Saturday, September 17, 2011

Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically

 

The thing that I didn't see them take into consideration on their charts and discussion is if the take from the 3D screens is covering the cost difference between releasing just a 2D version and releasing both a 2D and 3D version. Now I have no solid numbers to reference, but I'm guessing that the cost of making a 3D version of a $20mil budget movie you are already going to make does not double the final cost to release. And that cost to make a 3D version probably doesn't increase very much as a overall budget increases. The cost of making a 3D version of an $80mil movie isn't going to cost much more than making a 3D version of a $10mil movie. The bottom line that the studios and accounts will be looking for is if the take at the 3D screens is making up for the added cost of releasing a 3D version. And that bottom line extends to BluRay sells. So, as long as 3D covers it's cost or better then it will be seen as worth doing and the studios will keep asking for it. So since that percentage of difference is smaller for bigger budget movies you will probably continue to see 3D releases of bigger budget movies, but not so much for smaller budgets.

Jay

On Sep 17, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Terence Curren wrote:

> http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/09/3d-is-fcked-basically
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
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.
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


A bad score is 598. A bad idea is not checking yours, at freecreditscore.com.
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Not looking good fro 3D theatrically

 

The statement of David's that I've taken issue with is the no win scenario that he's presented. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The idea that if something is noticeable then it is detracting from the experience so should not be done, but if it's not noticeable then it should not be done. It's just a poor argument because it doesn't allow for an instance of when doing 3D would ever be good.

David's latest post appears to be a more reasonable argument. It makes a statement about something David thinks needs to be overcome. Now I'm not at all sure of what he means by "too literal". I mean I'm following what he's saying right up to that point and then I'm lost. The wine glass becomes too much like a wine glass? And once that wine glass is to much like a wine glass then it's not representative enough of a wine glass for the audience to believe that it's a wine glass?

I think I would prefer the argument that when an object is brought to a spatial depth that would give it the illusion of being in front of the screen and it touches an edge of the screen and gets cut off, especially the top edge of the screen, it creates visual information that is confusing for our brain and momentarily distracts us from the other things taking place on the screen. And the more often that happens the more distraction it causes. Something like a submarine movie, like Crimson Tide, would be a worse case scenario. The screen was super crowded and claustrophobic in it's composition and would make a nightmarish translation to 3D.

The 3D that I've noticed work best is when the point of convergence is just behind the plane of the screen and a minimum of objects are positioned to be in front of the depth of the screen. But the other thing to watch out for is to limit the pixel off set for any object to a maximum of 32 pixels between the Left and Right. Which is easier to control in a post process 3D than when using a 3D camera rig because the background can often exceed that and it's uncomfortable to look at.

But the biggest problem I've seen with post process 3D is getting good separation of things like hair from backgrounds. The roto work on that is a real pain. Oh, and shadows on a floor when they extend at a 3/4 angle from the subject. Actually using a 3D rig when shooting does a really good job of making good separation and giving a natural feel to shadows. There are pros and cons to each. The time I've seen post process 3D work well is when it's a green screen shoot. 2D subjects (actors) are shot against green screen (or blue) and then that 2D element can be dimensionalized independent of the background and then placed into a 3D background.

Jay

On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:14 PM, Terence Curren wrote:

> My guess is that Jay may be one of the few to have worked in "4D" at this point. ;-)
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, David Dodson <davidadodson@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are correct, sir. I don't like 3D in feature films. For me, it adds nothing. But it's not about stereo per se; for me it's all about the glasses. The glasses, and the fact that once you give an object spatial depth in a limited-field environment (movie screen or TV screen) then the object, be it a human being, a wine glass or a space ship) becomes hostage to that environment and becomes too literal. Once it becomes literal then the metaphor necessary for complete audience immersion goes away.
>>
>> That and the glasses.
>>
>> Like Ian, I am also okay with 3D under certain circumstances, such as theme parks, etc. But I have yet to see a narrative feature in which the stereo illusion enhanced my overall enjoyment. Again, I can only speak for myself. I would add that I'm not 'grabbing' any argument to justify my positions. I've noted here before that I've rtecently finished cutting and post supervising an expensive feature shot in stereo. In other words, my feelings are the result not just of countless hours of viewing 3D, but also of countless hours making 3D.
>>
>> Not that that's relevant, because it's not. We all are experts the moment we go to see a few 3D movies. It's just that for me, I've never enjoyed a movie MORE in 3D, but I've sure as hell enjoyed it a lot less.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Jay Mahavier wrote:
>>
>>> Oops. that was my bad. I didn't take a look at who was replying until after I sent my reply. I thought it was David. I just went back and read Ian's post. Ian's post had much more depth to it then did David's one line summary that I have issue with. It appears that Ian IS ok with 3D under certain circumstances. But I do still have issues with David's statement. He just seemed like someone who doesn't like 3D at all and was using any argument he could grab to make is categorical dislike seem objective rather than subjective.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Jay Mahavier wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Jay Mahavier
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:41 PM
>>>>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.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>
>>>>>>> From: ijohnson2@... <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@yahoogroups.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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/13200182
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 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@...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [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
>
>
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
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.
MARKETPLACE
A bad score is 598. A bad idea is not checking yours, at freecreditscore.com.

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Re: Not looking good fro 3D theatrically

 

My guess is that Jay may be one of the few to have worked in "4D" at this point. ;-)

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, David Dodson <davidadodson@...> wrote:
>
>
> You are correct, sir. I don't like 3D in feature films. For me, it adds nothing. But it's not about stereo per se; for me it's all about the glasses. The glasses, and the fact that once you give an object spatial depth in a limited-field environment (movie screen or TV screen) then the object, be it a human being, a wine glass or a space ship) becomes hostage to that environment and becomes too literal. Once it becomes literal then the metaphor necessary for complete audience immersion goes away.
>
> That and the glasses.
>
> Like Ian, I am also okay with 3D under certain circumstances, such as theme parks, etc. But I have yet to see a narrative feature in which the stereo illusion enhanced my overall enjoyment. Again, I can only speak for myself. I would add that I'm not 'grabbing' any argument to justify my positions. I've noted here before that I've rtecently finished cutting and post supervising an expensive feature shot in stereo. In other words, my feelings are the result not just of countless hours of viewing 3D, but also of countless hours making 3D.
>
> Not that that's relevant, because it's not. We all are experts the moment we go to see a few 3D movies. It's just that for me, I've never enjoyed a movie MORE in 3D, but I've sure as hell enjoyed it a lot less.
>
> David
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Jay Mahavier wrote:
>
> > Oops. that was my bad. I didn't take a look at who was replying until after I sent my reply. I thought it was David. I just went back and read Ian's post. Ian's post had much more depth to it then did David's one line summary that I have issue with. It appears that Ian IS ok with 3D under certain circumstances. But I do still have issues with David's statement. He just seemed like someone who doesn't like 3D at all and was using any argument he could grab to make is categorical dislike seem objective rather than subjective.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Jay Mahavier wrote:
> >
> > > 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@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > >> Jay Mahavier
> > >> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:41 PM
> > >> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.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>
> > >>>> From: ijohnson2@... <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@yahoogroups.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>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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/13200182
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 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@...
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
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.
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


A bad score is 598. A bad idea is not checking yours, at freecreditscore.com.
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically

You are correct, sir. I don't like 3D in feature films. For me, it adds nothing. But it's not about stereo per se; for me it's all about the glasses. The glasses, and the fact that once you give an object spatial depth in a limited-field environment (movie screen or TV screen) then the object, be it a human being, a wine glass or a space ship) becomes hostage to that environment and becomes too literal. Once it becomes literal then the metaphor necessary for complete audience immersion goes away.

That and the glasses.

Like Ian, I am also okay with 3D under certain circumstances, such as theme parks, etc. But I have yet to see a narrative feature in which the stereo illusion enhanced my overall enjoyment. Again, I can only speak for myself. I would add that I'm not 'grabbing' any argument to justify my positions. I've noted here before that I've rtecently finished cutting and post supervising an expensive feature shot in stereo. In other words, my feelings are the result not just of countless hours of viewing 3D, but also of countless hours making 3D.

Not that that's relevant, because it's not. We all are experts the moment we go to see a few 3D movies. It's just that for me, I've never enjoyed a movie MORE in 3D, but I've sure as hell enjoyed it a lot less.

David


On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Jay Mahavier wrote:

> Oops. that was my bad. I didn't take a look at who was replying until after I sent my reply. I thought it was David. I just went back and read Ian's post. Ian's post had much more depth to it then did David's one line summary that I have issue with. It appears that Ian IS ok with 3D under certain circumstances. But I do still have issues with David's statement. He just seemed like someone who doesn't like 3D at all and was using any argument he could grab to make is categorical dislike seem objective rather than subjective.
>
> Jay
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Jay Mahavier wrote:
>
> > 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@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Jay Mahavier
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:41 PM
> >> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.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>
> >>>> From: ijohnson2@earthlink.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@yahoogroups.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>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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/13200182
> >>>>
> >>>> 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@sbcglobal.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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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@sbcglobal.net

[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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Avid-L2] Re: Not looking good fro 3D theatrically

 



--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, David Dodson <davidadodson@...> wrote:

<<But 3D is different somehow. It WANTS to be noticed at the moment, which makes it something that is OUTSIDE the story.>>

Well, to play devil's advocate...

One could argue that the same could be said of cinema when it all but replaced Stage productions and burlesque. However, and this is why I have been saying this is just another semi-decade flash of the 3D fad, 3D isn't really true 3D. It is a facsimile presented in a 2D environment. When you have true 3D, like princess Leia in the original StarWars, then you might have a true paradigm change that is worthy of reinventing storytelling.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
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.
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


A bad score is 579. A good idea is checking yours at freecreditscore.com.
.

__,_._,___
There was an error in this gadget