Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Monsters v Aliens - 3D (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Monsters v Aliens - 3D
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 04-01-2009 10:43 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Took the wife and we went to our local REG EDW 14 and watched this movie.. in Real D.

We both loved it - great animation, interesting yet obvious story with their subplots in place along with the side characters that has the possibility in stealing the show from the main "Susan/Ginormica" character. Definitely, once again, another big CGI hit for Dreamworks.

I've seen some of the 2D, film based version at some other theatres, yet, seeing it in 3D was the way to go with this kind of movie.

The Real D presentation was very good no 'hot spots' due to the usage of the silver screen-(even though I could tell of the obvious contrast due to this kind of screen usage), great sound balance - just an overall decent performance.

But, with this presentation, that NEC 2500 could have used a 6k bulb in there to help compensate the slight reflective reduction in using glasses whereas they were using a 4.2K LTI Helios bulb...which was running 113% over the maximum rate. One takes the glasses off, and you definitely got a nice bright picture with that size of bulb.

Wonder how the Dolby 3D/Image Master 3D would look compared to Real D?

Oh, we kept our glasses for the heck of it .. as souvenirs..

3.5/5 for me. Good kid show material towards the end of summer.

thx-Monte

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 04-02-2009 02:02 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw it last week (2D) and I must say I liked it. Technically it was very good. The story and script was OK. Don't know, like "Monster House" level, I guess, with better animation.

I think Dreamworks knows their market and has the tools and the talent. This movie would've done just as well in 2D as in 3D.

Of course, if you spend 20 Zillion dollars promoting it in 3D (Superbowl, etc) and even get Bank of America to finance part of the 3D viewing, then it's gonna do even better in 3D. But I guess a good chunk of those extra profits are gonna to to the marketing that put the spin to begin with plus the extra $15m in tools and rendering time it took to make the movie 3D instead of 2D.

But, overall, a good play on Dreamworks which should (barely) work for them. I say barely because the costs of this movie was high, so total payoff is still some way away.

These movies produce profits, no doubt, but it's also a big gamble with such high costs involved. Even if this movie grosses $100m (about $65m so far) and does fairly well in the video aftermarket, it's still not all-up-there profit-wise when we compare it to a stupid (R-rated) $15m movie like Valentine 3D that pocketed $50m at the BO.

Also, this movie was lucky it had really very little worth-it competition at the BO and with Spring Break etc it was very good timing. It would've been different if Pixar or Disney opened at the same time [Cool]

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-02-2009 05:47 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You're forgetting all the ancillary profits still to come: Video, TV, direct-to-video sequels produced on the cheap, etc.

This will do very very well for PAR/DW.

 |  IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002


 - posted 04-02-2009 11:42 PM      Profile for Jack Ondracek   Author's Homepage   Email Jack Ondracek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The theatre I watched it at had a VERY bright screen during the commercials. "Ok", I'm thinking. "It's 3D and they've put in the 'big bulb'." When the show started it amazed me how much darker the pictures was. Maybe we wouldn't have noticed if we weren't served up such a stark 'a/b' comparison. The details of some scenes were easier to see without the glasses.

Can someone explain this to me? The stereotypical "paddleball" effect was my first indication that nothing seems to come 'out' of the screen. It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it. Compared to a show like "a bug's life" at Disney, where they put critters right in your face, this was a noticeable curiosity.

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 04-03-2009 02:44 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jack Ondracek
Can someone explain this to me? The stereotypical "paddleball" effect was my first indication that nothing seems to come 'out' of the screen. It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it. Compared to a show like "a bug's life" at Disney, where they put critters right in your face, this was a noticeable curiosity.
I haven't watched it in 3D (2D only), so I can't comment for sure. But whether to get stuff to come out of the screen or remain mostly behind it is a filmaker's choice (within certain small restrictions).

But the perceived depth is relative to your seating position and the screen size. If, i.e., an object is placed half-way between you and the screen, it would be way out in the middle of the theater (say 100' out) if you are sitting in the back row (say 200' away).

But if you are seating in the front row, say only 20' from the screen, then the object will be half way between you and the screen, that is, 10' out from the screen.

To make 3D most confortable, it would be recommended to calculate it for the average size screen and the average (middle of the auditorium) seating possition.

I assume that's what was done and they made a VOLUNTARY decission not to stick stuff out the screen too much so they wouldn't be labelled as a "annoying, distracting gimmick" 3D movie.

Then again, you can't win. If you use 3D subtly to not bother people with it, then those that want (and paid for) the "3D" are dissapointed. If you throw stuff out of the screen every 15 minutes, those that went to watch a "normal" movie feel bothered by so much distracting stuff.

Just ranting.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-03-2009 02:50 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Question: How do they make a 3-D movie anyway? Do the film makers stare at computer screens with glasses on to see how the efx will look? Or do they manipulate things some other way?

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 04-03-2009 06:21 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you're talking about computer animated movies a second camera eye is rendered with the second camera position placed 3"-4" to the left or right of the primary camera.

I don't know what the crews use to test the 3D renderings. My guess would be a screening room equipped with RealD and/or Dolby 3D. Computer monitors that do 3D wouldn't give a real world demonstration on how the finished product would actually look.

quote: Jack Ondracek
Can someone explain this to me? The stereotypical "paddleball" effect was my first indication that nothing seems to come 'out' of the screen. It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it.
Yeah, it's pretty much a judgment call on the part of the movie producers to have objects protruding out of the screen or not. Most 3D movies have at least a couple "in your face" 3D sight gags. Beowulf had a couple (guy on a horse points a spear right into the camera, the main character is dangling above the castle with the pointy tip of one tower stabbing at him from below). Coraline had a knitting needle come well out of the screen.

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 04-03-2009 06:29 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, that would depend on what tools you are using. Nowadays, the main choices are CGI for animated features and dual-camera rigs for life action.

With CGI animation, like the Monsters vs Alien movie, the "scene" is already in 3D inside the computer, so you pre-visualize it in steroscopic (two views, one per eye) 3D whenever you want on a 3D computer monitor (either passive or active) or a 3D projection setup (usually, a two-projector rig).

You can see some of that in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XqYSv8ZpfU&fmt=18
[link is to a youtube video with one of the Monsters vs Aliens featurettes]

You can freely adjust where in the space your subjects are by adjusting the virtual position of the subjets and the virtual cameras (=the spectator's eyes). If you have some restriction or want to play with depth, you can adjust the distance between the (virtual) cameras (interaxial distance) or their convergence (how much they are towed-in with respect to one another, like when you cross your eyes towards your nose to look at something that is only a few centimeters in front of your face).

To shoot life action, you do the same thing, except with a pair of real cameras. You can monitor the scene in 3D with a compatible monitor and 3D glasses or by looking through two eyepieces in a dual viewfinder sort of like this:

http://red.cachefly.net/14/epic2.jpg
[link is two a view of a dual RED Scarlet camera 3D rig fitted with dual viewfinders. Brad, should I upload this image to the server and link from there? I don't own the copyright etc, but I guess it could be fine]

But most of the time, seeing real 3D in life action is not needed. From the two views, and a stereo calculator if you need it, you can guess how it's gonna look like from just the two flat 2D views. So often time, many non-specialty scenes in 3D films are just treated and monitored like a normal scene in 2D.

During the 80's, i.e., when most 3D shooting was done with a single 35mm camera with a 3D lens, there was virtually no 3D monitoring being done. Just like with film before video taps, it was shot "blind" just from experience and calculations (i.e. focus, exposure, temperature, etc) until the film was developed, a daily struck and viewed through a projector.

I know the DP of a 3D film shot in Spain, Comin' at Ya, (Fernando Arribas) who shot for a good couple weeks until it was realized that the 3D lens system being used wasn't working right and the film had to be re-financed and re-shot.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-04-2009 06:06 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jack Ondracek
When the show started it amazed me how much darker the pictures was.
Jack...

Go catch it over at the Neptune Theater. They have a Master Image 3-D system over there running about 6 to 7 foot lamberts. Let me know how it compares to what you saw... It's actually a theater worth visiting if you've never been in there... pretty darn cool and not a single setp in the entore theateror balcony!!! All ramped. Pretty interesting for 1921 architecture.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Gorka
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 174
From: High Wycombe, England
Registered: Apr 2006


 - posted 04-04-2009 06:32 PM      Profile for Justin Gorka   Email Justin Gorka   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think people have forgotten that this film (not movie!) was designed to be a 3-D feature. In 3-D it looks good and the jokes (gags) work better. In 2-D the film looks washed out and the reason for the film being there is lost. In the end it is a sensible feature. 3/5

 |  IP: Logged

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004


 - posted 04-04-2009 07:33 PM      Profile for Sam Graham   Author's Homepage   Email Sam Graham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 13
PRESENTATION: Dolby 3-D Digital Cinema, THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Letterbox presentation with closed-in side masking (maybe due to the 3-D?)
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

The 3-D popped here. There were a few places where the audience jumped and gasped as stuff popped outward, resulting in much giggling.

THE PLOT: A girl glows at her wedding. Wackiness ensues.

I liked the look of this a lot. The attack probes had a nice retro appearance. There's lots of Star Wars and Close Encounters references. Seth Rogan's blob was pretty funny, but the rest of the heroes and villains were pretty pedestrian. I was checking the auditorium clock pretty regularly after about an hour.

Still doing a strong business, obviously. Pretty good crowd.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 04-04-2009 07:35 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Sounds like the Warren screwed up and ran it in "flat".

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 04-04-2009 07:38 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Sam Graham
auditorium clock pretty regularly after about an hour.


(going off-topic on this one for a bit..) That's definitely old school (which I haven't seen in years )and a big no-no in the meantime: having a clock in the auditorium - like having a clock in your lobby.

 |  IP: Logged

Peter Castle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia
Registered: Oct 2003


 - posted 04-05-2009 04:23 AM      Profile for Peter Castle   Email Peter Castle   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What a let-down.
I'm a fan of CG animation (and teach it). But this seemed to be a collection of scenes rushed together. Too fast, no development.
Saw it in 2D. The paddle scene is not "an homage" to "House of Wax" but just another reason 3D will always be a gimmick.

Dreamworks needs to get some good writers.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-05-2009 10:11 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brad Miller
Sounds like the Warren screwed up and ran it in "flat".

Very strange considering that Warren has alot of stacked 3-D systems and is a top notch presenter. Being the first scope 3-D release I fear that not enough techs got the scope 3-d target in time for setting up the projectors. One can still set up scope 3-D without the target but they obviously did not. I'd be willing to bet that a number of places ended up running it in flat.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.