Intuitive Surgical http://intuitivesurgical.com/
<http://intuitivesurgical.com/> have been doing this for years with
their da Vinci robotic surgery system. This isn't medical training,
it's real live minimally invasive surgery. We did a video for them a
few years back, and they let us drive a da Vinci in a test bed/demo. It
was amazingly easy to manipulate tiny objects very accurately, even for
dumbasses with no training such as ourselves.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> The medical training is a very interesting idea. Have you experienced
this first hand on projects? I'd be very wary of a brain surgeon
wearing 3D glasses when he comes in to operate. Perhaps the 3D would
aid in gaining a better grasp of the spatial relationship of the various
body parts.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "ksirul" kenavid2@ wrote:
> >
> > There will be 3D theatrical films for a few years anyway. It won't
be as big as some expected, however I believe there is a huge future
market for 3D in the Medical and Corporate arenas. Certainly in Medical
for training purposes. This will be a huge market. I also think
corporations will use 3D for large presentations.
> >
> > KEN
> >
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Johnson" <ijohnson2@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I wouldn't be fine with the absence of 2D. The difference
is of
> > > course the glasses, and some people's inability to process it. We
don't
> > > need LR Stereo Audio Only theaters because surround is a seamless
addition
> > > to the experience. If a viewer went to a movie without it, they
would
> > > definitely notice that it didn't sound as good, or big as it
should have,
> > > even if they don't know why.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If 3D could work the same way without glasses, headaches, and the
other
> > > drawbacks, and no premium ticket, then I wouldn't mind it always
being
> > > there. As it is, I seek out the 2D shows because I don't want to
pay extra.
> > > If it is a free 3D screening (which happens sometimes thanks to
being a
> > > Disney employee) and I remembered to wear contacts, then I don't
have a
> > > problem watching 3D. Even a 3D conversion is fine, so long as I
didn't pay
> > > more for it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of
> > > Jay Mahavier
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 3:25 PM
> > > To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh! For you it's all about the $4. So if they didn't charge any
extra at the
> > > theater for the 3D then you would be totally fine with it? Because
I thought
> > > you were making an argument based on the merits or lack of merits
of 3D
> > > itself. Now I understand. You are perfectly fine with 3D as long
as you
> > > don't have to pay any extra for it. So then if they just got rid
of all 2D
> > > screens and only showed 3D and charged just one single price for
all movies
> > > you would be cool with that. Very interesting.
> > >
> > > Jay
> > >
> > > On Sep 17, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Ian Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> If you notice the editing then you are not inside the story.
And if
> > > you're
> > > > not noticing the editing, then what's the point?...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of paying an extra $4 because it was cut on Avid?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> If you notice the cinematography then you are not inside the
story. And
> > > if
> > > > you're not noticing the cinematography, then what's the
point?...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of paying $4 for something shot on RED?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you notice the sound design then you are not inside the
story. And if
> > > > you're not noticing the sound design, then what's the point?..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of paying $4 for SDDS?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The thinking is that if you are paying a premium for the movie,
then there
> > > > needs to be a perceived added value. Once your are immersed in
the movie
> > > > you tend not to notice that thing you paid extra for. If I have
to become
> > > > less engaged to notice the 3D I paid a premium for, then it
doesn't seem
> > > > worth it. If the 3D is used in such a way that the 2D version
suffers for
> > > > its lack, then it is worth the premium. I think it is fair to
say that no
> > > > 3D conversion qualifies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > > Jay Mahavier
> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:41 PM
> > > > To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and just how does that make sense? Let's replace 3D with
something else.
> > > >
> > > > If you notice the editing then you are not inside the story. And
if you're
> > > > not noticing the editing, then what's the point?
> > > >
> > > > If you notice the cinematography then you are not inside the
story. And if
> > > > you're not noticing the cinematography, then what's the point?
> > > >
> > > > If you notice the sound design then you are not inside the
story. And if
> > > > you're not noticing the sound design, then what's the point?
> > > >
> > > > If you notice the writing then you are not inside the story. And
if you're
> > > > not noticing the writing, then what's the point?
> > > >
> > > > How far do you want to go with that? I'm not trying to defend
3D, but I
> > > just
> > > > want to know how that thinking makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Jay
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:35 PM, David Dodson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I disagree about AVATAR. If you've had the chance to watch it
on Blu ray
> > > > in 2D, it's even more spectacular and more immersive. The world
seems
> > > > somehow bigger, probably because you're making the imaginative
translation
> > > > into the story world, with all its artifice, rather than the
stereo world,
> > > > what with its "real" objects are now much smaller than real
life. In other
> > > > words the "literal" nature of stereo presentations makes the
physical
> > > > objects smaller than life, which is no good at all.
> > > >>
> > > >> And agreeing with Ian, if you notice the 3D then you're not
inside the
> > > > story. And if you're not noticing the 3D, then what's the point?
It's that
> > > > inherent paradox that makes 3D pointless except for theme parks.
> > > >>
> > > >> David
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Andi Meek wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If it's done well, by filmmakers who understand how to use it,
it can be
> > > > amazing. Avatar worked considerably better in 3D than in 2D
because of the
> > > > immersive world Cameron built and the way he used that space.
Scorsese is
> > > > doing it with Hugo. Just watch the trailer, you can see how it
will work
> > > in
> > > > 3D and i reckon it will look great. Unfortunately these films
seem to be
> > > > pretty few and far between, I agree though, 3D doesn't have a
wide enough
> > > > range of instances when it will significantly improve the story,
like Ian
> > > > says, limited to spectacle. Check out the trailer for Hugo;
> > > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQNkETGfA6k
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Andi
> > > >>>
> > > >>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >>> From: ijohnson2@ <mailto:ijohnson2%40earthlink.net>
> > > <mailto:ijohnson2%40earthlink.net>
> > > >>> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:45:36 -0700
> > > >>> Subject: RE: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I avoid 3D whenever I can (unless it's a free screening) but I
am
> > > looking
> > > >>>
> > > >>> forward to A Harold and Kumar Christmas in 3D BECAUSE of the
stupid 3D
> > > >>>
> > > >>> gimmicks. They have an excuse to use it for comedy and mockery
of 3D.
> > > For
> > > >>>
> > > >>> most movies it needs to avoid calling attention to itself so
as not to
> > > >>>
> > > >>> distract from the story. If I am engrossed in the story, I'm
not
> > > noticing
> > > >>>
> > > >>> the 3D so there doesn't seem to be much point. If I admire the
quality
> > > of
> > > >>>
> > > >>> the 3D and what it adds to the image, I am only looking at the
movie
> > > > rather
> > > >>>
> > > >>> than experiencing it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It would be ok to notice 3D if it is used in a way that helps
tell the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> story, like the way camera movement, focus, composition, etc.
are used
> > > as
> > > >>>
> > > >>> storytelling tools. Or in the case of Harold and Kumar, as
gags. If it
> > > is
> > > >>>
> > > >>> only an overlay to subtly enhance the realism of the
experience, then it
> > > > is
> > > >>>
> > > >>> more in the category of surround sound, and I don't remember
ever paying
> > > >>>
> > > >>> extra for a movie because it was shown with DTS.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think 3D as a premium is better suited to documentary
subjects of the
> > > > sort
> > > >>>
> > > >>> where the selling point is spectacle rather than story.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ian
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > > > Behalf Of
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mark Myers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:50 AM
> > > >>>
> > > >>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Good.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Maybe filmmakers will have to actually create good stories
instead of
> > > >>>
> > > >>> relying on stupid 3D gimmicks to put butts in the seats.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Can we borrow Bill Clinton's sign and amend it to say "It's
the STORY
> > > >>>
> > > >>> stupid!"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oh what am I saying. I want a pony too.... or maybe a Porsche.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mark
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Owner, Director
> > > >>>
> > > >>> SR Film & Video Productions
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 195 W Broad St
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Salunga PA 17538
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 717-393-5333 ex 142
> > > >>>
> > > >>> www.SR-Pro.com <http://www.sr-pro.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Follow us on Facebook
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Salunga-PA/SR-Film-Video-Productions/1320\
0182
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 0445>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Linked In <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-myers/8/488/746>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Twitter <http://twitter.com/SRProductions>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 9/17/11 10:00 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/09/3d-is-fcked-basically
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> > > > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so
through
> > > > your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation.
It will be
> > > > on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> David Dodson
> > > >> davidadodson@ <mailto:davidadodson%40sbcglobal.net>
> > > <mailto:davidadodson%40sbcglobal.net>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> > > > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > >>
> > > >> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so
through
> > > > your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation.
It will be
> > > > on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> > > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > >
> > > > If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so
through
> > > your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It
will be
> > > on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment