Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Titanic In 3-D

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the cast-off-the-bow-bert dept.

Graphics 88

crimeandpunishment writes "A scientific expedition to the Titanic will create a detailed three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck. A 'dream team' of archaeologists, oceanographers, and other scientists will spend 20 days assessing the legendary ship's deteriorating condition, and collecting data and images. They're calling it the most advanced scientific mission to Titanic since its discovery 25 years ago. A leader of the expedition says this is the first time the wreck will be treated as an archaeological site, with two goals: 'One is to preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself. The second part is to really understand what the state of the ship is.'"

cancel ×

88 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"The second part... (5, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050916)

"The second part is to really understand what the state of the ship is."

Oh I can help with that. "Sunk."

Re:"The second part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33050970)

>> scientists will spend 20 days assessing the legendary ship's deteriorating condition

Evidently it's also getting sunker by the minute.

Re:"The second part... (4, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051058)

One is to preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself.

And by this part, I suppose they mean to "preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of a ridiculous show of hubris and excess built on the backs or hundreds of poor workers by a Victorian aristocracy that was as far removed from reality as is possible before a society starts to break down."

That's not saying that folks in the present day couldn't learn a thing or two from the story of the titanic, but I doubt the right folks will be paying attention.

Re:"The second part... (5, Funny)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051172)

Hmm...putting a huge but shoddily built seagoing vessel with insufficient safeguards in a place where its sinking could kill people and traumatize a nation after being accidentally subjected to sudden pressure coming from a great and frigid depth...who could bp so foolish as to repeat this mistake in this modern age?

Re:"The second part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051842)

Wow. Just wow.

Re:"The second part... (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053114)

I see what you did there.

Spell Checker (1, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#33054838)

You misspelled "be" as "bp", that is just beyond stupid. It is not like the p is even close to the e. And stop making that annoying whoosh sound. Why do people always do that?

Re:Spell Checker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33057584)

*whoosh*

Re:Spell Checker (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#33058590)

It is not like the p is even close to the e.

It is if you're using a DVORAK [wikipedia.org] keyboard. ;)

Re:"The second part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33059128)

...where its sinking could kill people and traumatize a nation ...

Thank you! That's exactly how I felt about seeing Leo DiCaprio in that movie as well!

Re:"The second part... (0, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051248)

Oh, but isn't it wonderful that we are so rich that we can spend big money on the really important things, like digging through the dumpster we laughingly refer to as "the Atlantic Ocean" for historical tidbits? Yes, as a society our priorities are clearly in proper order... Screw our natural resources, this Titanic thingie will sell advertising! And after all is said and done, isn't that what life's all about?

Re:"The second part... (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051448)

That's not saying that folks in the present day couldn't learn a thing or two from the story of the titanic

Do people really know the whole story? Some may fix history with a few revisions.

Long after the sinking took place, an insightful official (you can guess who) declared war on terrorism. Those terrorist icebergs will be exterminated through a strategy of global warming.

Re:"The second part... (3, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33054766)

I don't think this is a fair characterisation of what was going on in the passenger ship business at the time. These ships were profitable, and a large part of the money came from 2nd and 3rd class accommodation (which was, incidentally, better on the Titanic than most other ships of the day). It was also a relatively safe ship, the hole that sank the Titanic would sink just about any ship.

These ships weren't 'ridiculous show[s] of hubris' any more than a fleet of 747s are. They were profitable and efficient ways of moving a lot of people around. Several companies were building ships the same size or bigger when the Titanic set off on it's maiden voyage, because it was seen as the most efficient way to run a passenger service.

The problem was that it wasn't carrying enough life boats. This was a regulatory problem (although you could argue that this shouldn't need regulation, it was just common sense!).

I don't think there are a lot of things to be learned from the Titanic: it was one fluke event. To learn the right lessons we need a bigger sample, more data. If we base our decisions on impressive single events, we're going to be make some silly decisions.

Re:"The second part... (4, Funny)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33056164)

The problem was that it wasn't carrying enough life boats. This was a regulatory problem (although you could argue that this shouldn't need regulation, it was just common sense!).

No, no, the free market corrected this by itself! Not many of the original passengers chose to go on a ship again.

Re:"The second part... (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#33056880)

The problem was that it wasn't carrying enough life boats. This was a regulatory problem (although you could argue that this shouldn't need regulation, it was just common sense!).

If you have read any of the accounts of the Titanic sinking it isn't like there were 1500 people standing around wondering what to do now that the lifeboats were gone. It is a lot closer to the truth that they loaded the lifeboats and the ship sank under them as the last boats were loaded. The ran out of time trying to get the collapsable lifeboats launched and never made use of one of them. This would have been the same story if they had a lot more lifeboats.

There were 16 lifeboats. It was estimated that the needed 64. There is absolutely no way that 64 lifeboats could have been loaded and launched given the way it was done. This would be even more true considering that in order to have 64 lifeboats on the Titanic they would have had to be double-hung, further increasing the time to load them. Sure, they might have been able to launch another 8 or 10 in parallel with the launching of the ones they had, but a double-hung configuration on the davits might have doomed even more people simply because it would have taken even more time to launch them.

The Titanic was not designed to sink in two hours. I don't think any existing passenger ship is either. There simply is not enough time move the passengers to lifeboats when such a large ship sinks so quickly. Another factor is that today it is rare to have passenger liners in waters as unforgivingly cold as where the Titanic was. So passengers in the water would not be dying in 15 minutes of hypothermia, giving far more time to rescue people even after the ship went down.

The single aspect of the Titanic sinking that strikes me as incredibly stupid was that they knew the ship couldn't turn worth anything. They also knew that the ship was designed to be "unsinkable". So driving the ship at full speed into an iceberg would have done ... nothing. Instead, they tried to avoid the collision - which with the small rudder was almost certainly doomed to fail. By striking the iceberg all along the side of the ship defeated every safety system that was in place. The folks in the wheelhouse knew way too much but were apparently driven by emotion to try to avoid the collision. Once they did that, there was no way most of the passengers were going to survive no matter how many lifeboats there were. There just wasn't time.

Re:"The second part... (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33061252)

I disagree that they didn't have time. The Lusitania got a similar number off in 18 minutes(!), which suggests that there wasn't enough of a sense of urgency in unloading the Titanic. Perhaps because it seemed pointless in any case.

Re:"The second part... (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 4 years ago | (#33065356)

Last time I crossed the Atlantic by ocean liner, they had a thing called "life boat drill". Basically practice for if the ship sank, and people showed up at their life boat stations pretty quick.
One of the problems with the Titanic was people had not practiced as it was considered unsinkable and even when it was sinking people still didn't believe it and preferred to stay on the ship rather then get in life boats.

Re:"The second part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33062702)

I don't think there are a lot of things to be learned from the Titanic: it was one fluke event. To learn the right lessons we need a bigger sample, more data. If we base our decisions on impressive single events, we're going to be make some silly decisions.

Not so: every single aviation accident is analyzed thoroughly along its cause-effect chains and virtually any single one of these analysis efforts provides new insight into how accidents can occur, along with recommendations on how to prevent it and/or manage similar risks in the future. The Titanic is also just that: an engineering invention that failed to protect life adequately under certain stressful conditions. There is a lot to learn from it; among others, in fail-safe design: compartments existed but were not completelly water-tight or, in communications: nearby Californian ship warned them for icebergs and got turned down. Navigators of those times learned well not to be arrogant in sea, no matter how good a boat they board on. And regulations kicked-in, too. Failure is the price we pay for lack of foresight or preparation.

The first part too... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051088)

And on the first goal of "...preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself..." It's been done. A lot. The last damn movie was in the theaters for over a year, I think the "legacy" has been "embraced" and even had a terrible theme song sung by that canadian harpy. Let's, you know, move on to other shipwrecks if that's our thing... without a song by Celine Dion this time, please.

Re:The first part too... (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051836)

Yes, near far where ever you are, our hearts will go on... to another shipwreck.

Re:"The second part... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051192)

If it's still there.

I mean, who's been guarding it?

Re:"The second part... (2, Informative)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33056650)

If it's still there.

I mean, who's been guarding it?

Why, a giant horde of bioconcretious structures! (dun-dun dunnnn!)

Oh wait, those rusticles are why Titanic (almost) isn't still there...

Also found (2, Funny)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050938)

Let us know if you find the wreckage of Windows Mobile down there!

Re:Also found (1)

Braintrust (449843) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050964)

Frank Stallone!

Close one (4, Interesting)

PlasmaEye (1128377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050962)

A scientific expedition to the Titanic will create a detailed three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck.

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

Re:Close one (1)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050974)

Agreed. That was a near miss.

Re:Close one (2, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050984)

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D.

As did I. But frankly, is the actual project any more compelling? Its not like the Titanic is a remnant of a lost civilization.

Re:Close one (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051036)

Its not like the Titanic is a remnant of a lost civilization.

It's a pop icon, like Disney World or the Eiffel Tower. It will persist forever in a tomb of copyright and exploitation to titillate the masses and enrich the powerful. So, I'm pretty much OK with that.

Re:Close one (3, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051078)

Its not like the Titanic is a remnant of a lost civilization.

I'm not sure if you were referring to the ship or the movie. But actually it is. One is a remnant of civilization in the early 1900's and the other is a remnant of civilization in the 1990's.

Perhaps our definitions of "lost" mean different things though, in which case I'd just agree to disagree.

Re:Close one (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051108)

Perhaps our definitions of "lost" mean different things though, in which case I'd just agree to disagree.

My definition of "lost" is distinct form my definition of "past". We don't need to study the Titanic to figure out what civilization was like in the early 1900's.

Re:Close one (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051708)

Just like we don't need to study the pyramids to figure out what civilization was like in ancient Egypt, but I'd still consider that civilization as lost in this context. I'd consider the terms almost synonymous when dealing with great historic monuments. And a Disaster site is just as monumental as a structure, just see Pompei

Re:Close one (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33052480)

Just like we don't need to study the pyramids to figure out what civilization was like in ancient Egypt, but I'd still consider that civilization as lost in this context. I'd consider the terms almost synonymous when dealing with great historic monuments. And a Disaster site is just as monumental as a structure, just see Pompei

Egypt? Pompei? I think you are getting yourself a tad worked up here. We are talking about a ship that sank less than 100 years ago at this point. What great archaeological finds do you suppose have yet to be discovered?

Re:Close one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33052772)

Yes, let's ask questions that can't be answered without research of the nature you're complaining is irrelevant.

This one is my favourite: What great archaeological finds do you suppose have yet to be discovered?

Why do I like it so much? You're asking "Tell me what unknown things we will learn from examining the wreck." Can you see what's wrong with that? I hope so, but if it's not immediately obvious, you should start reading books on critial thinking.

Re:Close one (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33056238)

Preservation of artifacts today is as big a deal as discovering them in the first place. It wouldn't do us a heck of a lot of good if we went and bulldozed all of our historical culture to set up a new strip mall or waterpark. Keeping this stuff around is no easy task.

The Titanic is no different, it is an antiquity of a very rare nature: It's not just an ocean liner, it's THE ocean liner from the 1900's that every one knows and remembers, it's story makes it a celebrity.

Now, Given that it's under a league or two of water, that makes it particularily difficult to catalogue and record their findings. While digitizing the whole thing is not the ideal solution, given the circumstances I'd say its the most practical one.

Re:Close one (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#33054670)

The show "Lost" fucked up my definition of the word lost.

Now I don't know what it means anymore.

Re:Close one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051302)

As did I. But frankly, is the actual project any more compelling? Its not like the Titanic is a remnant of a lost civilization.

Yeah, it's not like the 1900's were a time we'll never see again.

Re:Close one (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051332)

is the actual project any more compelling?

To that, I have one thing to say:

Leonardo DiCaprio.

So the answer is yes, it is slightly more compelling. Unless he's narrating.

Re:Close one (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051476)

It's a good way to get funding. The Titanic was a delicious drama, with romantic deathy fapworthyness oozing from every porthole.

After the techies are done playing with their equipment and learning more about using it, a documentary or several can help pay for their fun.

I approve. :)

Re:Close one (3, Funny)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051104)

Who says they aren't? But that will come in another press announcement that will also include the information that the sequel is going to be produced by Michael Bay. Only this time, instead of an ice berg sinking the Titanic, it will be an experimental submarine with tactical nuke torpedoes! And instead of Leo Di Caprio falling in love, we will be treated to a lead role as performed by Bruce Willis! And instead of falling in love with a rich girl, he will uncover a secret plot where the captain plans to steal the ship and turn it over to the Russians to cement their naval dominance of the Black Sea. Of course, Bruce will only be able to challenge the captain, as played by Kevin Spacey, with the aid of his lithe but sassy sidekick Lucy Liu! The whole thing will be so epic that the only way Bruce and Lucy can escape is on the back of sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their foreheads. Avatar look out! Titanic in 3-D is making a run at your box office records!

Re:Close one (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051218)

Avatar look out! Titanic in 3-D is making a run at your box office records!

Um... They're both James Cameron films. What would he care if one outshone the other.

Re:Close one (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051564)

Avatar look out! Titanic in 3-D is making a run at your box office records!

Um... They're both James Cameron films. What would he care if one outshone the other.

Depends on how many points he got. And whether they were gross or net.

Re:Close one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33053944)

Who says they aren't? But that will come in another press announcement that will also include the information that the sequel is going to be produced by Michael Bay. Only this time, instead of an ice berg sinking the Titanic, it will be an experimental submarine with tactical nuke torpedoes! And instead of Leo Di Caprio falling in love, we will be treated to a lead role as performed by Bruce Willis! And instead of falling in love with a rich girl, he will uncover a secret plot where the captain plans to steal the ship and turn it over to the Russians to cement their naval dominance of the Black Sea. Of course, Bruce will only be able to challenge the captain, as played by Kevin Spacey, with the aid of his lithe but sassy sidekick Lucy Liu! The whole thing will be so epic that the only way Bruce and Lucy can escape is on the back of sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their foreheads. Avatar look out! Titanic in 3-D is making a run at your box office records!

this sounds way better than the 1997 movie.

Re:Close one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33054624)

Michael Bay? I just figured John Cameron would "do a Lucas" and redo Titanic the way he "really" wanted it. For example, the iceberg rammed the Titanic first, then the Titanic blows it up with its cannon.

Re:Close one (3, Informative)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051138)

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

Well, you're in luck because James Cameron has a Spring 2012 [usatoday.com] target to have a 3D remastered version of the movie in theatres. Not only will you get to watch your "will he blend" propeller scene in glorious multi-dimensional detail, you'll also get to experience Kate Winslet's 30' tall boobs nestled in your lap.

Re:Close one (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051312)

Will they still have smoke coming out of all the funnels?

Re:Close one (2, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051574)

you'll also get to experience Kate Winslet's 30' tall boobs nestled in your lap.

I'm gonna start waiting for tickets right now. Excuse me.

Re:Close one (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053314)

Mmmmmmmmm.......booooooooobs.......

Re:Close one (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33056376)

you'll also get to experience Kate Winslet's 30' tall boobs nestled in your lap.

I'm gonna start waiting for tickets right now. Excuse me.

I've never heard fapping called that before.

Re:Close one (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053282)

This thread clearly needs a -1 Nauseating mod.

Re:Close one (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051336)

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

It will probably happen. One of my ex's is a producer on an IMAX 3D movie (made for IMAX, not a re-purposed hollywood movie) and she's rubbed shoulders with Cameron and his wife. Last year she went to a pre-screening of Avatar at his private theater and Cameron also showed about 5 minutes of footage from Titanic in 3D and said re-releasing it in 3D is one of the things he would really like to do.

Re:Close one (1)

x102output (536049) | more than 4 years ago | (#33052418)

A scientific expedition to the Titanic will create a detailed three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck.

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

Funny you say that. They are doing a re-release of the movie in 3D for a 2011 release.

Re:Close one (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#33052586)

I was really hoping they'd enhance the story to the movie too.

Re:Close one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33055246)

Umm, actually, Mr. Cameron is doing exactly that [filmofilia.com] . When I first saw the title I was wondering why Slashdot was covering such swill.

I'm a little disappointed. (3, Informative)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050972)

With great curiosity I click on the hilited link "three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck" (which is irresistible you know) and find a nearly-slashdotted site that actually hasn't that model yet.

never mind.

Re:I'm a little disappointed. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051238)

Look at this for a moment: /.

What do you think it is?

It's an ASCII model of a motorcycle jump over the Snake river [google.com] .

It's a metaphor for getting information here.

That's okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051356)

...for one horrible moment I thought that James Cameron was going to drag the 13 year old film from its grave and milk it for yet more money by pointlessly converting it into 3-D for a new cinematic release in 2012. Thank goodness that's not happening. Now pardon me while I masturbate to pictures of Rob Malda.

Re:I'm a little disappointed. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051464)

Which is why you read the summary - because it clearly states that the goal of the expedition is to create such map, not that such a map already exists.

Re:I'm a little disappointed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33057178)

FTFS: "A scientific expedition to the Titanic will create a detailed three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck."

For the love of Christ, what part didn't you understand? I mean, it is only the first sentence of the summary.

And who was dumb enough to give you in informative mod? What are you informing me of that I didn't already know by having a little bit of reading comprehension skills?

Phew (1)

Tinlad (947666) | more than 4 years ago | (#33050988)

After reading the title, for one horrible moment I thought that James Cameron was going to drag the 13 year old film from its grave and milk it for yet more money by pointlessly converting it into 3-D for a new cinematic release in 2012. Thank goodness that's not happening.

Re:Phew (2, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051344)

He could re-render the CGI in 3-D but Leo DiCaprio's performance will still be two-dimensional..

Re:Phew (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051456)

Hasn't he already said that a remake of it in 3d is on his list? He is trying to generate a 3d bandwagon after-all, so dredging up some of his past ballbaggery movies and milking more money from them would seem like a two birds one stone situation.

This remake will suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051012)

You know the producers are just going to find ridiculous excuses for sticking the ship in your face.

AWESOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051044)

"One is to preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself."

One way to discredit any scientific value is to start enhancing stories

First Thought (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051086)

My first thought on seeing the title of the article was, "It's already a three-dimensional structure... damaged, but still 3-d."

Re:First Thought (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051498)

If they want to model the fucking thing, converting the original drawings to CAD would be the place to start...

First Boat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33052702)

Already have. If you've played any of the old Titanic games you'd know this?

First Plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33053210)

A good place to start. [titanic-model.com]

Re:First Thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33053334)

First of all, they want to model the WRECK of the Titanic. Kinda like how they run modern cars into walls to see if the passengers survive. Everyone laughed at Mercedes Benz and Volvo for doing that, but guess what? We now have safer cars. So the next time you plan on taking a cruise ship somewhere, thank WHOI, Ballard, and Cameron for the info that makes it a safe, fun trip.

Now, you do bring up a good point: HOW will they present the data? AutoCAD file? JPG stitching? Silverlight (heaven forbid!)?

My first thought was that... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051802)

...for one horrible moment I thought that James Cameron was going to drag the 13 year old film from its grave and milk it for yet more money by pointlessly converting it into 3-D for a new cinematic release in 2011. Thank goodness that's not happening. Now pardon me while I masturbate to pictures of Rob Malda.

And of course, the 3rd (almost) secret mission (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051096)

lots and lots of film in 3D, James Cameron needs a new private island

Re:And of course, the 3rd (almost) secret mission (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051254)

...James Cameron needs a new private island

No, see, he's the King of the World(TM) [wikipedia.org] , which means all islands are actually his private islands.

Re:And of course, the 3rd (almost) secret mission (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051324)

Not just the world, he is King of The Worlds!

Wasn't this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051102)

done back in 1996 for an INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA CD-ROM TITLE where you can dive into the titanic virtually with your Pentium(R) Processor enhanced for Windows 95?

so heres how this works (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051150)

1. sony and panasonic set to work debuting 3d video and television technology.

2. lets be realistic: sonar advances wont do much for this expedition as 3d sonar models already exist for the titanic and are used ad-nauseum by the discovery channel, history, etc...for their reenactment porn

3. Premier Exhibitions Inc. of Atlanta is running out of steam, and wants a video commissioned to take advantage of the latest 3d craze thats sweeping the nation, as their exhibits are only 2 dimensional film and actual artifacts. Plus the reinactments on discovery are really pounding them.

4. a scientific "study" is commisioned....set sail for profit.

5. dont expect "findings" or "discoveries" to be made to the scientific community without a DMCA or copyright attached.

Re:so heres how this works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33051402)

5. dont expect "findings" or "discoveries" to be made to the scientific community without a DMCA or copyright attached.

Was this your backup plan in case your other 4 points didn't earn your post an insightful mod?

Re:so heres how this works (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051558)

Was posting as an AC your backup plan to not earn a Troll mod?

There are many 'Specials" about this (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 4 years ago | (#33051684)

The 'mystery' , while it may be an engineering thins, is moot.
The ship, supposedly state-of-the-art at the time, had an incident
and sank. People died. END OF STORY! Let these people lie in peace.
DROP IT you morons!!!

Re:There are many 'Specials" about this (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053310)

Titantic casualties - L.I.P.

meh (1)

VonSkippy (892467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33052034)

Dear 3D:

Fame here, your 15 minutes is up. Please stop cluttering our theatres with lame attempts at making things look real. If the audience want's real, they'd be out hiking, walking, boating, sailing, soaring, etc - not watching the mind numbing crap the movie companies produce.

So stop it - no really, stop it NOW.

Thanks,

F

Re:meh (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053392)

If the audience want's real, they'd be out hiking, walking, boating, sailing, soaring, etc - not watching the mind numbing crap the movie companies produce.

Do you genuinely believe this? I'd be curious to compare the revenue of the top 25 movies of 2009 with the revenue of the National Park Service. Heck, maybe you're right, but somehow I think people would prefer to sit in front a picture.

That's all they do when the go to National Parks anyway, they take pictures. They stop up traffic on the highway so they can chase down a bear and get a photo to look at later. Or they pile in by the thousands to watch Old Faithful erupt for a few mintues. When I was in Yosemite a couple years ago, there seemed to be a disproportionate amount of Europeans fascinated by squirrels, taking pictures of them every chance they had. Squirrels.

Most NP visitors probably spend more time on the road in their Cruise America dot com RVs watching Spongebob and whatever else people watch than they did walking a trail. We hardly ever saw people on the trails in Yellowstone.

Re:meh (2, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#33054652)

Dear boring luddite:

            3D "video" is a legitimate artistic medium similar to and basically superset of 2D video, just as color video is a superset of black-and-white video, with its inherent tradeoffs. When we get past the 3D spectacles of unnecessary eye-pokery, there will be a rich medium for enhancing the experience of many kinds of films. Just as color films eventually surpassed black-and-white after it got over its own silly spectacle period (see: "The Wizard of Oz" for a seminal example...)

            Please have patience with the medium as it goes through its "me, too" phase. The people underwriting films don't understand subtlety in art, they barely understand finance, and they're certainly not subtle there, either. When filmmakers realize the public is only moderately interested in gimmicks, they'll start putting them on the back burner, and use 3D for the same thing all other filmmaking techniques are used: to enhance the story.

            And it'll be awesome. Please be more awesome. The future can be a wondrous place.

Another one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33052300)

For a moment, I thought this was a slashvertisement of yet ANOTHER cheap 3D movie.

Just a waste of money and resources! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33053136)

I don't understand why the hell do they spend thousands of dollars pursuing the wreckage of a "ship". They could spend it on better things. So many people are starving out there without food and shelter. It doesn't really make sense.

Re:Just a waste of money and resources! (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053324)

Because they can. Get over it.

Re:Just a waste of money and resources! (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33053400)

Someone call the Somalis!

Google Titanic (2, Interesting)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#33055016)

I can't wait to see this on Google Street View or something like that.

Re:Google Titanic, hmmm! (1)

vortexau (471931) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068074)

Er - wouldn't that have to be Google Sea Bed View, or similar? As far as I am aware, there would be very few streets built that far down in the Atlantic Ocean.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?