What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
81 Comments
- radicaldementia, on 06/24/2009, -3/+26meh, anything higher than 1-D is just a gimmick.
- DouglasQ, on 06/24/2009, -0/+19The telephone was a ***** idea anyway. The second telephone was genius though.
- KayinAngel, on 06/24/2009, -0/+15"This movie is going to kick ass. Two thumbs up!" - Jesus, son of God
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+11For all the hype it's getting, Avatar better be amazing.
- badwithcomputer, on 06/24/2009, -1/+11avatar will be, without a doubt, the coolest thing anyone has ever seen while sitting down in a movie theatre if you see it in 3-d. james cameron finally found a way around piracy.
- frieddonuts, on 06/24/2009, -0/+9Seeing Up in 3d convinced me that it has a future as a medium. Dolby's really perfected the art- it's not about things flying in your face anymore, but increasing the visual depth and each and every frame. It's most impressive when you're looking at a landscape with clouds over it. That's when it really feels "real."
- Junkyarddawg, on 06/24/2009, -2/+10They should start by increasing resolution and framerate and getting rid of the motion blur. Then we could start looking at 3D.
- Fun4Two, on 06/24/2009, -0/+7Save me James Cameron; Save me from Michael Bay and all his Baysplosions.
- missjb, on 06/24/2009, -4/+11Yeah, telephones are pretty gimmicky too. Somebody told me the other day about a 'cordless' one. I just laughed.
- glendower, on 06/24/2009, -0/+6I would watch it in 1-D i but i just cant see the point
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -1/+6Cool, I have two digital 3d theaters in Seattle. However the IMAX one, is too small to be considered a true IMAX theater.
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+4Well stop letting your boyfriend cum on your face and maybe you could see it.
- RealmDown, on 06/24/2009, -1/+5Point taken.
- Mejogid, on 06/24/2009, -0/+4Oh come on, when've you ever been able to see jutter due to the frame rate of a movie? The reason we need closer to 60 fps for games is the complete lack of (real) motion blur - there's nothing to blend movement together so we have to pump up the frame rate, and games' dynamic nature means you have to maintain something closer to 60 fps to stop visible frame drop spikes. Resolution, perhaps, but I don't believe resolution increase beyond what is currently commonplace will really have a tangible impact.
3D, on the other hand, could really add to immersion iif used subtly and sensibly (as I believe Cameron will). - Stoyanov, on 06/24/2009, -0/+4Correction: This is Renaissance in filmmaking, and the breakthrough is actual human eyes-like 3D.
- CrimsonBlur, on 06/24/2009, -0/+4That would mean you never truly see anything in 3D anyway, so what difference does it make if it works in a movie theater or not?
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3Keep movies at 24fps, I hate those 120hz TV's that make movies look like soap operas, way too smooth.
- DarthVolta, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3i must have gone to a bad 3d theater - i was really disappointed with up in 3d. that is to say, i loved the film, but the effect was underwhelming, especially for an extra 3 dollars..
- temsi, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3When the head of a competing studio says "it's going to change the world", you know the hype has reached biblical proportions.
- temsi, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3They already did. Pay attention, would ya?
- Strongwings, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3What the heck are you talking about? IMAX (for movies) barely ever goes over 4k.
http://gizmodo.com/5250780/how-regular-movies-beco ...
The new Red Epic 617 Pro goes to 28K. [Halfway down the page]
http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ - temsi, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2@Nydendarin
3D projection uses brighter projection than 2D projection.
Glasses are no longer anaglyph, but rather polarized (90 degree or circular method).
Polarized glasses do not cut down "2/3rds of the brightness" by any stretch of the imagination.
You really need to catch up on this before yelling and complaining.
http://www.reald.com/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_D_Cinema#Technol ... is a good start - Leems, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2I think you're missing the point.
Supposedly the 3D in Avatar is quite the opposite of the steriotype 'axe throwing to the face' style. Its all about the immersion and the film apparently drags the viewer into the whole world.
Try ot before you mock it mate. - navidb, on 06/24/2009, -4/+6what if i "D"ownload it.
- thirty6chambers, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3Ok, I'll think of you next time I make a 3d movie.
- spectrum21, on 06/24/2009, -2/+4I believe I read somewhere that Cameron is shooting Avatar in a higher framerate...i think 30 or 60 fps. And you really can't get much higher resolution than where films are now...film is higher than any resolution digital can shoot, but digital is catching up.
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3Whew... I thought he was doing a live action version of Avatar: The Last Airbender... That would've sucked.
- temsi, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2LOL
- Railz, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2Monsters vs Aliens in 3D was really nice.
- temsi, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2@Nydendarin
Silver screens do not distort traditionally projected movies.
Silver screens is what was used for decades for traditionally projected movies until the switch to cheaper white alternatives - which actually did cut down on the brightness.
The only downsides to using silver screens is the chance of hot-spotting when using cheap and/or poorly adjusted projectors, and a narrower viewing angle which effectively limits the number of seats you can put in front of the screen - so the switch was a natural profit driven decision.
Cheaper projectors, cheaper screens, more seats, less maintenance.
A bean counter's no-brainer. - funkytaco, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2X or Y?
- TheBlueVulcan, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2You didn't address what I posted, which should rectify the problem...
- maz2331, on 06/24/2009, -0/+23D always looks sharper than its native resolution to me. The brain automatically fills in details from the pair of images presented to it.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Then you won't get it in 3d. 8(
- PowderedToasty, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1(M Night is doing that one)
- grantmoore3d, on 06/24/2009, -0/+13D technology unfortunately really depends on where are sitting in relation to screen size and distance. So a lot of older theaters are just throwing in 3D screens where it isn't optimal for the viewers. Best advice, sit in the middle... too close or far will ruin the viewing experience.
- Nydendarin, on 06/24/2009, -2/+3Until they invent a 3-D projection method that doesn't mute colors, and kill up to 2/3rds of the brightness compared to standard projection methods, I'd say the technology leaves a lot to be desired.
- mlvassallo, on 06/24/2009, -1/+2I thought UP was amazing in 3D.
- aepex, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Ever read a newspaper?
- isny, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Is this going to be one of those newfangled "talking" moving pictures?
- ViperX116, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1I loved it, not everything in 3-D has to be in your face. Watching the rain in 3-D alone was worth the extra cash.
- macslut, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Yes, really. My nephew found out about it and really wants to see it. I'm hoping the project is significantly delayed so that he's over 18 when it comes out. I really don't want to have to explain gay porn and why the characters he's a fan of are being ass raped.
Then again, maybe this movie won't suck ass...and that will be his "twist". - cuervoman914, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1you'd be correct, when the movie 1st came out, everyone at the AMC I went to watch the movie were saying it (3D) wasn't that great. Everyone concurs.
- jsuther, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1I saw Up in 3D. I wasn't intentionally seeking out 3D though. The glasses do need to get better before I'd choose to see a full movie in 3D again.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1No, you need to get out more. Go see UP in 3d to see what circular polarization has done to revolutionize 3d.
- Leems, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1There surely is no need for 28K. That resolution is rediculous.
- flash_jordan, on 06/24/2009, -0/+13D movies are a guaranteed headache for me so I'll be sticking with 2D thanks.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1See UP in 3d and you will see that the game has changed.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1What does Dolby have to do with it? They handle only sound.
The FIX for theater 3d was the Circular Polarization process combined with the Real-3d increased frame rates and triple frame projecting to eliminate jittering, etc.
This new process is why movies like UP are so satisfying in 3d and why AVATAR will be a cinematic godsend. 8) - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Yeah, he realized he still had a shred of credibility and just wanted to put the final nail in the coffin.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is