3d vs 3d animation?

Ken from Chicago · External Since: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 870

Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?

-- Ken from Chicago

Flasherly · External Since: Jan 11, 2009 Posts: 22

On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken from Chicago"
wrote:
> Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
> that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>
> -- Ken from Chicago

Point-horizon perspective is the mechanism for rendering depth beyond
a flat spatiality lacking relief. I'd suspect without observing the
rules, glasses cannot solely overcome, that the rules of perspective
are already established for embellishing upon relief structures,
therein embedded, as a factor of spectral or polarized analysis. I'd
have to look it up to be more certain.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 2159

On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken from Chicago"
wrote:
> Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
> that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?

3d modeling/rendering vs. stereoscopic viewing. (Like Mae West said,
animation has nothing to do with it.)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

Ken from Chicago · External Since: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 870

wrote in message

> On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken from Chicago"
> wrote:
>> Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
>> that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> Point-horizon perspective is the mechanism for rendering depth beyond
> a flat spatiality lacking relief. I'd suspect without observing the
> rules, glasses cannot solely overcome, that the rules of perspective
> are already established for embellishing upon relief structures,
> therein embedded, as a factor of spectral or polarized analysis. I'd
> have to look it up to be more certain.

Which part of that is the "common term"?

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago · External Since: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 870

"Anim8rFSK" wrote in message

> In article ,
> "Ken from Chicago" wrote:
>
>> Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
>> that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> Yes.

Cool. What is it?

-- Ken from Chicago (who can't believe he walked right into that)

Flasherly · External Since: Jan 11, 2009 Posts: 22

On Mar 7, 2:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago"
wrote:
> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken from Chicago"
> > wrote:
> >> Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
> >> that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>
> >> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> > Point-horizon perspective is the mechanism for rendering depth beyond
> > a flat spatiality lacking relief. I'd suspect without observing the
> > rules, glasses cannot solely overcome, that the rules of perspective
> > are already established for embellishing upon relief structures,
> > therein embedded, as a factor of spectral or polarized analysis. I'd
> > have to look it up to be more certain.
>
> Which part of that is the "common term"?

Which is the glasses. I guess I'd as soon wear a pink polka-dotted
dress than put on a pair. Uncommon, not anymore sure of that either,
as is the case with most everyone. Maybe it'll be multiple plains
comprising semi-transparent FETs capable of computer renditions. A
limited relational allowances of modeling cubes, within an algorithmic
best-fit scenario, as actual dimension overlapping exacting rules of
dimensional point-horizon of the theatre manifest, sight engulfs
respective to lighting sources present in shadows and color magnitudes
as they're fleshed out from a elemental reduction of visible gray
scales. It's basically the same principles of an architectural
background, often from its selfsame adherents, when they cross over
into fine arts to variously bend and blend apparent principles and
characteristics of pattern recognition. Done really well, I suppose,
conceivably to eclipse comprehension. Imagine a Papua New Guinean in
ceremonially feathered bone headdress repeatedly attempting to walk
through a window to actualize his surroundings.

Barry Margolin · External Since: Jul 07, 2005 Posts: 39

In article
,
moviePig wrote:

> On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken from Chicago"
> wrote:
> > Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
> > that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>
> 3d modeling/rendering vs. stereoscopic viewing. (Like Mae West said,
> animation has nothing to do with it.)

And which one of those is the common term? I.e. something that might be
used in the marketing of a movie, to tell you which type it is?

I think when they said amovie is "3-D" it almost always means
stereoscopic.

When describing the style of animation, it doesn't seem like they use
any term to specifically indicate that it gives a 3-D appearance. In
general, if they describe an animation as using CGI, it usually implies
this. Practically all animation is done on computers these days, so the
emphasis on CGI typically implies that it has features that are
difficult to achieve with traditional animation.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar.DeleteThis@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Derek Janssen · External Since: Jan 16, 2009 Posts: 139

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article
> ,
> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
>>>that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>>
>>3d modeling/rendering vs. stereoscopic viewing. (Like Mae West said,
>>animation has nothing to do with it.)
>
>
> And which one of those is the common term? I.e. something that might be
> used in the marketing of a movie, to tell you which type it is?
>
> I think when they said amovie is "3-D" it almost always means
> stereoscopic.
>
> When describing the style of animation, it doesn't seem like they use
> any term to specifically indicate that it gives a 3-D appearance. In
> general, if they describe an animation as using CGI, it usually implies
> this. Practically all animation is done on computers these days, so the
> emphasis on CGI typically implies that it has features that are
> difficult to achieve with traditional animation.

Even though we know Lion King was digitized into a computer it still
LOOKS like someone sat down with an ink and brush--
"CGI" by itself is now taken to mean "solid three-dimensional looking",
so as to distinguish Lion King from "Bee Movie". (And all that that
implies. -_- )

When we see "3-D CGI", it usually means that just about EVERY animated
CGI movie now has a stereoscopic-glasses engagement in theaters--Even if
it *doesn't* happen to come from Dreamworks, after Jeff K. hoped 3-D
glasses would save his sorry hinder the way it saved Warner's "Polar
Express". Wink

Derek Janssen
ejanss1 DeleteThis @verizon.net

Your Name · External Since: Mar 08, 2009 Posts: 3

On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken from Chicago" wrote:
>
> Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
> that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?

Yep.

3D CGI = "cool", "cutting edge", etc.

3D glasses = "headache-inducing garbage"

Wink

Paul S. Person · External Since: Mar 08, 2009 Posts: 1

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:38:02 -0700, Anim8rFSK
wrote:

>In article ,
> Derek Janssen wrote:
>
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> > In article
>> > ,
>> > moviePig wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Is there a common term to distinguish between 3d cgi animation and cgi
>> >>>that's shown in 3d (requiring glasses, currently)?
>> >>
>> >>3d modeling/rendering vs. stereoscopic viewing. (Like Mae West said,
>> >>animation has nothing to do with it.)
>> >
>> >
>> > And which one of those is the common term? I.e. something that might be
>> > used in the marketing of a movie, to tell you which type it is?
>> >
>> > I think when they said amovie is "3-D" it almost always means
>> > stereoscopic.
>> >
>> > When describing the style of animation, it doesn't seem like they use
>> > any term to specifically indicate that it gives a 3-D appearance. In
>> > general, if they describe an animation as using CGI, it usually implies
>> > this. Practically all animation is done on computers these days, so the
>> > emphasis on CGI typically implies that it has features that are
>> > difficult to achieve with traditional animation.
>>
>> Even though we know Lion King was digitized into a computer it still
>> LOOKS like someone sat down with an ink and brush--
>
>And even though we know Sleeping Beauty was done with ink and brush, the
>idiot that 'restored' it managed to ruin it to make it looks like it was
>digitized into a computer.

Is that one of the films that was restored to look /better than the
original/? If so, what did you expect? How can /better/ than the
/original/ possibly be defined in any way except "according to the
taste of the restorer", which is to say, "totally botched"?
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."

Your Name · External Since: Mar 08, 2009 Posts: 3

"Paul S. Person" wrote in message

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:38:02 -0700, Anim8rFSK
> wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> > Derek Janssen wrote:
> >>
> >> Even though we know Lion King was digitized into a computer it still
> >> LOOKS like someone sat down with an ink and brush--
> >
> >And even though we know Sleeping Beauty was done with ink and brush, the
> >idiot that 'restored' it managed to ruin it to make it looks like it was
> >digitized into a computer.
>
> Is that one of the films that was restored to look /better than the
> original/? If so, what did you expect? How can /better/ than the
> /original/ possibly be defined in any way except "according to the
> taste of the restorer", which is to say, "totally botched"?

The latest issue of the local TV Guide has an advert for the new 70th
Anniversary Pinocchio DVD which claims it too is a "new digital
restoration".

Patrick McNamara · External Since: Mar 08, 2009 Posts: 2

"Anim8rFSK" wrote in message

> In article ,
> Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:38:02 -0700, Anim8rFSK
>> wrote:
>> >And even though we know Sleeping Beauty was done with ink and brush, the
>> >idiot that 'restored' it managed to ruin it to make it looks like it was
>> >digitized into a computer.
>>
>> Is that one of the films that was restored to look /better than the
>> original/? If so, what did you expect? How can /better/ than the
>> /original/ possibly be defined in any way except "according to the
>> taste of the restorer", which is to say, "totally botched"?
>
> It's not better; it looks like ass. She pulled all the film grain from
> it. It no longer looks like a movie. It looks like video tape. And
> she did it entirely because she's an idiot, and thinks film grain looks
> like video noise. She also gave bizarre interviews proving she didn't
> understand the film format it was shot it, or much of anything else.
>

I suspect they "restored" it by taking the movie frame by frame and
digitally repainting the cells. That's one thing the restorers of
Charlotte's Web for the DVD were deliberately careful about. They didn't
want to loose the character of the original hand painting. It's great to see
the movement of the paint.

Speaking of restorations, I see someone posted a "restored" version of Twice
Upon A Time on YouTube.

--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail:
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing

Ken from Chicago · External Since: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 870

"Patrick McNamara" wrote in message

>
>
> "Anim8rFSK" wrote in message
>
>> In article ,
>> Paul S. Person wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:38:02 -0700, Anim8rFSK
>>> wrote:
>>> >And even though we know Sleeping Beauty was done with ink and brush,
>>> >the
>>> >idiot that 'restored' it managed to ruin it to make it looks like it
>>> >was
>>> >digitized into a computer.
>>>
>>> Is that one of the films that was restored to look /better than the
>>> original/? If so, what did you expect? How can /better/ than the
>>> /original/ possibly be defined in any way except "according to the
>>> taste of the restorer", which is to say, "totally botched"?
>>
>> It's not better; it looks like ass. She pulled all the film grain from
>> it. It no longer looks like a movie. It looks like video tape. And
>> she did it entirely because she's an idiot, and thinks film grain looks
>> like video noise. She also gave bizarre interviews proving she didn't
>> understand the film format it was shot it, or much of anything else.
>>
>
> I suspect they "restored" it by taking the movie frame by frame and
> digitally repainting the cells. That's one thing the restorers of
> Charlotte's Web for the DVD were deliberately careful about. They didn't
> want to loose the character of the original hand painting. It's great to
> see the movement of the paint.
>
> Speaking of restorations, I see someone posted a "restored" version of
> Twice Upon A Time on YouTube.
>
>
> --
> Patrick McNamara
> E-mail:
> Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
> Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
> Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
> Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing

Come on. How bad could it POSSIBLY be?

-- Ken from Chicago