Assuming that the technology to record and project them existed, it would be a nightmare to film. It would basically kill cinematography.

Cythraul: Call me when they make 3D porn.

Come over tonight

I like that one movie of his with the Rolling Stones song in it. that was a really good movie.

I mean, the way he used that one song in that one scene? Remarkable. It really made that one movie.

Wait... someone promoting his latest 3D movie says something outrageous...

His character in 'Taxi Driver' doesn't seem so looney tunes now.

Just stop making movies, sir.
'The Aviator' and 'The Departed' were embarrassing failures. Just the worst pieces of shiat in the world.

Bow out before you end up making more shiat than actual great movies.

Cythraul: Call me when they make 3D porn.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141186/ (new window)

"What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output."

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Essays on Mind and Matter"

IrateShadow: Assuming that the technology to record and project them existed, it would be a nightmare to film. It would basically kill cinematography.

Exactly. This wouldn't be a result of the evolution of cinema. It would be a completely new art form on its own.

Sybarite: Hey, I saw a movie with full-body 3D holograms. Oh no wait, that was a play.

All day long. If 3D is the future Just go to a play. I really hope all the 3D crap is a passing phase. I just like to watch movies.

Let me know when I can have this:

Sybarite: Hey, I saw a movie with full-body 3D holograms. Oh no wait, that was a play.

Exactly.

flaminio: Let me know when I can have this:

[i43.tinypic.com image 500x375]

Is that from Trek?

/Looks familiar.
//3d porn?
///I want a lovebot.

AnotherBluesStringer: dothemath: Just stop making movies, sir.
'The Aviator' and 'The Departed' were embarrassing failures. Just the worst pieces of shiat in the world.

Bow out before you end up making more shiat than actual great movies.

I'm sure Marty would take your advice if his computer screen weren't behind the nine Oscars those two movies (alone) won.

For those of you who don't remember, this guy is a troll.
Linky proof to previous thread: Link (new window)

He's not very good at it either. You'll spend time arguing your points and he'll respond with: "Go fark yourself."

/I realize I responded, but only because I can't watch this thread go like the last one.

Yes, im sure you cant stand it, sweetie.

Those movies are terrible. Deal with it.

If its projected from an R2 unit i might be interested.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: rateShadow: Assuming that the technology to record and project them existed, it would be a nightmare to film. It would basically kill cinematography.

Exactly. This wouldn't be a result of the evolution of cinema. It would be a completely new art form on its own.

Thing is though, he's probably right. I'm sure he's personally just talking out his ass and has no idea how to implement the technology, but holographic displays are a natural endpoint of video technology. Technologically, we actually could do this today, although only nations that can build supercomputers could hope to actually afford to wire one up. I wouldn't worry about it ruining cinematography though. Most people have absolutely no idea how their cameras actually work, even if they know what effects will be caused by changing certain settings. Once the engineers can make a camera that's relatively idiot-proof, it'll be business at usual.

flaminio: Let me know when I can have this:

[i43.tinypic.com image 500x375]

Ha! Nice!

Flt209er: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: rateShadow: Assuming that the technology to record and project them existed, it would be a nightmare to film. It would basically kill cinematography.

Exactly. This wouldn't be a result of the evolution of cinema. It would be a completely new art form on its own.

Thing is though, he's probably right. I'm sure he's personally just talking out his ass and has no idea how to implement the technology, but holographic displays are a natural endpoint of video technology. Technologically, we actually could do this today, although only nations that can build supercomputers could hope to actually afford to wire one up. I wouldn't worry about it ruining cinematography though. Most people have absolutely no idea how their cameras actually work, even if they know what effects will be caused by changing certain settings. Once the engineers can make a camera that's relatively idiot-proof, it'll be business at usual.

I don't doubt that this might become a viable medium in the future, but it just won't be cinema as we know it. It will be something entirely different. You won't have a 2d and holographic version of the same film.

Modern cinema is predicated on the 2 dimensional plane. Shots are framed at specific angles. Set pieces are built according to such framing. The meticulous camera blocking is designed around that framing. Things are hidden or disguised. All of this changes with holographic displays.

And that's not even considering the logistics of how the audience views the final product. You'd have to design a whole new theater layout. Using the conventional setup, every single person in the audience would essentially see a different version of the "movie."

mpowelljr

Shark still looks fake.

rickythepenguin: I like that one movie of his with the Rolling Stones song in it. that was a really good movie.

I mean, the way he used that one song in that one scene? Remarkable. It really made that one movie.

When he made Shine a Light, the Rolling Stones concert film, they actually joked that it was his first film that didn't include "Gimme Shelter."

What, is he advertising for his summer production of Shakespeare in the park?

This came out in 1991:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If people gave a crap, there could be giant versions of that... Or would it be too energy consuming?

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Modern cinema is predicated on the 2 dimensional plane. Shots are framed at specific angles. Set pieces are built according to such framing. The meticulous camera blocking is designed around that framing. Things are hidden or disguised. All of this changes with holographic displays.

And that's not even considering the logistics of how the audience views the final product. You'd have to design a whole new theater layout. Using the conventional setup, every single person in the audience would essentially see a different version of the "movie."

All absolutely true. It will change the nature of cinematography. But the fact that they can't use a lot of the same tricks as they use for 2-D filming can be a very good thing. For example, one VERY major change that will occur with a holo display is that the film crew won't command focus of the camera lens. Your eye will. Some things that often required hiding or disguising before will simply be able to take advantage of the fact that you're attention is drawn to a different point of the movie. Even though the man creeping through the shadows is filmed in perfect detail, he'll be effectively blurred out by the simple virtue that your eye is "focused" at a different depth. I think this would greatly increase audience desire to watch movies multiple times; just so see what they missed that was quite literally hidden in plain sight. I could see a fantastically skilled director almost filming in layers that (s)he anticipates the audience not seeing until the second, third, or fourth viewings.

And you're absolutely right about each member of the audience seeing a different angle of the movie. But, just like Sybarite's quip about the play, I don't think that's inherently detrimental. It does mean that special effects will have to be used much, MUCH more carefully though. Michael Bay would be out of a job pretty damn fast.

Flt209er: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Modern cinema is predicated on the 2 dimensional plane. Shots are framed at specific angles. Set pieces are built according to such framing. The meticulous camera blocking is designed around that framing. Things are hidden or disguised. All of this changes with holographic displays.

And that's not even considering the logistics of how the audience views the final product. You'd have to design a whole new theater layout. Using the conventional setup, every single person in the audience would essentially see a different version of the "movie."

All absolutely true. It will change the nature of cinematography. But the fact that they can't use a lot of the same tricks as they use for 2-D filming can be a very good thing. For example, one VERY major change that will occur with a holo display is that the film crew won't command focus of the camera lens. Your eye will. Some things that often required hiding or disguising before will simply be able to take advantage of the fact that you're attention is drawn to a different point of the movie. Even though the man creeping through the shadows is filmed in perfect detail, he'll be effectively blurred out by the simple virtue that your eye is "focused" at a different depth. I think this would greatly increase audience desire to watch movies multiple times; just so see what they missed that was quite literally hidden in plain sight. I could see a fantastically skilled director almost filming in layers that (s)he anticipates the audience not seeing until the second, third, or fourth viewings.

And you're absolutely right about each member of the audience seeing a different angle of the movie. But, just like Sybarite's quip about the play, I don't think that's inherently detrimental. It does mean that special effects will have to be used much, MUCH more carefully though. Michael Bay would be out of a job pretty damn fast.

Actually it just means everything will be done in CGI where you can edit things to exist or not exist at will. Otherwise you end up with simple mistakes like seeing the bottom of Pee Wee Herman's bike basket where he is pulling out the super long chain.

Staging, blocking and lighting will be much harder to do as well. Will it pay off? Maybe. But the fixed focus of the camera's eye permits a good filmmaker to cue you in to the right details.

Flt209er: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Modern cinema is predicated on the 2 dimensional plane. Shots are framed at specific angles. Set pieces are built according to such framing. The meticulous camera blocking is designed around that framing. Things are hidden or disguised. All of this changes with holographic displays.

And that's not even considering the logistics of how the audience views the final product. You'd have to design a whole new theater layout. Using the conventional setup, every single person in the audience would essentially see a different version of the "movie."

All absolutely true. It will change the nature of cinematography. But the fact that they can't use a lot of the same tricks as they use for 2-D filming can be a very good thing. For example, one VERY major change that will occur with a holo display is that the film crew won't command focus of the camera lens. Your eye will. Some things that often required hiding or disguising before will simply be able to take advantage of the fact that you're attention is drawn to a different point of the movie. Even though the man creeping through the shadows is filmed in perfect detail, he'll be effectively blurred out by the simple virtue that your eye is "focused" at a different depth. I think this would greatly increase audience desire to watch movies multiple times; just so see what they missed that was quite literally hidden in plain sight. I could see a fantastically skilled director almost filming in layers that (s)he anticipates the audience not seeing until the second, third, or fourth viewings.

And you're absolutely right about each member of the audience seeing a different angle of the movie. But, just like Sybarite's quip about the play, I don't think that's inherently detrimental. It does mean that special effects will have to be used much, MUCH more carefully though. Michael Bay would be out of a job pretty damn fast.

The potential problem with that is with current techniques, we can force the viewer to focus on what we want with selective focus, framing, etc. As you mention in the part I bolded, you're pretty much at the mercy of the viewer and what they decide to look at.

I agree with everything you said though and don't think anything is detrimental. I just often see people claiming holographic imagery to be the next step in filmmaking. It's not though. It's going to be an entirely new medium of storytelling. It will be completely unrecognizable from cinema as we know it.

flaminio: Let me know when I can have this:

[i43.tinypic.com image 500x375]

Minuet FTW

Eternal Virgin: This came out in 1991:

[img5.imageshack.us image 500x500]
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If people gave a crap, there could be giant versions of that... Or would it be too energy consuming?

Came here for this. Leaving satisfied.

Mugato: bruce4bruce: If its projected from an R2 unit i might be interested.

CNN did that live during the elections, remember? They claimed they were using holograms.

[i23.photobucket.com image 470x277]

They did, I felt embarrassed for them.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: The potential problem with that is with current techniques, we can force the viewer to focus on what we want with selective focus, framing, etc

Well, then you'll just have to find a more clever way of doing it. :-) Although actually, one can actually still play forced focus games by altering stereoscopic parameters. Changing the distance between the camera's "eyes", so to speak, would let you cause the depth of an image to be scaled however you wished. When the time comes, somebody'll find a way to make it work.

I understand your point though. You're always going to lose some of the "art" that was developed during earlier generations of cinematography. Thanks to digital post processing, we've already stopped using (or needing, depending on your view) a lot of the old techniques; and that doesn't always result in better work. Whether you consider it to be the next step of cinematography or an entirely new medium though, is similar to arguing pronunciations of the word "potato" IMHO. 95% of holographic movies will still suck, and we'll all still waste our work day arguing on fark about the remaining 5%. At least we won't have to wear those damn 3D glasses anymore.

He's a hack. always has been, always will be.

Raging Bull? Goodfellas? garbage.

T.rex: He's a hackmook. always has been, always will be.

Raging Bull? Goodfellas? garbage.

FTFY

Flt209er: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: The potential problem with that is with current techniques, we can force the viewer to focus on what we want with selective focus, framing, etc

Well, then you'll just have to find a more clever way of doing it. :-) Although actually, one can actually still play forced focus games by altering stereoscopic parameters. Changing the distance between the camera's "eyes", so to speak, would let you cause the depth of an image to be scaled however you wished. When the time comes, somebody'll find a way to make it work.

I understand your point though. You're always going to lose some of the "art" that was developed during earlier generations of cinematography. Thanks to digital post processing, we've already stopped using (or needing, depending on your view) a lot of the old techniques; and that doesn't always result in better work. Whether you consider it to be the next step of cinematography or an entirely new medium though, is similar to arguing pronunciations of the word "potato" IMHO. 95% of holographic movies will still suck, and we'll all still waste our work day arguing on fark about the remaining 5%. At least we won't have to wear those damn 3D glasses anymore.

I'd rather take the 3D glasses then a many-times "rinsed" visual cortex plug. O_O

And really, the only way we'll ever get true 3d is going to be a direct neural hookup or through tiny glass boxes.

And yes, needing/depending would be the better term for cinematic devices of the past. The old methods can and still be used, but only because the movie maker wants to, not because they have to.

Hell, silent movie title cards were a necessity as there was no dialogue, but they haven't really ever gone away. Same with puppetry, matte paintings, etc... They still and always will have their places.

A fully holographic 1:1 scale movie would be very difficult to film.

1) Only unrealistic lighting or motion could effectively grab the viewer's attention, as you'd lose the ability to manipulate focus.

2) All camera angles would have to be static, and no quick cuts unless you want vomit all over the theatres.

3) No forced perspective tricks.

4) Any scene would have to look good from a wide variety of angles - there'd be no way to hide a missing wall or ceiling, or boom mic from the viewer if they can walk up to the screen and look sideways, up or down.

The only way I see fully holographic films happening is when you can generate them with 100% realistic CGI.