Cracker: Wallywood
735 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
Shit, I am now thoroughly confused by this entire discussion. I... didn't call anyone 'defective'. Did I?
-
A short comment apropos recordari's astigmatism remark: I now have one eye with perfect distance vision and the other with very limited sight (cataract.) 3D doesnt work for me, and couldnt have altered my perception of "Avatar."
I suspected as much. It's not too bad, but the cinema is one of the only places I need glasses, and 3D glasses over normal glasses ain't great in the first place, let alone the refractionary problems.
-
Shit, I am now thoroughly confused by this entire discussion. I... didn't call anyone 'defective'. Did I?
Did I? Did anyone? Is this a dead horse? 3 months ago, I would have said "Yes". Now, it seems there's just that little bit more life to be flogged out of it.
-
I resisted posting this earlier (over on that other horsey thread) but now seems as appropriate as ever... Fair point.
-
Is this a dead horse? 3 months ago, I would have said "Yes". Now, it seems there's just that little bit more life to be flogged out of it.
This week in your NZ Herald 'Viva' supplement, fashion watchers predict that in 2010, black will be the new black, and 'Avatar' will be the new 'copyright must change'!
-
A short comment apropos recordari's astigmatism remark: I now have one eye with perfect distance vision and the other with very limited sight (cataract.) 3D doesnt work for me, and couldnt have altered my perception of "Avatar."
If, however, you could see perfectly with the other eye, then it might have altered it. Did you go to the 2D version? There would have been no point in the 3D version, other than looking just a bit blurrier than a 2D projection.
Recordari, you do have binocular vision, though, right? Unlike my son, who can see perfectly out of both eyes, just not at the same time. He switches between. So he couldn't get anything out of the 3D at all, rather like Islander (if I understand her properly), if for different reasons.
But your eyes got tired? So did mine. 3D film is still a visual illusion. It doesn't actually look exactly like real 3D. The focal length of your eye lenses still has to remain fixed on the screen. So if something looks like it's hovering before your nose, your eye still has to remain fixed on something 50 metres away. This does cause the eyes/brain to get tired until you get used to it, because you have to learn to "see 3D". Normally our focal length tracks closer as our eyes converge. Not so during Avatar. The 3D effect is entirely achieved by the convergence of the eyes.
Also difficult to accept is the dissonance between seeing in 3D, but not being able to see everything with clarity. In this, it's like all film, the camera's focus changes. With 2D we're used to it, and tend to follow the focus. With 3D, we still haven't necessarily got used to this, and feel like we should be able to look around, but things are blurry. We're still not sure if it's blurry because of tired eyes, trouble with the glasses etc, so the brain has to work harder. If you are looking at something that is not in focus on the screen, but is still in 3D (because it is a 3D projection), then your brain will try to tell your eyes to find the focus. The eye will be unable to, and furthermore anything that was in focus will shift out, because you will not actually be focused on the screen any more. Then you can get double vision and really struggle to find the focus. It's hard work for the eyes/brain.
But note that looking at flat projections of 3D objects is also hard on the brain, we've just got used to it. Photographs look clear to us because we have learned to look at them. People who have never seen one before (or any other "realistic" pictures) can often not see things in them that are extremely apparent to us. This is because we have to suppress the urge to see in 3D, and yet mentally form a 3D model of what we are seeing.
So it's possible that the tired eyes thing will go away as we watch more and more 3D.
Also a bit straining is that you can't tilt your head from side to side. I can't see this limitation disappearing without some science I've not heard of.
-
Crikey.
I think I just experienced the strongest sustained gust of wind in my life. The deck took a hiding and the garden has been blown flat but the windows held out.
Funny thing is, 15 mins earlier I was having a beer in the sun. Shirtless.
Shirt missing.
-
Some computer games do not have the focal distance thing. Everything is in focus. It is possible to make a 3D film like that, especially a 100% rendered one like Avatar. But the choice to use focus (which, when rendered, is itself a visual effect) is most likely a conscious one by Cameron, so that he could draw your eye around the screen just the same as is currently done in 2D. I'm pretty sure I saw a few scenes where the focus was removed, particularly some of the high pace action scenes.
This sort of film craft is very new. They basically had to invent a lot of it, to establish the new norms. I've seen a few 3D films, but they've been of the documentary variety, whatever artfulness was in them was from careful selection of beautiful things to show, rather than trying to tell a story. The established tricks of action film don't necessarily work. Were there any jump-shots? Can't recall any, not really surprised, people would have just missed them. We're just not quick enough with our eyes yet. Which meant that 3D was a limitation in many ways. There weren't too many first person shots either, I suspect because they might have made people feel sick. That level of immersion might have been too much. Perhaps these will come in a director's cut, or re-render. Very few distortion effects were used, period, it would have been wasted, people would have just seen a blur. I saw no 'stuttering' images either, or anything with time dilation effects. It would have been too much. Spinning was usually done slowly. I don't recall any 'zooms' either, nor use of grainy filters, or Matrix-esque computer 'visualizations' All of these techniques are stock standard in action nowadays, particular in battle sequences.
LOTR would probably look awful in 3D, because they use 'forced perspective' a lot on the hobbits, usually in the talking scenes. In 3D it would just look like the room and furniture was a really odd shape and the actors the same size. Tricks like that aren't easy in 3D yet. In Avatar, they didn't need it.
I expect as our eyes get used to it more, adventurous directors will be able to flip us around a lot more, and we'll learn to like it. Or hate it. The one-eyed will miss out.
-
Shirt missing
Got it
-
BenWilson: my left eye (the one with 4/4 vision) has always been my dominant eye: the unfortunate right eye doesnt really get a look in :)
Things like stereoscopic toys (Viewmasters anyone?) never worked.
And any 3D I've ever tried falls, erm, flat- -
Many are well versed through prior learning (to use the jargon) but some also have very limited or very naive experiences of film, or media generally. I find this especially so with my Chinese students, partly because of language problems and their limited access to film
The Chinese have significantly greater legal access to film than New Zealanders do - via the internet. Not having English as a mother tongue leaves countries far more open to foreign language films.
(the Chinese Govt only permits the importation of 20-25 English (aka American) features per year (setting aside the blackmarket here, of course)
If you watch a full length feature film on sanctioned sites like yukou, tudou etc you will have to endure a single advertisement before the film, paid for by companies like L'Oreal and none other than New Zealand's own Zespri. Most of the films watched in China are via the internet. The 20-25 film limit lacks relevance in that going to the cinema is expensive, $10-20(NZ), = 30x600ml beer, 10x boxes of cigarettes, etc,
Currently trying to get these students to recognise the distinctions between mainstream/global cinema, and world cinema!
Firstly that would be more an issue of growing up in a country with centralized media rather than anything to do with film importation.
But mainly it could just be that you don't have a very onto it group of students there.
Could you clarify the distinction between mainstream cinema and world cinema for us Geoff? And why such a distinction is being made? I'm genuinely interested in the angle that's been taken.
-
Islander, it was the Viewmaster that first helped me understand what binocular vision even was.
I have a 3D picture on my desk....cool idea, one of those plastic things with ribs, with the picture that moves as you turn it. Held the right way up, it looks perfectly 3D, without any need for special glasses, and as you turn it, it looks like you're moving around it. I gather that this is the basis of one of the technologies for 3D TV. Neat idea. It also might work for the one-eyed, a little bit. One of the ways one-eyed people can judge distance is to move their head from side to side. If I close one eye and move my head side to side with this picture, it is as though I'm moving around a 3D image....so there may be hope for you yet.
-
Interesting point BenWilson: I've tried the head movement thing (like your son, I suspect effectively one-eyed people - even if it's one-eye-at-a-time- try about everything to get approximately normal vision) but never one of the gadgets you mention - any commercial name for 'em?
-
LOTR would probably look awful in 3D, because they use 'forced perspective' a lot on the hobbits, usually in the talking scenes.
But as it wasn't filmed in 3D it simply be a case of remastering 2D footage to whatever 3D frame they had in mind, enhancing the original illusion.
-
During my studies, in stage 2 Geography, we did aerial photography(I have a strange mental block for the technical word) which included 3D topo maps. I learnt to do the binocular thing( although I don't recall using that term) so I could put down the stereoscope and just go googly eyed. It was very cool. Looking at 3D landscapes leap off a flat page, and the tests where you had to pick the highest point. Friend and dinner arrived.
-
Could you clarify the distinction between mainstream cinema and world cinema for us Geoff? And why such a distinction is being made?
kia ora Chris: to properly answer your question, you probably need to have sat through the first three weeks of teaching in my second year course World Media. World cinema is a large chunk of this (we also deal with world music, TV formats; tourism etc) so I spend some time defining what it is and what it is not--and how is it generally regarded in scholarship, on-line catalogues, DVD stores (as in the world cinema section of JB's Hifi). So it is about linguisitic barriers, small nation production, subtitling and dubbing, levels of unfamiliarity, ideas of history and post-colonialism, niche marketing, audience etc. "Mainstream' is a short-hand way of referring to English (aka American) language films, globally distributed with maximum 'splash' distribution and marketing. ie Avatar, 2012 etc etc. There is, of course, another category of cross-over films (which suggests they are crossing from one circumstance to another).
This is the one course in our programme where students are more likely to encounter a wide range of the unfamiliar eg I showed them Afghan Star this week; next week it is Fine, Totally Fine (Japan 2009). Over the weeks, I can see students warm to media they might not ever encounter in their usual consumption.
I do think there is a language barrier with some Chinese students and I wonder how some pass the minimal language requirements eg I had a student in this week, who had to bring a translator for the simple task of changing tutorials. How he will deal with the complex ideas in World Media, I do not know.
I am aware too about those internet services but I also want students to experience film as it should be experienced ie larger-than-life, on giant projection screens in a darkened room. -
Geoff:
Thanks for that. It's also rather ironic how distorted commentary and reporting can get when filtered through a Anglo-American filter. For example, I was recently reading an article about Ang Lee which described Lust, Caution as a "flop".
Now, I guess that true enough when you talk about the US gross of US$4.5 million, or about 6% of the box office of Brokeback Mountain. The limited release and NC-17 rating (which, this being the MPAA, was for explicit sex not the violence).
But when you take a broader view, the film's total international gross was over $60 million (off a 15 million budget); it was enormously successful in Hong Kong and mainland China, despite getting the equivalent of an R18 rating in the former, and being heavily cut in the latter. Also, DVD sales and rentals in the US grossed another $24 million, which is pretty impressive when many large rental chains won't even carry NC-17 films.
I don't know about you, but a gross-to-budget ratio of 4:1 is a genuine success to me.
(Oh, and another question about "mainstream" convention movie wisdom. If Americans won't go see films with subtitles and loads of filthy foreign lingo, how the hell did Inglourious Basterds sell over $120 million worth of tickets in the US?)
-
But as it wasn't filmed in 3D it simply be a case of remastering 2D footage to whatever 3D frame they had in mind, enhancing the original illusion.
If only it was so easy to make 3D, just remaster the footage. Then we could watch Buster Keaton in 3D. But no, it's not that easy. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, Gollum could be done in 3D, since he was a motion capture. But I don't think he was a 3D motion capture, so probably not, after all.
I've tried the head movement thing (like your son, I suspect effectively one-eyed people - even if it's one-eye-at-a-time- try about everything to get approximately normal vision)
Most likely you've been functioning for years off a vast range of visual cues about distance - lines, angles, comparative size of things, partial overlaps etc. And moving your head around. Anything to give a clue, help with the mental model of what you're seeing. And focal length of the eye is reasonably accurate at shorter ranges. But the focal length won't help with any 3D projection (yet, who knows what funky technology may one day come out), and the head moving won't work with the glasses style 3D, which carefully filters one image for each eye.
but never one of the gadgets you mention - any commercial name for 'em?
Well 3D TV has a number of such technologies, mostly called autostereoscopic. The cheap static pictures are called lenticular, I think, but that could be a subset of autostereoscopic. Some of the 3Ds use lenticular lenses to get effect.
-
Recordari, you've answered my question. If you could see a stereogram in 3D, you have binocular vision.
-
If only it was so easy to make 3D, just remaster the footage. Then we could watch Buster Keaton in 3D. But no, it's not that easy.
No one said it would be easy Ben, but this article is pretty inspiring in terms of how far along we are with that.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ic1a340c9e2d852e59c3ad4d9dedffb28
"Mainstream' is a short-hand way of referring to English (aka American) language films, globally distributed with maximum 'splash' distribution and marketing. ie Avatar, 2012 etc etc. There is, of course, another category of cross-over films (which suggests they are crossing from one circumstance to another).
Thanks Geoff. This interests me a great deal, because obviously the whole way the system is measured in terms of takings is affected a great deal by the fact that English speaking nations have traditionally such strong currencies, so I'm quite interested to see how movies like Sholay (1975) with 286 weeks straight showing stack up in terms of actual bums on seats (inflation adjusted $128 million). I have suspicions that beyond the hype this financial measuring system is merely in place to validate the (as you mentioned) post-colonial withering grip of the anglocentric version of events. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish I could find reliable stats, but for the life of me I've never been able to.
A film like Hero only grossed something like $26 milllion, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Chinese person who hasn't seen it. In terms of eyes on screen the viewership would dwarf the 100 to 200 million attendance for Avatar.
If Armani's net profit for 2009 was $184.3 million, while Adidas' net profit was $333 million. How much do these figures tell us about the relative popularity of the two brands. Is the problem with the Chinese student's English or with the inherent logic of the what is being classified as 'mainstream'?
I think the major issue is not so much the language barrier of 'the chinese students' so much as the fact that New Zealand tertiary courses will often accept foreign language students with an IELTS level 6 (surely no better than a 14 year old native speaker.)
Samples here;
http://www.ielts-blog.com/ielts-writing-samples/ielts-essays-band-6/ielts-essay-learning-about-past/When this is the standard of English we accept, then obviously understanding the difference between a localised distinction of what should constitute 'mainstream' is significantly less relevant than "are they paying their fees?"
and they are. this problem is further exacerbated in your case I'm sure by issues such as the fact that Waikato University IELTS centre won an international award ....'The new award confirms the Centre's ability to offer both quality and quantity.'
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/international/blog/archives/007362.shtml
Notwithstanding the virulent corruption of the TOFEL and IELTS examinations conducted worldwide. and furthermore the selling down the river of western tertiary education standards in the name of 'international cooperation'.
So two issues here.
1. is this perceived mainstream anything more than a last gasp of colonial perception?2. How relevant are standards now in this educational money game? and what will be the ultimate effect for 'undereducated' native English users in the long haul?
In the case of Canterbury University's College of Business and Economics partnership with Zhongnan University of Economics and Law. To what extent will this undermine the qualification being offered by Canterbury university, and to what degree are we compromising the standards of our tertiary sector, accepting below par students under hollow agreements for quick cash?
-
If Americans won't go see films with subtitles and loads of filthy foreign lingo, how the hell did Inglourious Basterds sell over $120 million worth of tickets in the US?)
I agree. There was a great interview with Tarantino in Sight & Sound last year, where he expanded on the use of language in IG--most particularly the need for the right accent or nuance to be able to fit in, or ensure one is not killed in foreign places. If you haven't seen it, I could post you a copy.
-
Thanks, Chris. This is kind of illuminating but to get into questions about why NZ education institutions are so eager to enrol foreign fee-paying students is a nest of vipers. I have had some brilliant Chinese students (one is currently finishing a PhD) but others in desperation in my office because they cannot pass minimum requirements (even though university marking scales are weighted towards passing). And this is not to go into buying-in assignments and other unethical practices.
-
Hero only made 26 million HKD (not sure what that was worth then, is 1 USD something like 7 HKD?) in the Chinese box offices, but it made 177 million USD worldwide, which is a pretty good total. Must've been a bit galling to come in behind the much inferior The Last Samurai . But blame the Japanese for having deep pockets, apparently they liked it, at least, accounting for more of the box office than the USA.
-
I have had some brilliant Chinese students (one is currently finishing a PhD) but others in desperation in my office because they cannot pass minimum requirements (even though university marking scales are weighted towards passing).
Being involved at the other end of this equation (i.e. IELTS TOEFL) there is always huge individual variance around suitability for Tertiary study, and not all of it is Language. The same, I would argue, is true of 'native English speakers'. Is this 'dumbing down' our universities, who due to funding restrictions may 'prioritise' foreign fee paying students (is there evidence for this?), but this coincides with other global trends of equal or greater significance, which would take a monumental thesis to de-construct, so I'll leave that to the professors.
Don't forget, cheats never prosper. Yeah, right!
-
Where the rubber meets the road...
Wellywood
Worrying subtextual inferences may occur...
...in the argot of the "Westie" wouldn't the term
Wellywood infer a Gumboot inspired erection?Bless their pointed little ears...
Drinking with the Pixies = Pixielation!
( a cracker resolution...)By Zeus!...
Bjork's cygneture outfit = Fashion Leda!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.