Entertainment desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 30

Which hentai series is this

plz help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.149.168 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was made by someone named ゆーれー and it was published on pixiv. Click here to see more of his work. Von Restorff (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is his blog. You can e-mail him and ask. The address is on the right side under the ja word メール. Oda Mari (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this song

When I was in elementary school, I was part of the school's chorus, and one song I remember singing (which highlighted the diversity of the students making up the chorus) went like this:

In [insert name of language here], [insert translation of hello here] means hello.

In [insert name of language here], [insert translation of hello here] means hello.

In [insert name of language here], [insert translation of hello here] means hello.

[Insert translation of hello here] means hello in [insert name of language here].

Has anyone else heard of this song, or could it be possible that this song was simply invented by the music teacher leading that chorus? 173.52.209.154 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just in your school. Although, there are possibilities it could be used elsewhere... Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we could get our songs/musical theatre people to give you hundreds of examples similar to this. I suspect it is just made to fit a melody that usually bears similar words.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old movies re-released in 3D?

I don't know whether to post this in the Computing, Entertainment, or Science reference desks.

I'm seeing a trend to re-release films in 3D. This was done with Disney's The Lion King and more recently Beauty and the Beast. It has been announced that all of the Star Wars films will eventually be re-released in 3D.

I can understand how this might be possible for the more recent films that made heavy use of computer graphics; you just resurrect those 3D models and re-shoot the scenes from slightly different angles. But Beauty and the Beast didn't use much CG except for the ballroom scene. And Star Wars episode IV (the first movie, from 1976) used almost none; it relied on physical models and overlays.

So how is it possible to create 3D versions of these old films? Is there some process someone can point me to? Do we have an article on it? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article may help. As I recall, Superman Returns had some segments of the film up-converted into 3D, among other films, I'm sure. --McDoob AU 93 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Looks like there are a number of ways to accomplish the feat, and they all involve a lot of manual frame-by-frame examination, much like rotoscoping (which I note is actually part of one process). Rather expensive too, so I can see why studios are willing to undertake the expense only for blockbusters, rather than for, say, an old black&white Bogart film.

The processes involved also seem like they'd be a bit easier with source material having clear shape boundaries or high-contrast source material, such as cartoons (like the Disney films) or space battles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's looking at you in 3D, kid? [Shudder]. Don't give them ideas. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad enough they colorized that one, never mind the 3D. Ugh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Burns/Ric Burns even went so far as to make 3D documentaries out of old still photos. For example, they would take a boring picture of a cow in front of a barn and make it into a slightly less boring 3D movie of a cow in front of a barn. They appeared to do this by splitting the image into two, one with the cow on it and the other with the barn on it. They could then move the two images independently, as they would appear to move as you walked by the barn or approached it. The hard part is that portions of the barn originally hidden by the cow would no longer be hidden, as your perspective changed. Thus, they needed to recreate the hidden bits of the barn. This could be done from another picture of the barn, by making the missing half symmetrical with the half they had, etc. The Burns also went to 3 or more layers on some pictures. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certain animated cartoons of the 1930s-40s were using 3D perspective techniques in the cartoons, i.e. multiple layers like you're talking about, even though they were filmed in 2D. Meanwhile, the tedium of the retooling you're describing illustrates why animation costs so much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean multiplane camera techniques? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Parallax. This was a common trick in old videogames. The Super Nintendo even had built-in hardware support for this effect. Staecker (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo includes some World War I stock footage that's been made 3D. Not colorized though... Staecker (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me, though, that any of these processes would result in 2-D flat shapes having some depth separation from each other. A person's face would be flat unless one could somehow slightly shift the facial features relative to each other to account for the different parallax views. And what does one do when a shape actually recedes into the distance (like a freeway, or looking along the deck of a ship) or comes at you (like when an actor points his finger at the camera)? This 2-D to 3-D conversion is probably more difficult to get "right" than the article makes it seem. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, to get a full 3D movie out of 2D you pretty much have to create a new movie, using the old one as the storyboard. Rather than do this, they likely take some of the shortcuts mentioned above, and call it 3D anyway, with perhaps only a few scenes actually redone in full 3D. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]