New Mac Pros–Mixed Feelings and Baseless Speculation

For a change of pace, I thought I’d toss out a small nugget of pure speculation (this time I’m really thinking aloud). However, in the event history proves me to be right, I thought it’d be fun to commit this thought to the internet.

I was originally going to rant about how much of a “#$%@ you” I felt the latest rev of the Mac Pro line is to the postproduction power-user. In fact, I was going so far as to compose an email to someone I know who might actually care, when for due diligence sake I decided to do a bit of research to find out just how far behind the specs of the Mac Pros are from our Windows and Linux workstation bretheren. In particular, I wanted to find out whether there was a better version of PCIe that we were missing out on.

Popping over to good ‘ol Wikipedia, I found the following nugget of information (emphasis mine):

The final specification PCI Express 3.0 has been delayed until 2011 and will be backwards compatible with existing PCIe implementations.[15]

So, the next major architectural update that will be useful to me (in the form of faster data throughput, faster GPU data pushing, etc.) isn’t going to be finalized until 2011.

Oh, and one other thing… I keep wanting faster FireWire. After all, FireWire 1600 and 3200 were announced back in 2008 as a response to USB 3, right? Well, here’s what Wikipedia has to say about that (again, emphasis mine):

S1600 (Symwave [23]) and S3200 (Dap Technology [24]) development units have been made, with the latter promising a consumer version by late 2010.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, it seems entirely plausible that maybe, just maybe, somebody is waiting for PCIe 3.0 and FireWire 1600/3200 to become finalized/implementable before committing a ton of resources to redesigning and retooling the Mac Pro in a significant way. At least, that’s what I’d like to think.

And while that still doesn’t excuse the lack of USB 3, 10-gig ethernet, or port-multiplied eSATA (okay, so that’s really wishful thinking), I suppose I can understand. I mean, why do a bunch of redesign work when next year you’re just going to redo it all from scratch?

Guess we’ll see…

Taking a Quick Look At Colorista II

When Stu Maschwitz started beating the drum for Colorista II, I had mixed feelings. I’m always happy about shiny new tools that threaten to make my life easier, but to be honest I wasn’t a particular fan of the original Colorista. However, software evolves, and a new version deserves a new look, so I downloaded the demo for Final Cut Pro, and gave it a whirl on a short scene from an old project.

Before I dive into the details of my first look, let me just give you my resulting impressions right up front. I feel that Colorista II is a worthwhile addition to the NLE colorists’s toolkit, and will live alongside the other plugins you’ve been using very nicely. Its ample feature set may even replace some plugins you’ve been using with a better mousetrap.

However, as well-thought out as it is overall, I do find some of the controls to be a bit unwieldy. Also, through no fault of its own, Colorista II is chained to the performance, effects interface, shot comparison mechanisms, and grade management capabilities, not to mention control surface compatibility, of your host NLEs interface. Personally, as a colorist using dedicated applications, I don’t find that Colorista II provides a persuasive argument for me to abandon Apple Color’s efficiencies, especially for client work, to go back to NLE grading.

However, this is ultimately an unfair comparison. If youre a DIY filmmaker with more time then money, who likes to color correct your own work, and you like the workflow of keeping it real inside of your NLE, you should absolutely download the demo and give it a try. You’ll probably like what you see.

That said, here are my more detailed observations.

The Color Balance Control

The heart of any color correction interface is the Color Balance Control UI. At a superficial level, I like the design of the wheels, with individual H, S, and L handles that are easy to understand and manipulate.

However, in practical use I find that the balance controls feel too granular. I dont know if this is simply the implementation on Final Cut Pro, or if it’s a limitation of my system (although my 8-core Mac Pro has no such problems with FCPs Color Corrector 3-way or with Colors) but theres no smooth update within the image as I drag the color balance handle. Instead, the image color changes in pops, jumping from one set of values to another, which for me is unacceptable for making nuanced adjustments.

The color balance control UI also retains something I disliked in the original Colorista–the color balance handle jumps immediately to wherever you click within the color balance control. While this is fine for making massive corrections, its not that useful when youre trying to make subtle re-adjustments to an existing setting and you dont want to have to target the tiny balance handle to drag it relative to the previous correction. The jump-to behavior would be fine as a Command-click option, but as the default behavior, I don’t like it.

My last knock on the color balance controls is probably not Colorista’s fault, but I dislike the small size of the 3-way controls, and they dont seem to scale up. I suspect this is a function of the API theyre using and the developers probably can’t do anything about it, but for a mouse-only color corrector it’s too bad the wheels cant be enlarged for a more detail-oriented experience.

Time for something positive. I really like the calculator button that reveals a numeric UI (available for other controls in the plugin, too). It’s a very nice touch. It’s also an interesting design decision to express the color balance numeric controls in RGB values, more options are always good.

However, it would also have been good to provide an option for alternate HSL parameters for the balance controls. Furthermore, the lack of numeric UI for the three contrast sliders is an oversight, as is the lack of scroll wheel manipulation for the numbers. Perhaps this isn’t a big deal for dedicated UI users, but you never know when you’re going to want to compare numbers.

Lastly, I have mixed feelings about the Auto Balance control implementation. I like that it’s designed for you to sample a highlight of the image manually (which I generally feel provides the most flexibility for good results). However, I dont like that it balances the shadows automatically at the same time. I’d honestly prefer separate shadow sampling, at least as an option. There are plenty of times where I want to leave the highlights alone (or perhaps just make a manual adjustment), but would like to auto-balance the shadows by themselves.

Contrast Adjustments

Shadow/midtone/highlight contrast control implementation is good, with plenty of room for making large adjustments. Relatively fine control is available if you move very, very slowly (insert Elmer Fudd joke here). However, like the balance controls they’re jumpy in practical use–again, this doesn’t lend itself to making subtle adjustments.

The Exposure and Primary Density sliders are very nice additions to one’s video grading toolset. My test footage was too well exposed to give me an opportunity to try out Highlight Recovery, but other reviewers have extolled its virtues, so Im happy to believe them.

However, these sliders bring me to one other issue. Using a mouse’s scroll wheel to adjust any of the sliders in the UI is not useful–rolling the scroll wheel by any amount results only in a jump from the extreme left to the extreme right of the slider. I use my mouse wheel to adjust parameters elsewhere in FCP all the time, as it’s much more comfortable then constant clicking and dragging (especially for controls youll be adjusting in every single clip you touch), so this is an unfortunate oversight that I hope is changed in future versions.

RT Performance

Since colorists in a hurry often restrict themselves to color and contrast adjustments, I’m going to step out of the UI for a moment, to talk about real-time playback. I found Colorista II’s playback in Unlimited RT mode to be perfectly acceptable, though it could be better. I haven’t found it to be full frame-rate in real time, but it’s close for basic corrections, which at this level of work is fine.

The Fantastic HSL Controls

The HSL controls are extremely clever—in fact I feel this is the standout feature of Colorista II. They do the same thing as the Hue Curves or Secondary Curves in apps like Color, Scratch, and Baselight, but in a different way. I particularly like how control of Hue and Saturation has been unified within a single UI control, and unlike the Sat curve in Color (which I use all the time), its easy to boost saturation in targeted areas of the image by a large amount.

It’s worth noting that using using the Lightness HSL control breaks up highly compressed images a lot, but that’s no fault of Colorista, it’s a fact of life that’s true of any hue curve interface I’ve used when applied to highly compressed footage (this is one major pitfall of compression in grading). This feature fares no better or worse then any other comparable control I’ve used.

A minor nit, when comparing these controls to their curve equivalents in other apps, is that true curves allow additional control points to be added to finely sculpt hue and saturation. Colorista II’s controls, while fast and intuitive, lack this fine-tuning ability. However, I’m happily willing to concede that the majority of hue adjustments I typically make don’t really require that level of detail, so people will find these controls opening new vistas in creative (and quality control-fixing) possibility.

Personally, I feel that Colorista II is worth buying for this feature alone.

Bypass and Mix for Each Set of Controls

Bypass buttons for each set of controls (Primary, Secondary, Master) is a very nice touch, as you’ll probably find yourself doing before-and-after comparisons for specific secondary and mastering adjustments quite a lot. Even better, mix sliders also let you moderate how much each particular group of adjustments contributes to the overall correction. This is a small thing that will be extremely useful to anyone doing subtle work.

I also like the Mix slider at the very bottom of the filter, that lets you mix the overall filtered effect with the state of the image at that point of your filter stack. A very nice touch.

The Keyer

The keyer presents an evolved and forward-looking UI, that appears modally within its own window when invoked. I’m personally not convinced that it’s night-and-day better (as a UI) then the standard HSL controls found within every other color correction UI I’ve used (other then Avid), but on the assumption that the keyer is algorithmically unique and the UI supports this enhanced functionality, Im glad to see someone pushing the envelope.

More succinctly, I like it, particularly the vectorscope handles. Also, while they took some getting used to, I was glad to see the implementation of separate and de-selectable hue, saturation, and lightness controls over the key–pulling dedicated luma keys for various adjustments is a valuable technique.

For the click-to-sample crowd, the selection, add, and remove scrubber controls are well implemented, with a unique method of sampling initial image values via a bounding box, rather then as a drag operation. Other standout features of the keyer include the Clip slider that lets you adjust the contrast of the key to make it more solid, and the high quality blur of the Softness control.

One thing I miss, however, is the ability to play through a clip that I’m keying while adjusting the key; the keyer’s modal window prevents this. This is not insignificant, as keys that look perfectly fine on a still image often fall apart once you start playing the clip. At the very least, it would be nice to have a way to scrub through the clip while you’re working, to see how the key holds up when, for example, the camera pans towards the sun.

Knowing full well this is a feature request, something else I miss that I use frequently in Color is the ability to apply separate color and contrast adjustments both inside and outside of a key and/or mask. While the keyer provides an Invert button, that simply means you can choose whether to grade the outside or inside of the key, rather then being able to work on both with different settings.

Masking

The simple built-in Power Mask controls are handy, interface limitations aside. However, I can’t hold that against Colorista II since the shape UI is no less kludgy then that of any other FCP plugin. That said, I’d dearly wish for some type of outline in the Canvas as an additional View Mode, should that be possible.

Being able to combine the mask and keyer is a fundamental feature that’s nicely implemented, with several options for different boolean combinations of the two (an innovation as this isn’t a feature you often see).

Lastly, the Master Mask provides an additional mask you can use, with boolean options for using it to either restrict the Master controls (thereby providing one more secondary), or combine it in boolean fashion with the mask thats already being used in the existing secondary. This flexibility is a nice touch, even if the resulting stack of parameters and controls is a bit unwieldy.

Pop Slider

The pop slider is great, and when used positively it makes a nice little contrast bump to increase image definition that I typically accomplish using luma curves. Reverse pop is also a nice effect for lightly feathering harsh image definition, although I can unfortunately see this feature get tediously overused in undiscriminating hands.

Master Controls

I really like that there’s a post-processing set of 3-way, saturation, and HSL controls at the end of the Colorista image processing pipeline. This provides a built-in way of trimming a correction that you’ve made, although depending on the context of the operation being performed, there are still ample times where youll want to do such trimming with an additional plugin (such as applying a single adjusting filter to an entire pre-balanced scene worth of clips).

Workflow issues aside, it’s good to have the ability to further modify the sum of primary and secondary corrections, or to use these controls with the Master Mask to have a second secondary correction.

Curve Controls

The curve controls are clever, given the limitations of the FCP environment. While it’s no substitute for a true, customizable multi-point curve UI, it’s a nice addition and quite useful for making those contrast-a-riffic s-curves.

I’ll go ahead and take the liberty of making a feature-request aside now–a bias control for controlling the midpoint of the contrast curve would be a handy addition in future versions.

Options

There are some interesting utilitarian options available at the bottom of Colorista II’s parameter stack. Flip Image is nice to have, except for the lack of independent control over vertical and horizontal orientation. As a result, it’s only good when you need to flip something in both dimensions. Of course, there are many other ways you can do this, so it’s not that big a deal.

Show Skin Overlay is a fun addition, although this is the kind of idiot-light I usually try to discourage people from leaning on too heavily, as it encourages overly specific skin tone manipulations that don’t necessarily interact with the illuminant of the scene in a convincing way (something Ive been meaning to write an article about, but havent gotten to yet). I’d need more testing, but I’m also curious to see how much of the possible range of human skin tone hue this overlay encompasses–the tyranny of an overly strict adherence to the I-bar’s angle is also something I try to discourage in students.

I find it interesting that there’s a pop-up menu that lets you specify whether to render using your computers GPU or CPU. As there are usually subtle image processing differences when using different GPUs, this gives the potential for rendering reliably predictable grades in multi-computer shops with different graphics cards. I’ve not tested to see what the performance penalty is, if any, when switching between GPU and CPU on a more capable workstation with a beefier graphics card, but itd be interesting to see if anyone cares to try.

Other Observations

The wealth of features in Colorista II is impressive, but they also reveal a deficiency of the FCP filter interface, which is the inevitable big stack of UI elements that necessitate endless scrolling up and down the Filter tabs list to make various adjustments. This isn’t Coloristas fault, it’s a foible of FCP, but Colorista’s numerous options force one to deal with it. It’s perhaps an unfair observation as the developers do their best to manage the clutter with disclosure triangles for each set of parameters, but even so I’m just not a fan of all the scrolling.

Another deficiency is the seeming lack of keyframing for the fancier UI controls (3-Way, HSL, Keyer). The keyer I can overlook (though keyframing the HSL controls of a Key has saved me once or twice in the past), but not being able to keyframe the 3-Way, and by extension the 3-way contrast controls, is a huge drag for instances where I’m correcting for an in-camera auto-control exposure change, or any one of innumerable instances where animating a correction is important. Hopefully I’m either overlooking the way to do this (although I’ve looked hard), or this feature makes its way into future releases.

Finally, in one last feature-request aside, I’d like to see a dedicated reset button for each stage of correction in addition to the plugin-wide reset (similar to the reset button on the Master Curves). It’s a small thing, but would be helpful since going into numeric mode and resetting a bunch of numbers one by one is kind of a drag.

In Conclusion

So those are my thoughts, good and bad. I’ll probably pick up a copy sometime down the road for instances where I’m working inside of Final Cut Pro on specific sections of a program. However, as I mentioned in my preamble, I remain a fan of the dedicated grading app. Specific color adjustment features are only part of the picture; the overall color correction environment provides many additional benefits in terms of session organization, working speed, operator comfort and efficiency, and artistic subtlety.

However, to end on a positive note, I want to emphasize that as critical as I am of specific features, I still think that Colorista II is a useful plugin that aims high, and will absolutely expand the range of creative possibility available to you from within your NLE of choice (or AE, if you swing that way). Give it a look.

UPDATE—I broke down and did what I should’ve in the first place—added some screenshots of the Colorista II interface and a link to the Red Giant website, and a few more edits for clarity.

An Orbital Overview of Monitor LUT Calibration

A paper look-up-table

I let myself get pulled into responding to a thread at Creative Cow’s DaVinci forum on 3D LUT calibration, but felt that the subject might benefit from a bit more elaboration. I’ve been researching LUT calibration of prosumer display devices in greater detail for a small section of my upcoming book, which I hope will cast some more light on an admittedly arcane subject about which there’s a bit of confusion. However, LUTs are an example of high-end tools and methodologies that are increasingly within the reach of smaller facilities who aren’t afraid of a bit of research, and 3D LUT calibration, once the domain of high-end film facilities, is worth knowing more about if you require color critical monitoring.

To massively oversimplify, a 3D LUT is a three-dimensional look-up-table for taking incoming image data and converting it to another set of image data—in other words it’s a color and contrast transformation. 1D LUTs are suitable for calibrating a monitor’s gamma response, but a 3D LUT is required for changing the gamut, or range of color that a display shows.

LUTs can be used for many purposes, but in the case of monitor calibration, the process of using a 3D LUT is one of using software and a monitor probe to analyze your monitor, to figure out exactly what the difference is between your uncalibrated display and the ideal video standard that you want it to show. Once the software has figured out the difference, it generates a 3D LUT that can transform an incoming video signal in such a way so that it will appear, on the analyzed display, as if it has the perfect gamut (red, green, and blue primaries) and gamma response.

It’s a bit of a mathematical hat trick, but it works, is accurate, and is an accepted means of display calibration throughout the postproduction industry. Using 3D LUTs for outboard monitor calibration of any display requires three things:

  1. An outboard LUT calibration device (usually taking HD-SDI in from your workstation’s video-out and putting HDMI out to your display)
  2. Software for analyzing the monitor (using a probe) and generating a LUT that’s appropriate to your calibration device (there are many different formats)
  3. A probe for doing the analysis (good probes aren’t inexpensive)

Keep in mind that outboard 3D LUT calibration only works if the display you’re calibrating is capable of the color gamut that’s required by the standard you’re trying to calibrate to. In the case of Plasma displays, a 3D LUT will bring the typically oversaturated primaries back into line with, say the standard Rec. 709 RGB primaries that you want to be monitoring with, as well as setting proper gamma for the display.

There are several software and hardware solutions, some expensive, some more affordable. Here’s a list for your own research:

Hardware (All capable of 3D LUT processing)

  • Filmlight’s Truelight SDI
  • Cine-Tal’s Davio
  • Blackmagic’s HDLink Pro

Software

  • Filmlight’s Truelight color management system (CMS)
  • Cine-Tal’s Cinespace
  • Light Illusion’s Lightspace CMS

Probes (different software supports different probes)

  • Filmlight Truelight Probe (for Truelight CMS)
  • X-Rite Hubble (works with Lightspace and Cinespace)
  • Klein K-10 (works with Lightspace)
  • Konica Minolta CS series (works with Cinespace)
  • Photo Research PR series (works with Cinespace)

Cinespace and LIghtspace probe support has slowly expanded over time, these notes are true as of a quick look at the company websites today. Don’t take my list as gospel, you’ll want to re-check. Also, I’m not picking favorites, each of these systems is in use in different post houses.

If you’re interested in more information, check the company sites at http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk, http://www.lightillusion.com, and http://www.cine-tal.com. In particular, the Lightillusion site (run by colorist and developer Steve Shaw) has some great whitepapers that he’s written that should shed a lot more light on the subject than my brief overview here. Check it out.

Monitoring Peak Luma Funnies

I had some back and forth with friend and colleague Patrick Inhofer (Colorist and owner of FINI), about what the “official” peak luma setting should be for a monitor he’s evaluating. The long and short of my response was that SMPTE Recommended Practice document RP 166-1995 (now archived, but there’s no replacement just yet) calls for 35 footlamberts (ft-L) of light output for a calibrated CRT display, which when converted to cd/m2 is 119.92 nits (round up to 120). In other words, a 100 IRE white field, when measured, should be outputting 35 ft-L or 120 nits. This was decided in the CRT days, which are waning, but so far as I know it’s the only official peak luma standard in place for color critical monitoring on a self-illuminated display (the projection standard is 14 ft-L).

However, there are all sorts of posts where folks claim all sorts of peak luma values that they prefer to use for their own monitoring situation. When I’m asked to explain why, it’s always difficult to do so without either taking sides or wondering if one or another emerging monitor technologies really does merit revisiting the previous standard. [...]

Continue reading Monitoring Peak Luma Funnies

“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” Is Not a Techno-Thriller

Movie poster for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

…but 15 years ago it would’ve been.

First off, GWTDT (sorry, I just can’t keep typing the whole title) is an exceptionally crafted thriller and mystery that weaves in thoughtful characterizations and startling glimpses of grotesque horror and awkward sexuality. If you can’t tell from all that, I really liked it. However, I was reflecting this afternoon that the technology used for the digital research that was portrayed throughout, and which was a major motivator of the plot, wasn’t the focus of the story. In fact, the titular character’s skills with the computer were, within the context of the story, almost prosaic despite her clear virtuosity.

This stands in stark contrast to several high-tech thrillers I’ve seen in recent years wherein any portrayal of competent computer use continues to be some kind of hyper-realized graphics and animation extravaganza, with characters pulling off ridiculous hijinks with the wave of a mouse and a few taps of the keyboard. Furthermore, “hackers” and computer experts are usually shown having superhuman analytical skills, with individual characters finding hidden codes and patterns that rooms full [...]

Continue reading “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” Is Not a Techno-Thriller

Notes From NAB, Part Deux

NAB South Hall Show Floor

The south hall NAB show floor (where all the postproduction was) on Wednesday was packed.

Upon my return to New York and my first full night’s sleep in a week, I thought it would be good to follow up upon my last post and share some experiences from the rest of the show before they faded from memory. Overall, I had a great time visiting the different vendors of color correction hardware and software and comparing what they can do. Interestingly, the south hall (where most of the postproduction hardware/software vendors were located) was packed, much moreso then what I saw of the north and center halls, where all the production and distribution gear was located. With the abundance of tools now available to enable talented people to do increasingly incredible things, it’s a good time to be involved with post.

I got a fuller demo of the workflow involved with moving Avid and FCP projects to and from Baselight. Baselight has a clean, if packed, user interface, and as far as I can tell has pretty much every software tool ever devised for making [...]

Continue reading Notes From NAB, Part Deux

Notes From NAB

Another year's pilgrimage to NAB, in Vegas…

Well this year’s NAB is shaping up to be a doozy. Having spent the day chatting with representatives from various vendors of color correction software, color critical broadcast monitors, and accelerated storage systems, all of which I take a professional interest in, I thought I’d share some end of day thoughts.

Of course, the biggest news is Blackmagic/Davinci’s announcement of a $995 Mac OS X compatible, software-only license of their flagship color correction application, Resolve. Spending $30K gets you the overwhelmingly designed control surfaces (USB connected, by the way), while $50K gets you the control surface and a Linux license (and then you need to buy the appropriate CPU/multi-GPU configuration to run it).

A terrible picture of a terrific color correction system, Resolve for Mac OS X

Interestingly, on Mac OS X, you’ll end up installing two NVidia GPUs into your Mac Pro, one in the default slot that’s used to run the UI, and a second one to do the image processing. Coupled with an additional Blackmagic card for video I/O (they say they’ll introduce compatibility with [...]

Continue reading Notes From NAB

I've Moved! (My Suite)

I’m a week overdue in mentioning this, but after a month of preparation and two weeks of backbreaking work, I’ve moved my color correction suite to co-locate with Twitch Post, with whom I’m partnering to offer my color correction services to an even more diverse clientele.

For those of you who’ve already been working with me, nothing has changed. You can still reach me through correctionforcolor.com and contact me directly for inquiries and scheduling, and I offer the same range of color correction and compositing services as before. However, being located at Twitch means that additional editorial and finishing services are also available under the same roof, should you need them!

My new, larger suite offers many advantages, not the least of which is a huge 114″ front-projection screen (nearly 10′ diagonal), for an immersive grading theater experience suitable for any project. My HD-native projector is THX-calibrated, and the entire room has been constructed to conform to established digital cinema evaluation standards. Narrative and documentary features, shorts, and promos can be color corrected with complete confidence that what’s on the screen is what the audience will see.

And not only have I moved, but I’ve [...]

Continue reading I’ve Moved! (My Suite)

A Color Update, and Support Articles

It would appear that Apple has released an update to Color 1.5, putting the application at 1.5.2. Hooray for bug fixes.

Although these days I use Color solely as a working colorist (and I’m busily moving my suite over to Twitch postproduction here in NYC), I did write the manual for versions 1 and 1.5. I guess old habits die hard, because with the new update I couldn’t help taking a look at the Apple Support knowledge base to see if there were any new and interesting tech notes, and then making a list.

I’m glad I did, searching for “Color 1.5″ in the title revealed the following issues that I hadn’t known about:

Color 1.5.2: Video Output of REDCODE material clips at 97 IRE
Color 1.5: Projects created in previous versions of Color may not send to Final Cut Pro as expected
Color 1.5: Rendering PAL material to ProRes 4444 introduces a gamma shift
Color 1.5: Motion Tab adjustments on Freeze Frames in a Final Cut Pro sequence are not carried over to Color
Color 1.5: Trimmed and speed changed clips render to DPX/CIN (Cineon) with extra frame at beginning and end
Color 1.5: Avoid mixing RED 4K media and regular NTSC [...]

Continue reading A Color Update, and Support Articles

Are 3D Movies a Fad? Who Cares?

I’ve read a lot of back and forth about the merits (or lack thereof) of 3D movie-making. Enthusiasts compare it to the transition from monochrome to color television. Haters think it’s a lame fad and a waste of creative resources. I even read someone compare 3D to Quadraphonic audio, implying that, like Quadraphonic’s ill-fated experiment in the 70’s, 3D is also an impractical format that’s awkward to use and will lose favor with consumers.

Honestly, I think that analogy is a bit harsh, especially considering that multi-channel audio made a huge comeback eventually, only for movies. In fact, I think the analogy is rather apt within this other context. I would suggest that the 3D systems in current use are comparable to the introduction of surround sound.

Is surround-sound necessary for the enjoyment of a good movie? No. Plenty of movie-lovers I know watch their movies with the carefully-mixed 5.1 surround downmixed to mere stereo. However, nicely set up surround sound is really fun to listen to. In fact, I go to IMAX theaters just as much for the massively spec’ed surround sound audio system as I do the towering [...]

Continue reading Are 3D Movies a Fad? Who Cares?