WillTheSecond

Agreed.

(Don't mind the glasses for the cinema, but in the home, very annoying to have to take them off all the time. I'm hoping the 3DS will cause a push towards glasses-less home 3D.)

"...and instead will allow Nolan to do what he did with 'The Dark Knight' and balance both high-definition and IMAX cameras to help deliver a power punch up on the big screen."

None of the Dark Knight was filmed in HD. It was all 35mm film (anamorphic) and IMAX. Wally Pfister doesn't like shooting on digital (they only used the Phantom HD Gold for very specific bits of Inception because of its extremely high framerate for the slow mo) and it is the need to shoot digital for good 3D that in part makes him sceptical of the format, I believe.

I get what you mean, but I'm not sure you get what I mean.

We 'gaze' at cinema, we 'glance' at television. By and large we fit our television watching around our day, whereas we'll fit our day (or an evening, etc.) around a trip to the cinema. With a few exceptions I'm perfectly happy to walk in and out of most TV shows, miss episodes, etc, bits of the news, a game show, a sit com.

Have glasses on is just an irritation, even more so I'm sure if you already wear glasses that you have to be careful not to knock off your face every few minutes. If I want to talk to my friends and family while I watch TV, doing that while everyone is wearing dark glasses would just be weird.

Maybe this is just me, but I think for a lot of people for a lot of reasons the glasses (which some people don't even like in the cinema) would not be desirable for television.

3D DVD's will never be common, the format is not suitable for it (only shite anaglyph). I suspect 3D will help drive Blu-ray sales though (with the right compression you could put stunning 4K on a Blu-ray too).

I have no problem with glasses for the cinema (though the light loss is a bit of a shame - I'm sure they'll brighten DIs to compensate) but TV is too casual a format (except videogames mebbe?) I'd only want a glasses-less one, I want to be able to walk out of the room for tea or something while the adds play...

I think the Thor costumes looks really, really silly... not sure why exactly, they just do.

I like 3D, but from what I've heard the post-converted 3D films released so far (Clash and Airbender) look like arse. I am worried for this and Harry Potter 7. Though there is still the 2D option for the 'true' versions I suppose. Not shooting 3D now when you know the studio is gonna push for 3D is just silly.

I hope Captain America is shot in 3D, at least...

At least Tron: Legacy is getting it right (and Pirates 4 by the sounds of it... story quality pending, of course).

Okay, I don't like film projection. Why?

'Cause, in my experience, it looks like shit. I have two multiplexes and one indie cinema near me. The multiplex film projections are often out of focus and the prints (especially if you see a film later in its run) are poorly kept. Even the film projection of 'Moon' I saw at the indie was fuzzy.

My experiences with digital projection are much better. Kick-ass in digital was stunning (shot on anamorphic 35mm film) as were Che Parts 1 & 2 (shot on Red One). Watching Star Trek (anamorphic film) on Blu-ray projected in 1080p (2K) was an eye opener. It was far better than the film projection I had seen at the cinema. Blade Runner (anamorphic 35mm and 65mm), which I saw projected digitally, was also gorgeous.

The argument for film print seems based entirely on nostalgia rather than viewing experience. Whether film is still a better shooting format than digital is a different question (that the new Red Epic and Arriflex Alexa cameras are seeking to answer).

From a technical standpoint, all films go through a digital intermediate (DI) process anyway, usually at 2K, though 4K is considered best (used for The Dark Knight and Blade Runner's 35mm). So EVERY film you see will be processed and graded digitally. The dynamic range of film is around 13.5 stops. Copies of film prints loose much of that, to around 8 stops. Digital cinema projection does not loose stops as you are playing back the original digital intermediate.

The comment about 2K projection being the same as Blu-ray doesn't make sense, then, because Blu-ray is limited to 8 stops (due to the 8 bit images it stores) whereas only through digital projection (other than maybe exceptional film prints) do you get the full dynamic range, and an image also unhindered by irritating scratches and cigarette burns.

I've never heard of 1K projectors though... I'm pretty sure that's just people getting the horizontal and vertical resolution confused, 2K refers to the horizontal resolution, which vertically is about 1080 pixels.

This is an interesting development. The novels would certainly adapt well as films.

BTW, there are many 'recognisable' cities (especially if you're British) and only one of them took to the air (called... Airhaven) the rest crawl along the ground on tracks... hence 'traction' cities. They don't war and barter with each other so much as eat each other... literally (all the cities have 'jaws' into which they can consume smaller cities and towns). Also not sure where the 'geological instability' bit comes from... there are different mountain ranges and stuff that are briefly mentioned as not of our era.

The only thing about adapting the novels that worries me is I feel that the strongest novels are the first and last, while in the middle two - still good reads, recommended - lag a little. Perhaps three films rather than four would work better. Also the novels have many interesting ideas that - curiously much like Avatar - are not really explored in enough detail (instead giving way to spectacle) but they are ultimately teen rather than adult novels.

But whatever, Mortal Engines, almost certainly in 3D if it's Jackson, would be beyond epic.

Well, I thought it was awesome in 3D. It really adds to the sense of space in certain scenes, such as when Woody is trapped in Sid's room. Also, the sense of speed in the chase scene at the end of Toy Story 1 is fantastic in 3D.

I personally think it improved the experience.

There is no such thing as human nature. What you define to be human nature is a psycho-social construct perpetuated by the hegemonic system and ideology of capitalism. Capitalism does not exist because people are greedy, people are greedy because capitalism exists.

I'm not going to criticise the CGI until I see an HD version, it's simply not possible to tell otherwise.