3D is cinema's poison and we MUST eliminate it!!!
TheArchitect wrote:I still think 3-D has its place.
christophmac wrote:And don't get me started on post-prod 3D conversions...
JONATHAN3D wrote:No 3D?
As for Film vs. Digital... I view it as Beach vs. Pool. Beach being Film.
George Lucas had shot 'Star Wars Episode 2' digitally.
It didn't make sense to shoot green screen sets [a digital backlot] on film.
There wasn't any natural tonal information worth preserving on film.
However, he also went on to acknowledge film being the better of the two, overall.
Back to 3D. What I like is the experiential quality.
If the story takes us on an exploration of another world, why not see it in 3D?
James Cameron's Avatar Producer Jon Landau has a very interesting philosophy on the format.
Hearing his insight has convinced me [as if watching 3D movies hadn't done that already].
I find 3D and IMAX to be a very exciting aspect of going to the cinema.
Crazy Eight wrote:The digitally shot Star Wars films are irrelevant in todays discussion. Technology has changed greatly since then, and having seen recent tests of Super 35mm film being shot under the same conditions as the Arri ALEXA, it's clear that digital can out do 35mm in low light, and it's highlights are right up there to the point that which you find better for highlights comes down to preference. Color is another neck and neck thing with film vs. the ALEXA... actual resolution is the only thing I'd give 35mm over the ALEXA, but the ALEXA's perceived resolution since it lacks any native grain or blemishes is much higher than Super 35mm's. And the EPIC would of course beat both the ALEXA and Super 35mm in terms of actual resolution, and perceived resolution. As of this point in 2011, the only moving image capture device that is actually ahead of digital capture would be 5/65mm, and 15/65mm (IMAX)... everything else boils down to which you prefer.