Author Topic: Endgame  (Read 212 times)

Offline archonforest

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3965
  • !AMIGA RULEZ!
Endgame
« on: May 12, 2019, 03:45:16 PM »
I saw last night the Avengers: Endgame movie in an Imax cinema. I always go to I max as the quality of the picture and the sound is the best there. But yesterday on this movie I was shocked about the amount of errors they had. I counted at least 5-6 places where the proportions in the scene were totally wrong. Not just a little but screaming wrong! Like things looked like a miniature models. I was like what the heck. I am paying 50% more for an Imax ticket and I am receiving this quality? How they can release something like this??
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 03:55:30 PM by archonforest »
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

Offline N-drju

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1434
  • A bee-sting allergic artist and philosopher
Re: Endgame
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2019, 06:48:12 PM »
Somehow, I am not surprised. And I would say that this is a kind of a "mechanism", which is true of almost any goods or services.

Say, a new brand of beer or smartphone is launched. These new products, enter the market and they are of a good quality, appealing, made with care. They gain following amongst fans, customers and the like.

However, as time passes, someone who launched the product in the first place says:

A: Hey, people got used to what we are selling. Let's cut down on the costs and reduce quality of our beer / tea / cars. They are so used to our product that they won't even notice the change!
B: Good idea. But what if they do?
A: Naaah. They still won't bother spending time to find a substitute.


And this is it. Maybe the same is happening either to your IMAX theater or to the Avengers franchise. They reckoned that these things got popular and, as money flows in, nobody cares about the quality and reliability anymore?
"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right."

Offline archonforest

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3965
  • !AMIGA RULEZ!
Re: Endgame
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2019, 07:25:42 PM »
Yeah maybe. Perhaps they recorded the movie with a normal camera and converted later to IMAX 3D and something went wrong. Usually normal 3D movies has this weird perspective and model like look...etc. So far IMAX was pretty good. This is the first disappointment I have. From a big title like this, these errors are unbelievable. 
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

Offline N-drju

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1434
  • A bee-sting allergic artist and philosopher
Re: Endgame
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2019, 11:02:01 AM »
Maybe this is a symptom of yet another trend creeping in...

The guys who were pioneers in CG (paracosmology, nudge-nudge) have made some really impressive or otherwise important pieces of work during their "tenure" and are now rolling in dough - rightfully. Happy with what they invented.

Then, a new generation of would-be artists emerge. But! They are hasty, impatient and dissapointingly careless. Why? Because CG is commonplace these days. And they spend more time advertising themselves and fighting their competition. When that happens, there is not much time left for bettering one's own workshop, you know...

Maybe this Avengers movie got just the kind of CG artists - competitive yet not competent. Kind of dudes who know trigonometry and functions by the book, but have no artisctic eye at all.
"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right."

Offline René

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 630
Re: Endgame
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2019, 07:50:28 AM »
That happens more often in 3D movies, I suppose you've seen the movie in 3D. 3D in movies is deceiving your mind because it's not 3D at all, it's stereo. When there's something up close, your eyes focus on that spot when it's actually further away on the screen.

Offline archonforest

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3965
  • !AMIGA RULEZ!
Re: Endgame
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2019, 10:20:37 AM »
That happens more often in 3D movies, I suppose you've seen the movie in 3D. 3D in movies is deceiving your mind because it's not 3D at all, it's stereo. When there's something up close, your eyes focus on that spot when it's actually further away on the screen.

Yes it was the 3D version but not the regular 3D. It was the IMAX 3D which usually waaay better than the regular 3D. So far I had no problem like this in any other movies. I guess this is the reason I was pretty shocked in the cinema. It just pulled me out from the movie badly...
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

Offline N-drju

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1434
  • A bee-sting allergic artist and philosopher
Re: Endgame
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2019, 05:39:11 AM »
I agree. The initial idea for IMAX was to make 3D movies with a use of some specialized tools and technology. Tools specifically designed for that purpose.

Your remark René, made me thinking that they must have made a movie with traditional cameras and then transfered it, raw, into IMAX without any pre-production whatsoever. Which, of course, is unthinkable. But a good money trap nonetheless like Attila so dissapointingly experienced.
"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right."

Offline Oshyan

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13022
  • Holy snagging ducks!
Re: Endgame
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2019, 05:52:12 PM »
Both Infinity War and Endgame were actually some of the first movies to be filmed *entirely* with IMAX cameras, however that does not necessarily mean they were filmed in stereo (3D). I would think since they are such CGI-heavy films, that native 3D would be a given, but hard to say.

The simple fact is 3D did not catch on with the general public as much as the film studios and theater owners hoped, and if anything it is becoming less popular, with newer (non-3D) options like Dolby Cinema taking the premium ticket options instead. So 3D may no longer be considered important and lucrative enough to bother doing it natively (which is very expensive both for live action and CGI). Thus they may be doing the 3D work in post, a conversion process which can give mediocre-to-poor results. Yes, this sucks with a big, expensive action film like Endgame, but as I said 3D is not as popular as it once was.

So I'd suggest next time going IMAX, no 3D. But I'm a bit biased :D , the 3D effects always looked crappy to me, even when well done. It's a limitation of the current tech.

- Oshyan

Offline archonforest

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3965
  • !AMIGA RULEZ!
Re: Endgame
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2019, 06:15:21 PM »
Both Infinity War and Endgame were actually some of the first movies to be filmed *entirely* with IMAX cameras, however that does not necessarily mean they were filmed in stereo (3D). I would think since they are such CGI-heavy films, that native 3D would be a given, but hard to say.

The simple fact is 3D did not catch on with the general public as much as the film studios and theater owners hoped, and if anything it is becoming less popular, with newer (non-3D) options like Dolby Cinema taking the premium ticket options instead. So 3D may no longer be considered important and lucrative enough to bother doing it natively (which is very expensive both for live action and CGI). Thus they may be doing the 3D work in post, a conversion process which can give mediocre-to-poor results. Yes, this sucks with a big, expensive action film like Endgame, but as I said 3D is not as popular as it once was.

So I'd suggest next time going IMAX, no 3D. But I'm a bit biased :D , the 3D effects always looked crappy to me, even when well done. It's a limitation of the current tech.

- Oshyan

Interesting. The 3D movies are not popular? Hmm... well that is bad as in general I like 'em. Like Alita or the last Star Wars was pretty amazingly done. Watched them both in IMAX 3D and I felt very good with the effects.
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

Offline N-drju

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1434
  • A bee-sting allergic artist and philosopher
Re: Endgame
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2019, 07:14:24 PM »
Interesting. The 3D movies are not popular? Hmm... well that is bad as in general I like 'em. Like Alita or the last Star Wars was pretty amazingly done. Watched them both in IMAX 3D and I felt very good with the effects.

As far as I'm concerned, Oshyan is right. I sometimes get the feeling that 3D in cinema is just a gimmick or eye-candy. Something to make a film more enjoyable, because the producers think "it will be fun and people love it"... And mistakenly may I add... Not to mention that some directors do 3D because they know that the movie itself is a hogwash and only tricks and free merchandise can salvage them.

Best argument for 3D-free watching - I have never been to the cinema to see "Avatar" because of it being available in 3D only... And I really wanted to watch this film just for the story and acting. And when I did, I was really happy - I loved the idea of an alien race, struggling to protect their forests and nature. Have I watched this movie in 3D, I would have probably remembered the effects only, not the important values that this movie conveys. Rest assured, I heard that FX in "Avatar" are among the best ever.
"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right."

Offline Oshyan

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13022
  • Holy snagging ducks!
Re: Endgame
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2019, 07:31:06 PM »
Yeah, I think 3D has been mostly driven by the theaters and TV makers wanting something new to A: raise theater ticket prices and B: get people to buy new TVs at home. The latter effort failed (try finding a 3D-capable TV in a store now, consumers spoke with their wallets, heh), and in cinemas it's clearly not worth as much to many movie-goers as IMAX alone and other things.

*Some* directors or producers have a genuine interest in 3D, and those are the ones that do it well, like James Cameron with Avatar of course. But as far as I understand many directors aren't working with a stereo version of their movie and conversion to 3D is more of a marketing/product tier thing, rather than a truly integrated artistic element. It is also hard and time consuming to do well, and if you know only a fraction of your audience will see it that way, it's a big disincentive to spend time/effort on it.

- Oshyan

Offline René

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 630
Re: Endgame
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2019, 09:59:47 AM »
Yeah, I think 3D has been mostly driven by the theaters and TV makers wanting something new to A: raise theater ticket prices and B: get people to buy new TVs at home. The latter effort failed (try finding a 3D-capable TV in a store now, consumers spoke with their wallets, heh), and in cinemas it's clearly not worth as much to many movie-goers as IMAX alone and other things.

*Some* directors or producers have a genuine interest in 3D, and those are the ones that do it well, like James Cameron with Avatar of course. But as far as I understand many directors aren't working with a stereo version of their movie and conversion to 3D is more of a marketing/product tier thing, rather than a truly integrated artistic element. It is also hard and time consuming to do well, and if you know only a fraction of your audience will see it that way, it's a big disincentive to spend time/effort on it.

- Oshyan

Alita: Battle Angel is the best 3D movie I've seen in recent years. That was probably due to the fact that James Cameron is the producer.
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-had-according-to-james-cameron

Offline archonforest

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3965
  • !AMIGA RULEZ!
Re: Endgame
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2019, 10:49:51 AM »
Yeah, I think 3D has been mostly driven by the theaters and TV makers wanting something new to A: raise theater ticket prices and B: get people to buy new TVs at home. The latter effort failed (try finding a 3D-capable TV in a store now, consumers spoke with their wallets, heh), and in cinemas it's clearly not worth as much to many movie-goers as IMAX alone and other things.

*Some* directors or producers have a genuine interest in 3D, and those are the ones that do it well, like James Cameron with Avatar of course. But as far as I understand many directors aren't working with a stereo version of their movie and conversion to 3D is more of a marketing/product tier thing, rather than a truly integrated artistic element. It is also hard and time consuming to do well, and if you know only a fraction of your audience will see it that way, it's a big disincentive to spend time/effort on it.

- Oshyan

Alita: Battle Angel is the best 3D movie I've seen in recent years. That was probably due to the fact that James Cameron is the producer.
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-had-according-to-james-cameron

Yeah that was a well done 3D production!
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

 

anything