Re: Cinema chains dimming movies up to 85% - 3D is killing the movies

That's one of the reasons l liked Inception so much - it was a rich looking
film.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*


On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
>
>> I wonder if this explains my experience with Thor.  I saw in the backwoods
>> that is Ironwood, MI and attributed the lousy picture quality to aging
>> equipment/lack of upkeep, but I wonder if they had the 3d print and were
>> showing it on a 2d projector or vice versa.
>>
>
> FWIW, all 3D movies these days are projected digitally, so there is no
> "print".  A lot of 2D movies are projected digitally, too.  The problem
> described in this article would only affect 2D movies that are projected
> digitally on projectors that still have their 3D lenses on.  There wouldn't
> be any 3D lenses on regular film projectors in the first place, because no
> 3D film would be projected on film in the first place.
>
> Incidentally, another reason I'm not overly fond of 3D (though I do make a
> point of catching films in 3D when it's available) is because the only way
> to do 3D properly is to *shoot* the film in 3D (instead of converting it
> afterwards), but the only way to shoot a film in 3D is to use digital
> cameras, and a lot of digitally-shot movies look like video rather than film
> (and yes, this includes the non-CG sequences in Avatar).
>
> Chris Nolan was asked if he would do the next Batman movie in 3D, and he
> said he wasn't fond of the format partly because he preferred film to video,
> and I agree with him.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot