I did not see Avatar so I cannot comment good or bad. I did find it interesting that the reviews I read and people who I talked to that saw it all said the same thing.

The story was okay but the effects were amazing. I can appreciate good effects with anyone, but a good movie has to have more than effects.

I have no doubt that some time soon 3D will be common. But only when I don't have to pay extra for the effect, I don't have to wear special applcances to see it, and I have no other choice.

Sound was considered a novelty at one time. So was color, cinemascope, widescreen, They have all become part of the media, but what happened to sensaround, smell-o-vision and fright warnings. Some thing always stay gimmicks.

Dave T2

"You can take a VHS, put it in a broadcast quality VCR deck & record SD digital content to it from a digital VCR & it will look as good as the SD digital recording."

I have professional VHS decks (Panasonic AG-7350) and there is no way that they looked as good as SD digital. Absolutely no way. I still own a Sony BVH-2800 1" Type-C machine in pristine condition and even it doesn't look as good as SD digital.

"So Bob, as long as something doesn't kill 2d cameras, projectors, TV's & discs we're OK & it will live on forever?"

Yes. From what I've heard the left channel / eye is the mono stream. Generally cut the left eye, grade the left eye and then the systems match what was done to the left eye. Then again movies are already being cut in native 3D, even no budget indie productions.


You did kind of miss the point though. I was referring to us.

It came as little surprise to me that a recent John Cline thread revealed that we're all pretty much baby boomers. Perhaps more of us need to (re)read this poem by Dylan Thomas.

I do agree, I think BD is a crock, only 8bit 4:2:0. Broadcast SD is 10bit 4:2:2. There's as much data in that vision as there is in a BD movie. Sure more pixels creates eye candy and the masses will buy it.
Audio CDs are another example. Look at the fate of SACD. Heck 95% of all music today is listened to as mp3. There's a whole generation who argualbly don't know what music actually sounds like.

Personally I think color is a bit of a crock too. The very best B&W stock printed photochemically is the best looking image there is. The process is so damn expensive cinemas would probably have to charge extra to see such a movie. Somehow though I don't see the paying public paying more to see a B&W movie no matter how great it looks and how great the content.

That's the thing, what WE think is irrelevant. What the paying public will pay to see is all that matters. We all should be thinking about how we're going to give them what they want, how to create the illusions that knocks their sox off.

Bob.

I've said before that most people don't seem to care about image or sound fidelity. Much more they value impact (lots of action, lots of noise). I see something of that in this thread, and it can be less confusing when people are clear in stating their position. When someone is interested only in content and is not distracted by technical imperfections, then they're never going to see eye to eye with someone who can't bear to watch poor images no matter how good the content.

I fall into the second category. I don't care about extras on DVD (prefer to give the bandwidth to the feature) and can't bear to watch fuzzy soot-n-whitewash transfers of originally excellent films. While I put intelligent content first, I'm distracted when the quality of reproduction does less than justice to the skills of the DOP and audio. While I've tried to convince heathens that high fidelity matters, a lot of viewers couldn't care less.
So when someone says VHS gives fine quality, they're really saying that they find it good enough if the content is to their liking. Someone like me can argue all they like about how rotten the image is and suggest they must need their head examined, but it just leads to frustration because the two views never intersect. Trouble is, often the "good enough" people justify their position by stating that there is no obvious difference between low and high fidelity, which is just plain silly.

I recall reading of an experiment carried out about 1905 when an orchestra was setup behind a curtain on one side of a stage and a "new improved" 78 rpm gramophone on the other side. The audience had to pick which was which. The conclusion was that most could not.
Brian

I can handle 3D but not stretchovision which should be a fad.
JJK

Bring back Smell-O-Vision! If you can't stand Smell-O-Vision (which is obviously not a gimmick) then you must be backward and not for visionary (olfactory?) expansion of our medium! Ladies and Gentlemen, Smell-O-Vision is the wave (the whiff?) of the future!

"The audience had to pick which was which. The conclusion was that most could not."

So what if "most" couldn't, I don't care about "most" people. I can tell the difference between HD and SD, analog and digital, and I'm absolutely certain that a lot of people can. We're the ones that buy into higher quality technology and it eventually trickles down to the masses. Not everyone can appreciate the quality, capability or nuances of my relatively limited production sports car, but I'm sure happy there was enough that could that the manufacturer decided to develop the technology and build them. The same goes for electronics. If I can appreciate it and afford it, I will buy it.

So you really didn't see your first modern 3D movie. You saw a lame work-around.

I've been noticing people wearing sunglasses that look like those 3D glasses. Or maybe the wearers are using them to see the external world in 3D. Real cool, man.

I thought Avatar in 3D (not IMAX) was wonderful. 3D was not over-done. Cameras through the woods with mini lights throughout the woods was phenomenal.

Just enough 3D effect, without any headaches or fatigue.

Avatar's details in the scenes is just truly awesome... and the BR is great too. Sir Ridley Scott has been talking up his Alien prequel and the 72-year-old director insisted his project will challenge James Cameron's Avatar in terms of 3D spectacle. He said: "Jim's raised the bar and I've got to jump to it. He's not going to get away with it." ---------------can't wait! ;-) (Quoited from Screen International)