Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Tutor Meeting

I met with Jo and discussed how I have been getting on. Everything seems to be going well although the work load does seem alot sometimes. Design for the Internet has a lot of work within the module and seems to be the one that worries me most. Everything else seems to be OK and Jo has confidence in me that my essay for HE and Skills Work will be fine from what has been seen on the blog. I feel better about the work once talking to Jo and will work as I have been and harder to achieve what I want from the course.

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Main Argument (needs to be shortened)

Main Argument

There has been a huge surge of 3D film and television in today’s society recently, with businesses and film-makers investing heavily into the technology. But whether people really grasp the advance in theatrical technology is questionable.

With primary research collected, it is clearly seen that almost everybody who answered the questionnaire had seen at least one 3D film at the cinema (Fig 2.). This suggests that the technology is popular with most but some believe it is just a novelty. Deneroff (2010) compares box office sales and concludes “stereoscopic films are no longer a recurring fad” and believes they are here to stay. However Ebert (2010) believes it is not here to stay and thinks that cinema turns to technology when it feels threatened. “Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened it has turned to technology: sound, colour, widescreen, Cinerama, 3-D, stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again” (Ebert, 2010). Whether or not it will stay is yet to be seen, it is up to the cinema goers.

Within the results it is possible to see that there are many people that do not have any problems viewing a stereoscopic format. But there were those who did. Fig 2.1 shows that approximately a third of people asked suffer from some kind of symptom, most commonly “headaches”. Different experts voice different opinions. Banks (2010) reported that 3D is straining the eyes and making them do something they were not made to do. “You're taking that normal relationship which has been coupled in the brain for years and you're changing it”. Other experts, such as Salz (2010) states there is no evidence of health scares. “We’re not aware of, nor have we seen, any negative permanent effects”. With a third of the consensus stating they have “headaches” and other problems, it is evident there are side effects to watching 3D for some people.

The Likert Survey results (Fig 1.) shows that the majority of the consensus would still go and see a film, even though it is not 3D. Ebert (2010) agrees and even thinks “When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned”. This suggests that 3D is not taking over the industry and is not making 2D films obsolete.

It is seen in Fig 1 that many people think the charge for a 3D film is too much. A regular theme going through it was that paying for 3D glasses is understandable but extra ticket prices is too much. Ebert also thinks it is too expensive “you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theatre, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22?” This is a problem with the films and does not help towards it becoming more beneficial for movie goers.

More than half the consensus felt they were not interested in buying 3D TV (see appendix). Many of them felt it was too expensive at the moment and also the programmes broadcast did not have a wide enough variety. The people that did want 3D TV said it would make “television more interesting” and involve you more. Critics also agree: “There is still little on TV to watch in 3D. Sky’s new channel is one, but only a handful of 3D Blu-Ray films or games have so far come out” (Dhanendran 2010), . “I cannot for the life of me see anyone spending an evening in front of the box wearing a pair of overpriced 3D specs” (Parrack 2010).

A lot of people thought 3D TV did not improve watching television. This may relate to Fig 1 and highlight that 2D shows are not out of date whatsoever. Parrack (2010) agrees “Movies and sporting events, sure, but sitcoms and reality TV shows? No thanks” These results suggest that many people are not ready for 3D TV and it will be sometime before it is widely used.

Secondary research conducted highlights UK cinemas across the country are considerably investing in 3D (see appendix). Cineworld (2009) states they are integrating “74 further digital projectors at a total cost of circa £4m”. Vue cinemas claim to be adding “200 RealD 3D screens to its circuit” (Barco.com, 2009). These high investments suggest that the industry is foreseeing that 3D is here to stay.

Cinemas did claim to make a large profit from 3D films, “the firm’s takings grew £6million to £162m in the first half of this year as it charged a premium for movies such as Avatar and Alice in Wonderland” (The Mirror, 2010). Deneroff (2010) agrees claiming that these films will bring in “substantial profit”. This highlights that many people are viewing 3D and it seems to be benefitting the industry, even though the technology is quite expensive with each projector costing £200-300 (pureprojectors.com).
There are many different opinions in the field and also different opinions in the primary research. The film industry are greatly benefitting from 3D, with takings being at there highest. The technology is expensive but economically is improving the industry.
There are, however, problems health-wise such as headaches. This is a large downfall for the stereoscopic format.
A large portion of the consensus highlights 3D is an amazing advancement in film, but not so much for television. Many people are not ready, due to price and availability of programmes.
The answer to my hypothesis is inconclusive due to the popularity of 3D film but the unpopularity of 3D TV. The industry obviously finds it the logical progression as they are investing so much money into 3D. 3D does enhance movies and lets the viewer become more involved but not 3D TV is involved.

If this report was to be investigated again, it would be recommended to delve deeper into both 3D cinema and 3D television separately. This would divide the conflict between the two formats and provide a clearer understanding of how stereoscopic technology can enhance people’s viewing.

Saturday, 16 October 2010

Literature Review

Here is my first attempt at my Literature review. See what you think...


Literature Review

The projection of 3D images within cinema and television is increasingly becoming more popular. But certain critics strongly oppose it. Ebert (2010) states that 3D is an unnecessary format and a waste of time and money. “Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing” (Ebert 2010).This highlights that the illusion of 3D is not necessary in the industry and can become almost too much for the viewer. However, Deneroff (2010) claims that 3D movies are here to stay, highlighting the fact that these movies, like ‘Avatar’, brought in a substantial profit. “The game changer was James Cameron’s Avatar, which seemed to legitimatize the process; if nothing else, its $2 billion plus box office receipts, with an overwhelming amount of domestic revenues coming from 3D theaters, made people realize that stereoscopic films were no longer a recurring fad” (Deneroff 2010). This strong support for the technology suggests that it is popular with cinema-goers and is set to continue for the foreseeable future.

There are concerns that watching 3D television or movies can be a threat to your health. Banks (2010) reported in an interview with ‘Voanews.com’ that viewing stereoscopic videos is making human eyes go against what they are made to do. “You're taking that normal relationship which has been coupled in the brain for years and you're changing it. And what we showed is that can cause fatigue” (Banks 2010). However, other research has concluded that viewing a stereoscopic format has no impact to health. In an article by Newman (2010), Salz concluded his research. “We’re not aware of, nor have we seen, any negative permanent effects, even in children, when viewing TV, games, or movies in 3-D” (Salz 2010). Different views of the subject are widely apparent.

There is also a problem with viewing 3D with a proportion of the population. The Eyecare trust (ND) states that 12% of people are unable to view a stereoscopic image. “More than one in ten of us (12%) have a visual impairment that means our brains are unable to correctly process the individual images that are transmitted to it via our left and right eyes” (The Eyecare Trust, ND). This statistic proves that there are problems with the stereoscopic format and that it does not benefit all viewers.

3D television is viewed as the next step forward with the format. Specialised 3D televisions and viewing glasses must be bought in order to view it. Dhanendran (2010) states that 3D television does not offer much to the consumer. “There is still little on TV to watch in 3D. Sky’s new channel is one, but only a handful of 3D Blu-Ray films or games have so far come out” Dhanendran (2010). This highlights that 3D TV is a step forward but when newly released it can be too expensive and a waste of money for many people. Parrack (2010) declares that the small screen is no place for stereoscopic viewing. “I cannot for the life of me see anyone spending an evening in front of the box wearing a pair of overpriced 3D specs. Movies and sporting events, sure, but sitcoms and reality TV shows? No thanks” (Parrack 2010). The statement suggests that not all television shows are suited for 3D and therefore suggests that the technology is not needed.

References

Ebert, Roger. 2010 “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)” [Internet]

Deneroff, Harvey. 2010 “The 3D Films Are Coming, the 3D Films Are Coming” [Internet]

Banks, Martin; Sinha, Vidushi. 2010 “Research Shows 3-D Movies, TV Can Cause Eye Strain, Headaches” [Internet]


Dr. Salz, James; Newman, Gene. 2010 “3D technology Won’t Damage Your Eyes” [Internet]

The Eyecare Trust. (ND) “3D Vision” [Internet]

Dhanendran, Anthony. 2010 “We Investigate: 3D television” from Computer Active (Issue Number 329, pp65)

Parrack, Dave. 2010 “Why 3D TV is an expensive non-starter” [Internet]

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

Updated essay intro

After Jo's comment I have referenced my information from its sources. Also I have changed from '3D media' to '3D film and television' to shorten the spectrum that I am studying as it was a bit open ended.

See what you think...

Introduction

3D media has changed the way people view and think in all different aspects of today’s society. Many different areas of industry incorporate the visual effect to bring another layer of excitement to the medium. It is widely used in the film industry and now television. Also 3D effects have been acknowledged in gaming, cards, posters and other advertising areas.
   Physics.org (2010) states that different technologies have been used to create 3D images, the first beginning with red and blue images on one plain and the user having 3D glasses (also known as Anaglyph glasses) that consisted of one red lens and one blue lens. Each eye would see its own colour and the brain would give the illusion of 3D images. 
  The New York Times (1953) explains that the first 3D film using this technology was released in America in April 1953. It was called ‘Man in the Dark’. New York Times reporter Crowther (1953) called it “a conspicuously low-grade melodrama” and the visual impact was “merely used for a few little slaps at the eyeballs, beyond which it isn't evident at all”. The technology was not a success six decades ago and had an extensive lighting problem in which Crowther stated, “when looked at through the dark glasses, it can barely be seen”.
   Over the decades technology has developed. Physics.org (2010) claims a new system for viewing 3D became more beneficial. This was the introduction of RealD in 2003. Physics.org (2010) states “As with old fashioned 3D, the film is recorded using two camera lenses sat side by side. But in the cinema, the two reels of film from these cameras are projected through different polarized filters. So images destined for viewers' left eyes are polarized on a horizontal plane, whereas images destined for their right eyes are polarized on a vertical plane. The user’s glasses use the same polarizing filters to separate out the two images again; giving each eye sees a slightly different perspective”. This modern way of using 3D is now widely being used within today’s society, whether at the cinema, at home on the TV or elsewhere. Anaglyph technology is now very much outdated and has been replaced by polarizing technology.
  Polarizing technology is evident in almost all 3D today, including Sky.com (2010) advertising the newly made ‘Sky 3D’, a channel dedicated to the technology.  3D Blu-Ray Discs which play a HD quality video incorporating a 3D perspective are now widely manufactured. Flatley (2009) reports even a prototype of a 3D car dashboard showing the car interface in 3 dimensions. This report will investigate whether this technology is necessary in today’s society and if it can be sustained.

Within this paper the researcher will be investigating several areas of 3D media to answer a hypothesis:

3D film and television is the obvious logical progression in order to enhance people’s viewing.

The hypothesis will be addressed in several areas of investigation. The aims of the research will be:

  • To find out the public’s views on 3D media and identify any patterns within the results
  • Identify any problems the viewing format poses, including the technology used and whilst viewing
  • To find out the economics of 3D in the industry and conclude whether it is productive
  • To examine any effects 3D media has in the current economic climate

Using both quantitative and qualitative data within the research, the researcher will evaluate the aims of the report and conclude giving an answer to the stated hypothesis.

Monday, 11 October 2010

Essay Introduction

I have written my first draft of my essay intro, see what you think...

Introduction

3D media has changed the way people view and think in all different aspects of today’s society. Many different areas of industry incorporate the visual effect to bring another layer of excitement to the medium. It is widely used in the film industry and now television. Also 3D effects have been acknowledged in gaming, cards, posters and other advertising areas.
   Different technologies have been used to create 3D images, the first beginning with red and blue images on one plain and the user having 3D glasses that consisted of one red lens and one blue lens. Each eye would see its own colour and the brain would give the illusion of 3D images. 
   The first 3D film was released in America in April 1953. It was called ‘Man in the Dark’. New York Times reporter Crowther called it “a conspicuously low-grade melodrama” and the visual impact was “merely used for a few little slaps at the eyeballs, beyond which it isn't evident at all”. The technology was not a success six decades ago and had an extensive lighting problem in which Crowther stated, “when looked at through the dark glasses, it can barely be seen”.
   Comic books saw their introduction to 3D with Batman. The comic would be printed with red and blue images on each page and it would be bought with the red and blue 3D glasses which the consumer would have to cut out and fold.
   Over the decades technology has developed and a new system for viewing 3D became more beneficial and user-friendly. This was the introduction of RealD in 2003. As with old fashioned 3D, the film is recorded using two camera lenses sat side by side. But in the cinema, the two reels of film from these cameras are projected through different polarized filters. So images destined for viewers' left eyes are polarized on a horizontal plane, whereas images destined for their right eyes are polarized on a vertical plane. The user’s glasses use the same polarizing filters to separate out the two images again; giving each eye sees a slightly different perspective. This modern way of using 3D is now being used within today’s society, whether at the cinema, at home on the TV or elsewhere. The blue and red lens method is now very much outdated and has been replaced by polarizing technology.
  Similar technology to RealD is evident in almost all 3D today, including the newly made ‘Sky 3D’, a channel dedicated to the technology.  3D Blu-Ray Discs which play a HD quality video incorporating a 3D perspective. Also even a prototype of a 3D car dashboard showing the car interface in 3 dimensions. This report will investigate whether this technology is necessary in today’s society and if it can be sustained.

Within this paper the researcher will be investigating several areas of 3D media to answer a hypothesis:

3D media is the obvious logical progression in order to enhance people’s viewing.

The hypothesis will be addressed in several areas of investigation. The aims of the research will be:

·         To find out the public’s views on 3D media and identify any patterns within the results
·         Identify any problems the viewing format poses, including the technology used and whilst viewing
·         To find out the economics of 3D in the industry and conclude whether it is productive
·         To examine any effects 3D media has in the current economic climate

Using both quantitative and qualitative data within the research, the researcher will evaluate the aims of the report and conclude giving an answer to the stated hypothesis.

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Possible Essay Ideas

I have one concept I want to focus on but I can't think of the best way to word it.

Possible titles:

Society's Incorporation of 3D Media

3D Media and it's consequences in today's society

The worth of 3D Media

3D Media's intergration in present day

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

My VARK Questionnaire result

By scoring myself using the VARK questionnaire I recieved the following results:

Visual - 5
Aural - 4
Read/Write - 4
Kinethetic - 6

The close results show me that I have a Multimodal learning style in the favour of Kinesthetic. This highlights the fact that I can learn in numerous ways. This surprises me as I thought myself to be a visual learner rather than all types because I find diagrams and pictures much easier to understand rather than a large section of text. I thought aural would be my second preference as hearing someone talking seems to break the understanding down for me and allows me to form the words in my head. I thought I was a read/write learner least as I feel the need to re-read the sentence sometimes to completely understand. Being a kinesthetic learner pleases me as I do enjoy being involved and makes the subject content seem more alive.

Overall, being a multimodal style learner excites me and makes me feel more relaxed about the different teaching styles different tutors have.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

My Myers-brigg Type Indicator Test

Taking my MBTI I found that my result was ESTJ. I found it strangely accurate as it was the same result I recieved during the lecture. The percentages were:
  • 22% Extraverted
  • 12% Sensing
  • 1% thinking
  • 89% Judging
The outcome does surprise me as I thought I was quite a intraverted person. In certain situations and group work usually tend to be quieter but actually this test made me think and realise that lately I have been more extraverted in my work. Maybe the university environment is changing the way I learn.

The strong judging part of my personality does not suprise me though. I have always been very organised and prefer to complete my work straight away before relaxing. I hope not to be extremely judging as I would like to be known as a fun person but if work or a career depended on it I would complete it first.

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

My SWOT Anaysis

Reflecting on different aspects of my life and as a person I have created my SWOT Analysis.

Strengths

  • Understand the University System
  • I can use the library and its resources
  • I can demonstrate basic IT skills
  • I can demonstrate numeracy skills
  • My reading and writing skills
  • My speaking and listening skills
  • Working with others
Weaknesses

  • My academic practice
  • How to maximise benefit from teaching and learning
  • Referencing
  • My note organisation
Opportunities

  • Meeting new people
  • Becoming more confident
  • Experiencing a new way of life
  • Learning new skills
  • To be able to set myself up for a better future
Threats

  • Balancing University work and home life
  • Increasing costs and fees
  • Not understanding parts of the course
  • Handling different and new assignments
At least there seems to be more positives than negatives!

Learning line

Heres my learning line. It doesn't look much. I'm trying to think what else I could add.

The life of Me

Hey people, my name is Joel. I am 20 years old and I am studying Multimedia, Animation & the Web at Anglia Ruskin University in Chelmsford.
I have been working my way to University since I began school. I am not sure what to expect from the life here at Uni but I have high hopes for it! The only down side to it is the travelling. I have to drive an hour each way everyday and find a damn parking space, which is hell!!

I am hoping to obtain a great degree from the 3 years I have here and have alot of fun! I have already got a great group of friends in my course so its all good. I aim to go out lots and have loads of fun and get absolutely trousered down the pub!

Once I have completed my degree (hopefully!) I would like to go into Arcitectural Realisation and create buildings and environments using the best software available.

The work load at uni bit nerve-racking but hopefully i can handle it! If I have any problems I guess I'll be blogging it!

See you around!