Surround sound also breaks the fourth wall. I wonder if people objected to it when movies started getting mixed and presented in surround. I know my mother-in-law doesn't like movie sounds coming from directions other than the screen, similar to how some people don't like 3D picture stuff coming at them out of the screen. I can't convince myself that 3D picture is an extension of 3D sound, but it could be argued.

Last edited by Phi (2012-04-18 21:57:40)

Personally I think Teague nailed it on the head in the episode. 3D Visuals at the moment are a trick, they are, at best, a pretty good magic trick that works on your brain most of the time. Whereas all of these other innovations it keeps being compared to are LITERAL translations of that experience, the screen is actually in colour, there is actual sound coming out the speakers, the speaker is actually just behind you.

If you want a better comparison between surround and 3D visuals, it would have to be more along the lines of: All the sound is actually projected from speakers at the front of the theater, but if you wear these speaker ear flaps it'll trick you into thinking there's sound coming from behind you.

Once we have LITERAL 3D images where we don't need glasses or any other tricks, where anyone can just walk in and go yep, that's in 3D, is when we'll have anything even close to comparable to surround sound or colour.

The only time I've ever been truly impressed, no, awed by 3D was during the Hubble IMAX documentary shown at the Kennedy Space Center. Specifically the points where you feel that you can reach out and touch the astronaut working on the telescope and when it places you in a starfield. Amazing. It's one of my most cherished memories.

Someone tried more than a decade ago.

Holy shit! That must've happened while I was in the bunker with all that tinfoil on my head!

The fraudulent aspects of that company also fascinate me.  Could that be related to why such a thing never materialized as a real product; concern that any new venture would be painted with the same brush?

Hollywood Reporter is writing about the push towards 48 Frames Per Second.

Link: Hollywoodreporter.com

Oh, I'm sure you're right about that! Design being as important as it is in cameras, the prototypes probably looked like hell, and even the state of the art imaging hardware of today would be hard pressed to fit comfortably inside an existing 35mm film bay.

As I understand it, they're adding the proper amount of motion blur in post for the 2D version. And since RED is so closely tied to this production, I'd imagine Graeme Nattress is involved, and he's a golden god of image processing. So it will look fine.

Douglas Trumbull seems to think it's easier to work with higher frame rates.

Easier? The lack of hefty motion blur makes each frame easier, but it's also double the amount of frames(or 4 times, if shot in stereo, obviously), so it's still a hell of a lot more work.

This has been my favourite intermission/podcast/conversation/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit so far. You guys were really in the zone for a lot of the discussion, using parallels with the kindle and a bunch of other shit.

question though, if RED come up with this answer to imax, will we see a big influx of big name directors shifting to digital? since this really seems the only thing thats shot on film with the big advantage right now

p.s. a nice little quote from Nolan I found which was quite interesting
'In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change'

Considering his last few films have had hundreds and hundreds of effects shots, I'd call that a pretty good reason. Sure, he may not have sat in a suite with a colorist for a month or two, but vfx shots need to be digitized, altered, possibly graded, and dropped back in to the film. There are digital elements to the workflow. Every shot could end up looking exactly as Pfister and his timer intended, but there was an intermediate step during which a lot of frames were digital.

It's a grey area. I understand the beneficial simplicity of saying things like "most of that was practical" or "I have never done a digital intermediate". They are simple answers that lend an air of cred and wonderous old-fashionedism, but they are PR answers. The reality is much more complicated.