Home Your Ad Here

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > The Biz > Hollywood

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-01-2017, 06:26 PM   #16
buscando
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: L.A.
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
great depth from a strip of celluloid projected on the screen, creating the magical appearance of 3D. Does anybody miss film?
Are you talking about regular non-3D film?
buscando is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 10-01-2017, 09:02 PM   #17
Scarecrow
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 23
Yes, "2D" photochemical film can have an illusion of depth because film has physical layers and being an analogue format, the depth looks natural. I find that digital 3D has very defined layers and this simply looks like cardboard cut-outs one in front of another.
Scarecrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2017, 09:53 PM   #18
Scoopicman
Premiere Member
 
Scoopicman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by richy View Post
Alien Arrival. Not sure I understood the politics or the message of the film (plot). Nonetheless, a fairly decent (low budget) science fiction.
I saw that about a month ago, along with RUPTURE (which I enjoyed). ARRIVAL had some interesting ideas - a moon where time is sped up, a man who gets digested by some alien creature and keeps being reborn. Damn confusing presentation by the filmmaker, though!

I'll have to check out SEA OF TREES.
__________________
midnightsunent
Scoopicman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2017, 11:33 PM   #19
buscando
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: L.A.
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
Yes, "2D" photochemical film can have an illusion of depth because film has physical layers and being an analogue format, the depth looks natural.
I see what you mean. I've heard before why some directors prefer real film. But I only noticed the difference recently when I saw some 70s & 80s movies. They really do seem to have deeper blacks & richer colors than digital stuff today, even with color grading, which sometimes looks exaggerated & unnatural. Hopefully digital can match it better soon.

Last edited by buscando; 10-02-2017 at 12:00 AM.
buscando is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2017, 09:55 PM   #20
richy
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
richy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: u.s.a.
Posts: 2,863
Ah, maybe so, Cracker. Oh well.

Oh, Rupture. Thanks for the suggestion, Scoop. I'll try to see it.



Yeah interesting discussion about film vs. digital. I (dilettante) kind of had the impression that the film-vs.-digital-debate was over and it had been won by digital. It's interesting that it isn't over (at least here in this thread).

So a search found me this at the top. I have no idea if these people are authorities on the matter, but I found it an interesting read. Their concern seems to revolve mostly around the question of resolution, while I think the discussion here on IT has revolved mostly around the desire for a wide dynamic range. Is that so? Has digital come to equal or to surpass film in dynamic range? In any case, it sure sounds like film is history, for better or for worse.

But I do think 3D, like VR, is on the "right" track; it's really about trying to make entertainment more immersive, whether that's in the 3D or 4K of today, or the 3D or 8K or holograms, or whatever, of tomorrow. I bet all or most of us can get on board with that.
richy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk