I recall reading about real-life experiments with invisibility a couple years back, and I could have sworn I blogged about them here on Cinematical. But I must have decided to keep Harry Potter fans from getting their hopes up, despite the fact that the original article I read had specifically mentioned Potter's invisibility cloak. Plus, I must have been hesitant to attempt to explain the science behind it.

Well, now that more news has come out about the development of materials that may be able to render people and other three-dimensional objects invisible, I figure it's time to get excited. Now we can definitely wander around Hogwarts after dark without being spotted by Argus Filch. Or, for the grown up kids, you can potentially sneak into the girls' locker room. Just beware that these real-life cloaks probably don't work so well in such foggy conditions.

With the popularity of those new Netlix-playing Roku devices and this week's news that Xbox will also work with the Netflix Watch Instantly service and yesterday's launch of the documentary site SnagFilms and the fact that everyone including your grandma has a site that streams movies, it's no surprise that Amazon has finally also launched a stream service called Amazon Video on Demand. And it's got its own special Roku-type device to be manufactured by Sony, only it's much more expensive at $300 (compared to $99 for the Roku). And it seems you also need a Sony-made hi-def television to use it. The good news: eventually Sony's Bravia TVs will cut out the middle man (aka that $300 device) and Amazon may be able to work out future deals with other TV manufacturers.

Because it comes a little too late in the game, and because iTunes will likely forever keep its rival from offering Disney and ABC titles, I don't see Amazon Video on Demand being hugely successful. But the service at least sounds better than Amazon Unbox, which sold movie downloads. Because everyone and your grandmother subscribes to Netflix, if anyone wants to stream a movie they're going to just go with Watch Instantly and Roku. And because the main downside to that service is that it doesn't transfer to portable devices nor does it allow offline viewing, movie consumers are better off with iTunes for their non-Netflix needs. Hey, at least Amazon is still the preferred place to buy books, whether in paper or digital format.

[via Cinema Tech]

As anyone who went to see Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D last weekend knows, a viable, attractive, non-headache-inducing 3-D technology now exists for feature-length films in regular theaters (albeit ones outfitted with a special projector). Unfortunately, it's still not being used as a storytelling tool so much as an attempt to impress people -- look, it's Brendan Fraser, spitting water in your face! -- but maybe James Cameron will fix that soon, what with his plans to film a low-key drama in 3-D after he finishes Avatar. In any case, now that Journey has proven the mettle of the format (the 800-some theaters showing it in 3-D made up for more than half of the film's opening weekend gross, and rightfully so), you should probably expect to wear goofy plastic glasses with increasing frequency.

Case in point: Sony's announcement yesterday that its previously-announced adaptation of the children's book Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs will be the first digital 3-D release for Sony Pictures Animation. The movie (which I believe still has Anna Faris and Andy Samberg doing the lead voices) is about a scientist who tries a radical approach to solving world hunger only to wind up with food coming down from the sky, which doesn't turn out to be as awesome as it sounds. A Sony exec provides an amazing quote to go along with the announcement: "The story is about 'food weather,' and so food falling from the sky lends itself so well to 3-D." No kidding.

I anxiously await the day when 3-D is used to tell better, more engaging stories rather than to provide the equivalent of a novelty theme park ride. Maybe soon.

I don't know the last time I felt like a kid at the movies, but while watching Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D this past week, I honestly reverted to my 8-year-old self. That isn't to say the movie is necessarily as good as the movies that astonished me as a kid -- because of the subject matter, I'd think about comparing it to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and The Goonies, both of which came out when I was around that age, and neither to which this film holds up in terms of originality or storytelling craft. But as far as holding onto my sense of wonder, Journey is up there.

Of course, it's necessary to point out that Journey would be nothing without the digital 3-D factor. It's actually the first live-action narrative feature to be shot and released in the new format (the non-fiction concert films, U2 3D and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour were technically the first live-action 3-D features), and while it's far from perfect, it is a terrific pioneer. I shall continue favoring the look of animated 3-D films, especially those directed as well as Monster House, and I anticipate that James Cameron's Avatar will blow away all live-action 3-D films released prior to its arrival. For now, though, I'm telling you, with the utmost cinemaphilic urgency: you need to see this ASAP.

There's a very interesting discussion going on over on Hollywood Elsewhere today about whether studios re-releasing older movies on Blu-ray are going too far in tweaking the originals to make them look "better." At the center of the discussion is the Dirty Harry Blu-ray DVD. Glenn Erickson, writing for film.com, points out that the Patton Blu-ray DVD was "enhanced to minimize the natural grain," but that in that case, the altering makes it look more like the theatrical 70mm presentation, so he doesn't take issue with that one. The Dirty Harry Blu-ray, however, Erickson considers "more complicated." He notes:

"The Blu-ray disc shows heavy tweaking to minimize grain, sharpen contrast and brighten colors. Sunny exteriors haven't changed much but heavy processing has given most night shots an almost unnatural look -- detail and bright color in what were once dimly lit areas, with everything else falling into inky blackness. "

Jeff Wells doesn't have a problem with this -- if it makes Dirty Harry look better, who cares? But in the discussion thread on the post, folks are getting down into the nitty-gritty of the issue: studios doing digital remastering for Blu-ray transfers, sometimes without consulting the cinematographer as to why scenes where shot as they were. HE commenter TheVicuna links to an excellent interview at cameraguild.com, the website for the International Cinematographer's Guild, with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond; in part of the interview, he talks about the DVD transfer of Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye, for which he was not called in to supervise the transfer; the resulting transfer, Zsigmond says in the interview, was "terrible."

A couple of weeks ago, I ordered a Netflix Player by Roku -- a little box that lets Netflix subscribers watch the company's video-on-demand selections on a TV set. We already had a media computer hooked up to our TV, but it runs on a Linux platform so we couldn't use it to Watch Instantly on Netflix, which is Windows-only. The Roku player was priced at $99, which is a little steep for a gamble on whether the quality would be acceptable and whether we could make it work with our increasingly bulky TV/media setup, but we decided to give it a shot.

The box, which is about the size of a large paperback, arrived last weekend while I was at the farmers' market, and by the time I returned with tomatoes and peaches, my husband had hooked the box into our TV setup and activated it through our Netflix account. He tells me this was a very easy thing to do, although we're talking about someone who spent time the night before creating a fancy diagram of our devices and cabling input/output so he'd know exactly where and how to hook up the Roku box. (We also have a digital TV tuner, two DVD players, a VCR, and the media computer.) Here are the ups and downs we've discovered so far about the newest addition to our home's TV/media setup.

As usual, I'm not going to pretend to understand the technologies behind modern home entertainment. And so, before I begin, I'd like to prematurely thank any commenters who choose to weigh in on things such as "selectable output control," "the analog hole" or any other terms I might misuse or incorrectly explain. The only thing I comprehend about those electronic doohickeys in my living room is that they each somehow connect to my antiquated analog television and through the magic of, well, I don't know, I'm able to watch the occasional classic movie and mindless cake design program.

Those familiar with this column should know that I'm not here to necessarily explain how threats to movie theaters work. I'm just here to yell, "the sky is falling!" from within the lobby of the local cinema and hope that you Henny Pennys and Goosey Looseys are listening to my rants and ramblings and at least try to go to the movies more often (and hopefully buy at least one thing at the concession stand). This time, however, I feel even less knowledgeable about the latest threat, and I feel even more fearful that this is the beginning of the end. The cinemapocalypse, if you will.

Who of us hasn't been annoyed by young teens texting during the movie? Even if the kids have the sound turned off on their phones, the light from the displays are enough of a distraction to take our eyes off the bigger screen in front of us. Hollywood has made it clear, too, that text messaging is a problem for the movies. But for studio execs, the issue is with people texting their friends about how the new movie they're watching is not worth seeing. Bad buzz travels fast these days, and part of it's thanks to cell phones.

But cinemas will soon embrace texting as an interactive part of the moviegoing experience. Of course, it's just the latest way in which the exhibition industry is actually ruining the experience by bombarding patrons with obnoxious advertisements. This time it's part of a Verizon Wireless V Cast campaign in which audience members are asked to participate in polls appearing throughout the pre-show "entertainment." The ads ask a question, maybe about your favorite music, then you text the answer, and the results show up on the screen. Apparently, it's thought to actually be something that will lure customers, not keep them away.

The technology and ads, courtesy of Verizon and Screenvision, will be appearing in cinemas later this month, but only in the 10 major U.S. cities (New York, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.). Reportedly, one of the ads was directed by Spike Lee and features Chris Cornell and Timbaland, but it's probably still not worth the nuisance of knowing the spots encourage texting during the movie.




[via CinemaTech]

I love seeing old film. I'm glad that I first saw Touch of Evil in an old theater with a gritty and grainy copy. I wouldn't be too thrilled to see a current film that way, but there's just something about the mixture of squiggles and grains on a piece of old film that makes the oldies pop and become a whole different experience.

However, the more time that passes, the more damaged film becomes, and restorative measures have to be taken. And of course, not everyone wants those squiggles. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Warner Bros. Technical Operations is restoring George Cukor's A Star is Born in 6K resolution as a test run. Right now, most restoration is at 2K, and an increasing amount are done at 4K, but of course, that still loses a lot of information. So, this is the first jump into even more.

The project is scheduled to take four-six months, and at some point, this restored version will then get released on Blue-ray and normal DVD. This is a test run, but who knows what's next? What old WB films would you like to see get the 6K treatment?

I'm beginning to believe that no one really wants to watch movies anymore. Or, at least, they don't want to actively watch them. Big movie theaters are hurting with the advent of saucy home theater systems, and it seems like most people would rather curl up on their couch then head out for the big community experience. We've already heard arguments about the mass distractions that are attached to home viewing, but I never thought that it would become part of the movie experience.

The Hollywood Reporter posts that Walt Disney is itching to use Blu-ray's Live technology to make a more interactive movie experience. But they're not talking about the Choose Your Own Adventure sort of fare. They're adding a whole lot of bells and whistles to their classics. First up, my favorite Disney film ever -- Sleeping Beauty.

Luckily, it doesn't seem to be presenting anything that will make me want to go out and get a new player. It's all movie distractions. It might be cool that the menu will have a customized version of Sleeping Beauty's castle that will reflect your weather conditions, but that's just fluff. Besides that, there's just things to distract you from the film -- integrated chats on the movie screen, customized video messages to insert into the movie, the option to mail clips to friends, trivia games, and the option for a constant stream of web trailers.