Em 09/03/2012 13:42, Warp escreveu:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>> Am 09.03.2012 07:03, schrieb Darren New:
>>> On 3/8/2012 4:05, Warp wrote:
>>>> I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
>>>> and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
>>>
>>> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
>>> think it's about.
>
>> I guess that falls into the "blockbuster" category. But yes - I guess
>> it's a must for anyone who likes movie pictures. Make sure to watch it
>> in a 3D theater.
>
>    Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.

so?  boring or not?

Post a reply to this message

On 3/9/2012 2:38, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 10:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
>> think it's about.
>
> This is one of those movies which I thought looked terrible from the
> trailer, but actually ended up enjoying when I watched it.

That's because the trailer tells you nothing about the plot of the movie, 
which differs drastically from what you'd expect of a typical hollywood 
movie with that sort of trailer.

It's like watching a "Tom Hanks, Goldie Hawn" movie where it turns out 
they're both mass murderers.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >    Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.

> so?  boring or not?

  Boring it wasn't.

  Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
people in them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.03.2012 07:44, schrieb Warp:

>    Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
> the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
> people in them.

Didn't notice any such effect. The only few scenes that looked weird to 
me for some reason were those totals of the big hall with the kids 
crawling down to (or up from) that hanging clock.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 10.03.2012 07:44, schrieb Warp:

> >    Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
> > the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
> > people in them.

> Didn't notice any such effect. The only few scenes that looked weird to 
> me for some reason were those totals of the big hall with the kids 
> crawling down to (or up from) that hanging clock.

  Strange. Most of the panoramic views (of the train station and the
city) and some of the street-level views looked a lot like filming a
miniature. I couldn't tell if it was because of the 3D or if it would
have looked like it also in regular 2D.

  (Nevertheless, the 3D looked spectacular, especially in the beginning
of the film.)

  Btw, for some reason I'm almost completely unable to perceive things
coming "out of the screen" in these films (I have seen three in total now).
Many people say that things look like they literally come out of the screen
and you could almost touch them, but for some reason it just doesn't work
for me. I can see anything that's deeper than the screen just fine, but
if anything is supposed to be closer, then it somehow just doesn't work.
(Maybe if it's just a bit closer than the actual screen, it looks like it,
but the closer it's supposed to be, the less it works for me.)

  If I concentrate really hard on focusing my eyes on the screen and don't
pay attention to whatever might be flying closeby, it kind of works
sometimes. (For example I tried this at the beginning of the film with
the flying snowflakes, and I could sort of make it work at moments.)

  I wonder if this is a common phenomenon.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.03.2012 11:59, schrieb Warp:

>    Btw, for some reason I'm almost completely unable to perceive things
> coming "out of the screen" in these films (I have seen three in total now).
> Many people say that things look like they literally come out of the screen
> and you could almost touch them, but for some reason it just doesn't work
> for me. I can see anything that's deeper than the screen just fine, but
> if anything is supposed to be closer, then it somehow just doesn't work.
> (Maybe if it's just a bit closer than the actual screen, it looks like it,
> but the closer it's supposed to be, the less it works for me.)
>
>    If I concentrate really hard on focusing my eyes on the screen and don't
> pay attention to whatever might be flying closeby, it kind of works
> sometimes. (For example I tried this at the beginning of the film with
> the flying snowflakes, and I could sort of make it work at moments.)
>
>    I wonder if this is a common phenomenon.

I had that problem with the snowflakes, too. It's no surprise actually: 
When viewing something nearby, there is a strong correlation between the 
alignment of your eyes and the proper lens focus. With 3D movies the 
proper lens focus is always at the screen distance, no matter how close 
the objects are supposed to appear. So unless you concentrate, your 
brain will consider that sensory input as implausible, and try its best 
to ignore it.

IIRC this effect is limited to distances up to roughly 5m; at that 
distance, lens focus comes close to the "infinity" setting.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > >    Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.
>
> > so?  boring or not?
>
>   Boring it wasn't.

Ok

>
>   Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
> the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
> people in them.

I didn't notice that, but that s perhaps because I'm by now used to 3D movies.
You may have a point there:  the stereoscopic camera has a larger separation
between lenses than our eyes.  This leads to more dramatic 3D but also to a
sensation of viewing everything as through the eyes of a giant.  Specially
notable of course in landscapes or crowd scenes.

A  yet more dramatic take on the idea leads to hyperstereo:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/hyperstereo/

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2012 2:59, Warp wrote:
> miniature. I couldn't tell if it was because of the 3D or if it would
> have looked like it also in regular 2D.

I saw it in 2D, and I thought the artistry of it was a little odd. Now that 
you mention it that way, yah, it looked a little bit like a miniature, 
possibly because everything was in focus at once?

> Many people say that things look like they literally come out of the screen
> and you could almost touch them, but for some reason it just doesn't work
> for me.

I've been in shows where people actually duck because the stuff is flying at 
their face, and yeah, it's a real effect.

In Disney World, they have a 3D movie where tinkerbell flies out of the 
screen and runs into one of the lights in the movie hall, which sputters out 
in a shower of sparks and suddenly has a pair of animatronic legs sticking 
out kicking around. Very amusing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I saw it in 2D, and I thought the artistry of it was a little odd. Now that 
> you mention it that way, yah, it looked a little bit like a miniature, 
> possibly because everything was in focus at once?

  I thought it's the opposite. If there's a strong focal blur it makes it
look like a miniature. Like in tilt shift photography.

  By the way, if you write the word "tilt" on google's search field,
does something funny happen?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2012 11:23, Warp wrote:
>    I thought it's the opposite. If there's a strong focal blur it makes it
> look like a miniature. Like in tilt shift photography.

Sure, but that's because it's a lens effect. I.e., it looks small because 
the blur is telling you the camera is so close that the focal length of the 
camera is large relative to the picture you're taking of the scene.

Whereas if you see an entire scene that you expect to be a little blurry 
farther away, and it's not, perhaps your brain interprets that as "it's all 
equally far from the camera/eye, and thus probably smaller than I think."

I'm guessing, btw. :-)

>    By the way, if you write the word "tilt" on google's search field,
> does something funny happen?

Yep. There are dozens if not hundreds of these sorts of things active at any 
given time. "do a barrel roll", "gravity", "let it snow", etc etc. And 
they're changing all the time. (And sometimes don't work with "instant" 
turned on.)

It's fun to be behind the firewall and see the dozens of experiments running 
on any given search query.  (Stuff like "if they put in a date and 
previously searched for music, include near the top results for the bands 
they searched on having concerts in their city near the date they searched 
for.")

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message