Remake This SF Movie, and I'll KILL/LOVE You!!!

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, September 26, 2010 17:38
VIEWED: 11009
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:53 PM

Westworld. Now here I'm split. I like the classic as is, but with JUST the right tweak & expand of the script, a hi-tek remake MAY be in order...

Whadya'll think?

The laughing Chrisisall

OPPYH

Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:00 PM

A Planet of the Apes remake(shot for shot) w/ the cast I mentioned a while back in another thread. That I would pay to see

Zira

Cornelius

Nova

Taylor

Dr. Zaius

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

CYBERSNARK

Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If it's so easy why don't they just make 4D then, huh Mr. Science??

We already have 4D movies. They're called "movies." The non-4D ones are called "pictures."

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:32 PM

LOL.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:32 PM

LOL.

Apparently this was so funny, the system thought it needed double-posting.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:13 PM

Hello,

I suspect you will be plagued with a Syfy movie of the week version of Westworld. ;-)

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

KWICKO

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

I don't know what kind of digital trickery they are using to modify old films so they can then call it 3-D (just to sell tickets), but this can't really be done with any movie that wasn't shot with dual 3-D optic cameras from the start.

Oh, you SO can produce a 3D image from a 2D one now.
The program simply produces a second image from a 4 inch different theoretical perspective. It then distorts all the images to correspond to that perspective, and voila! 3D.

The laughing Chrisisall

A little more involved than that, but basically that's about it. Say you've got a shot of an airliner coming at you, front 3/4 view - the nose much closer to you than the tail. You have to - and now you CAN - go in an manipulate the length of the plane by dividing it into "layers" - each layer being a little closer to a theoretical 3D "vanishing point". So you have a shot of the nose layer, and some distance away (call it 5x) you have the extrapolated view (from your other eye, natch). Go towards the rear of the plane, about 1/5th of the way down it's length, and that distance between the two images (the real and the computer-derived one) is now 4x. A little further back, it's 3x, then 2x, then x. More layers and more separation gets you to more depth, up to a point.

It's just a way to trick your mind into THINKING you're looking at two different images, and you don't necessarily need two vastly different images to fool it for the length of time it takes for a frame of motion picture film to go past and be "seen" by your brain.

It can be done, it's BEING done; it's just quite expensive and time-consuming to do it. But as noted before, such trivial details and time and money never really seemed to bother George Lucas before. And he is very good at driving the effects realm towards better and cheaper ways of accomplishing what he's after.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

KWICKO

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I can't believe the effect is as good as real 3d?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Define "real 3d". Are you talking about "reality"? That's the only REAL 3D there is. :)

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Define "real 3d".

Electrical impulses interpreted by your brain.

The laughing Morpheusisall

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

I don't know what kind of digital trickery they are using to modify old films so they can then call it 3-D (just to sell tickets), but this can't really be done with any movie that wasn't shot with dual 3-D optic cameras from the start.

Oh, you SO can produce a 3D image from a 2D one now.
The program simply produces a second image from a 4 inch different theoretical perspective. It then distorts all the images to correspond to that perspective, and voila! 3D.

The laughing Chrisisall

A little more involved than that, but basically that's about it. Say you've got a shot of an airliner coming at you, front 3/4 view - the nose much closer to you than the tail. You have to - and now you CAN - go in an manipulate the length of the plane by dividing it into "layers" - each layer being a little closer to a theoretical 3D "vanishing point". So you have a shot of the nose layer, and some distance away (call it 5x) you have the extrapolated view (from your other eye, natch). Go towards the rear of the plane, about 1/5th of the way down it's length, and that distance between the two images (the real and the computer-derived one) is now 4x. A little further back, it's 3x, then 2x, then x. More layers and more separation gets you to more depth, up to a point.

It's just a way to trick your mind into THINKING you're looking at two different images, and you don't necessarily need two vastly different images to fool it for the length of time it takes for a frame of motion picture film to go past and be "seen" by your brain.

It can be done, it's BEING done; it's just quite expensive and time-consuming to do it. But as noted before, such trivial details and time and money never really seemed to bother George Lucas before. And he is very good at driving the effects realm towards better and cheaper ways of accomplishing what he's after.

Thing is 3D is not created by multiple depths - for sure that's what the result is, what our mind's perceive is depth - but to create that you need multiple perspectives, the differing perspectives of 2 eyes. Blending those in our brains = depth. That cannot be extrapolated from a single perspective.
Hold your head still and look at anything nearby and close and open each eye and notice what each one sees, and more importantly, notice what they both don't see. How are you going to recreate something that was never recorded?
You say it's being done and I have no doubt that SOMETHING is being done to fudge it and being stamped "3D!", that's just because that's the $buzz right now. But it's not a good approximation of the 3D we experience in real life imho, and I think anyone who presents old films as 3D should be gutted and have their entrails sold at a very creepy auction.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE