...

Now I know that having a fully rendered 3d scene is easy to have entirely in focus. But many people might not be aware that the technology exists for standard live video to be also in focus, from 1 inch to infinity. The technology was developed and patented by an Australian cameraman and used on the gardening show "Burkes Backyard". Unfortunately no-one was willing to pay the man the money he deserved for the technology to hit the mainstream.

I'm now wondering what he's doing with that patent... because with the re-invention of 3d cinema, that simple "trick" might become a high demand standard in the near future.

I'll shut up now ;)



My impression of the Cameron tech is that there were multiple focal planes generated by the several passes of the camera through the performance space...Then the images from the various passes were electronically combined for the final digital 'print'...Seems to me that there were at least 3 focal planes present in most of the scenes...When I go back to the cinema , it will be with a more-technically-critical eye on the processes...

Would be interesting if you could turn up more info about the Aussie bloke's tech for us cinephiles...

I happened to think that some of the out-of-focus aspects of the foreground images was intentional on first viewing , to create a greater impression of depth...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:11 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Shishakli:
There's only one thing that bothers me about real-d (3d) cinema... and that is the loss of focus due to apperature (sp?)



From all reports, the Read-D version is the crispest of the 3d versions out there, with the blown-up IMAX 3D being the fuzziest.

Quote:

It's normal for standard cinematography to have one plane of depth in focus with the foreground and background out of focus... but I feel this becomes redundant with 3d.


Why? Depth of field is a choice of the director, made to focus the eye where they want you to be looking. The same is true in 3D. The director doesn't want you oggling the plant life while the characters are in the middle of an emotional moment (as a for instance).

Quote:

When viewing 3d, and something in the foreground is out of focus, you can look at it, but you can't MAKE it focus. To me that destroys the illusion of 3d.


I don't see how, it's still delivering depth to the frame. Now, I could see it "taking you out" of the experience, to not have control on the focal depth, but that doesn't mean the depth instantly vanishes.


Quote:

Now I know that having a fully rendered 3d scene is easy to have entirely in focus. But many people might not be aware that the technology exists for standard live video to be also in focus, from 1 inch to infinity. The technology was developed and patented by an Australian cameraman and used on the gardening show "Burkes Backyard". Unfortunately no-one was willing to pay the man the money he deserved for the technology to hit the mainstream.


For sports and such unlimited depth of field may be appealing, but to filmmakers - they DON'T want it. There's a huge market right now for conversion kits to create a shallower depth of field on video (which has a much wider depth of field than film). An infinitely focused image is generally avoided in narrative film.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:04 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


This looks to me like a bit of ambush 'journalism' :


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:08 PM

STEGASAURUS


I watched that and was like, "Really?!?" The guy ambushes J. Cameron, and when he doesn't want to sign an autograph, the guy flips out.

I don't blame James in the least bit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:13 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Stegasaurus:
I watched that and was like, "Really?!?" The guy ambushes J. Cameron, and when he doesn't want to sign an autograph, the guy flips out.

I don't blame James in the least bit.



Looks like he was at LAX , probably took it for a set-up , had a right to be p!$$ed...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL