http://www.nsstudio.co.uk/index.htm (http://www.nsstudio.co.uk/index.htm)
Creature animatronics guru, Neal Scanlan, has been added to the Prometheus production crew according to IMDB and the Neal Scanlan Studio website.
Scanlan is attached as a Creature and Special Make-up Effects Supervisor according to IMDB.
Best known for his Oscar winning visual effects in Babe in 1996, he was one of the founding members of the Jim Henson Creature Shop where he worked as an Animatronics and Creative Supervisor.
Before leaving the Jim Henson Organisation in 1996, he had worked on titles such as Labyrinth, Little Shop of Horrors and The Witches.
In 1996 he formed Neal Scanlan Studios which went on to work on animatronics, special make-up and prosthetic effects for a string of movies and TV-series, including Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd to name a couple.
http://www.alienprequelnews.com/2011/07/neal-scanlan-is-on-board-prometheus.html (http://www.alienprequelnews.com/2011/07/neal-scanlan-is-on-board-prometheus.html)
Awesome....this tells us how serious Ridley is about in camera effects. Animatronics have always been nmy favorite...at least...convincing animatronics.
Sounds promising for some practical effects.
Quietly reserved about this - the make-up effects they do are great, as long as we get good camera work and lighting on the animatronics like in the first Alien, this may turn out ok :)
Very promising news. Me happy. :)
It's usually the cutting in between CG effects and in-camera effects that really stop me cold. ALIEN3 was a victim of this, and so was the Star Wars Prequels.
I think we're at the point now where thats not so much of an issue - however I hope the CG and especially 3D will be at a minimum, not up in our faces.
I won't be seeing Prometheus is 3D. I have ZERO interest. A good story doesn't need it.
Same. I shan't be supporting that gimmick. 2D all the way.
Aslong as we dont get another round of visuals that used it like Resident Evil: Apocalypse did, I should be ok with it - they even 3D'ed Wesker throwing his f'ing shades at the camera in that :(
A nice 3D panoramic establishing shot or something to show off Giger's designs will do and thats all, thanks :)
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Jul 10, 2011, 06:56:46 PM
I won't be seeing Prometheus is 3D. I have ZERO interest. A good story doesn't need it.
Same for my first viewing, I'll be seeing it more than once I can assume so I might watch it in 3D on a second viewing.
Very f**king sweet.
Look at this, think one of the guys that brought this to life is gonna work on Prometheus... and tell me you're not spinning in joy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLO7IxKwruc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLO7IxKwruc#)
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jul 11, 2011, 10:21:02 AM
Very f**king sweet.
Look at this, think one of the guys that brought this to life is gonna work on Prometheus... and tell me you're not spinning in joy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLO7IxKwruc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLO7IxKwruc#)
I love audry II
dat plant xd
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Jul 10, 2011, 06:56:46 PM
I won't be seeing Prometheus is 3D. I have ZERO interest. A good story doesn't need it.
I must say that I don't understand. A good story doesn't need a movie even, yet you will go see it. Why not read a script? /sarcasm
Seriously though, if it doesn't NEED it that doesn't necessarily make it a bad feature. It literally and figuratively adds a dimension, so why not?
@Corporal Hicks; I don't see it as a gimmick, it is evolution. You're not the first to shun evolution. ;)
Voyager...these aren't difficult concepts. 3D in and of itself isn't a bad thing..but it's also not a necessary thing. Your argument about a script not needing to be a film if it's a good story is about the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
3D IS a gimmick. Sometimes the gimmick works, sometimes it doesn't.
You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 11, 2011, 05:57:36 PM
You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.
Never a truer word were spoken.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 11, 2011, 05:57:36 PM
You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.
Hicks, would you mind telling me why my thread was deleted?
ThisBethesdaSea and Hicks, pretty much you both nailed it on the head with my opinion.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Jul 11, 2011, 04:15:25 PMYour argument about a script not needing to be a film if it's a good story is about the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
You don't read much, do you? :D
Quote from: JaaayDee on Jul 11, 2011, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 11, 2011, 05:57:36 PM
You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.
Hicks, would you mind telling me why my thread was deleted?
I wouldn't know, I didn't do it.
HuH??? I thought it wasnt being shot in 3D? I agree that some 3D can be absolute crap but then some can totally immurse you in the experience. Avatar did it and the new Transformers 3D was done well too.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Jul 11, 2011, 04:15:25 PM
Voyager...these aren't difficult concepts. 3D in and of itself isn't a bad thing..but it's also not a necessary thing. Your argument about a script not needing to be a film if it's a good story is about the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
3D IS a gimmick. Sometimes the gimmick works, sometimes it doesn't.
3D use like in Avatar is perfect. It's immersive without being distracting or a scene's major feature. When you watch films like Resident Evil Afterlife, that's a gimmick. The cool 3d shots become more important than what's actually happening.
I agree with Space Voyager in that it is the next evolution of cinema. What I dont agree with is paying a premium for it. I see 3D in the same way as sound. It started as mono, then stereo, then surround, then 5.1 then 7.1 etc. Having sounds coming from 7 angles at once isn't necessary to the story, but it helps enhance the movie experience.
3D visuals should be handled in a similar fashion (as James Cameron has already demonstrated). I wouldn't judge the styles employed by Sir Ridley Scott by the uses of people like Paul WS Anderson. We all know what to expect if we compare 2 of their films ;)
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 12, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
3D use like in Avatar is perfect. It's immersive without being distracting or a scene's major feature. When you watch films like Resident Evil Afterlife, that's a gimmick. The cool 3d shots become more important than what's actually happening.
I agree with Space Voyager in that it is the next evolution of cinema. What I dont agree with is paying a premium for it. I see 3D in the same way as sound. It started as mono, then stereo, then surround, then 5.1 then 7.1 etc. Having sounds coming from 7 angles at once isn't necessary to the story, but it helps enhance the movie experience.
3D visuals should be handled in a similar fashion (as James Cameron has already demonstrated). I wouldn't judge the styles employed by Sir Ridley Scott by the uses of people like Paul WS Anderson. We all know what to expect if we compare 2 of their films ;)
I wish I worded my post as well as you did. Your sound comparison is better than my no-movie-at-all, too. Another one that I can think of is the introduction of colour into movies. I'm sure some saw it as a gimmick as well.
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 13, 2011, 07:07:59 AM
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 12, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
3D use like in Avatar is perfect. It's immersive without being distracting or a scene's major feature. When you watch films like Resident Evil Afterlife, that's a gimmick. The cool 3d shots become more important than what's actually happening.
I agree with Space Voyager in that it is the next evolution of cinema. What I dont agree with is paying a premium for it. I see 3D in the same way as sound. It started as mono, then stereo, then surround, then 5.1 then 7.1 etc. Having sounds coming from 7 angles at once isn't necessary to the story, but it helps enhance the movie experience.
3D visuals should be handled in a similar fashion (as James Cameron has already demonstrated). I wouldn't judge the styles employed by Sir Ridley Scott by the uses of people like Paul WS Anderson. We all know what to expect if we compare 2 of their films ;)
I wish I worded my post as well as you did. Your sound comparison is better than my no-movie-at-all, too. Another one that I can think of is the introduction of colour into movies. I'm sure some saw it as a gimmick as well.
I'm just against calling any new developments in technology a "gimmick". CGI is a gimmick. Digital Camera's are a Gimmick. Bluray is a gimmick. I also find the "3D is distracting" argument moot. By that line of thinking there should never be a visually pleasing background or anything else that takes away from the focal point. I do agree that some films use 3D as a gimmick, but its not fair to label the technology by the use of some. If we don't support new technologies and allow them to evolve we would still be watching the same old silent black and white films. 3D may not be perfect
now, but it does open the door for new horizons in the next decade or two.
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 12, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
3D use like in Avatar is perfect.
Found it pointless. And distracting, more than immersive -- things disappearing because they passed off the side of the frame becomes really incongruous when it's floating in mid-air three feet from the screen itself.
Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the
introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated. 3D is an embellishment -- if anything it's closest to Imax vs. regular screens. It's a nice touch, yes, but take it away and all you lose is a bit of "Ooh, aah" factor.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 13, 2011, 07:40:21 AM
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 12, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
3D use like in Avatar is perfect.
Found it pointless. And distracting, more than immersive -- things disappearing because they passed off the side of the frame becomes really incongruous when it's floating in mid-air three feet from the screen itself.
Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated. 3D is an embellishment -- if anything it's closest to Imax vs. regular screens. It's a nice touch, yes, but take it away and all you lose is a bit of "Ooh, aah" factor.
Exactly. It shouldn't be used to make up for short comings in the picture itself but, as you said, embellishment. I have no problems with gimmicks that enhance my viewing experience. I have complete trust in Ridley as a film maker to use it wisely without hurting his picture. Films like Clash of the Titans converting hastily in post was horrible and was an example of how it was negatively distracting. I was too busy concentrating on how poor it looked rather than concentrating on how poor the film was.
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 13, 2011, 07:27:18 AM
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 13, 2011, 07:07:59 AM
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 12, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
Bluray is a gimmick.
http://aintnogod.com/ipb/uploads/albums/Photos_Used_in_Posts/Dir_2/807_blasphemy_thumbnail_jpg55d812f5e8a740571bd91643a952ce9f_extjpg
Quote from: SiL on Jul 13, 2011, 07:40:21 AM
Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated.
I simply can not agree. In my view (and I am perfectly capable of understanding that your view is different) using 3D is an
introduction of depth into the picture, therefore it is MOST comparable to
introduction of colour. And to me, adding depth does genuinely change how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres can be communicated just as much as shift from BW to colour.
Well stated Space Voyager.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 13, 2011, 07:40:21 AM
Found it pointless. And distracting, more than immersive -- things disappearing because they passed off the side of the frame becomes really incongruous when it's floating in mid-air three feet from the screen itself.
Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated. 3D is an embellishment -- if anything it's closest to Imax vs. regular screens. It's a nice touch, yes, but take it away and all you lose is a bit of "Ooh, aah" factor.
Completely agree. Spot-on, SiL.
I could care less about 3D either. It's just the larger size if the screen that's going to get me to the imax showing.
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 13, 2011, 11:44:36 AM
And to me, adding depth does genuinely change how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres can be communicated just as much as shift from BW to colour.
How.
No. Really. How.
3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography
already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D
can do is take something which
already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo, and you can watch IMAX on a ten-inch screen. You lose some of the
experience, but your ability to tell your story has in no way been affected.
3D is cosmetic because of how inherently limited it really is. It's an exaggerated
sense of depth, taking something we already have and making it a little more obvious. No real depth has been introduced. When they
can create
true depth, with images overlapping, where the audience can focus on objects they choose, where your position to the screen can actually affect the perspective of the image you're viewing,
then we'll have reached a truly revolutionary age in cinema.
Yeah...the whole 3D is important argument is a thin one. I saw Avatar twice in 2D and once in 3D and the latter experience was the worst and distracted me from everything else.
By the way....I dont know a single film that was inherently better because it was in color.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 14, 2011, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 13, 2011, 11:44:36 AM
And to me, adding depth does genuinely change how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres can be communicated just as much as shift from BW to colour.
How.
No. Really. How.
3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo, and you can watch IMAX on a ten-inch screen. You lose some of the experience, but your ability to tell your story has in no way been affected.
3D is cosmetic because of how inherently limited it really is. It's an exaggerated sense of depth, taking something we already have and making it a little more obvious. No real depth has been introduced. When they can create true depth, with images overlapping, where the audience can focus on objects they choose, where your position to the screen can actually affect the perspective of the image you're viewing, then we'll have reached a truly revolutionary age in cinema.
Agreed. The reason I back up 3D is because of what it can lead to. If they can create real depth and 3D was the stepping stone then it was all worth it.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Jul 14, 2011, 01:35:10 AM
By the way....I dont know a single film that was inherently better because it was in color.
Even if you could, I fail to see what it has to do with anything said. The argument isn't whether something's
better with these things, just if they allow one to do things differently. Colour does. 3D doesn't.
But I didnt think Promethius was even coming out in 3D. Why are we even having this conversation?
Quote from: Fujimaster on Jul 14, 2011, 10:28:19 AM
But I didnt think Promethius was even coming out in 3D. Why are we even having this conversation?
because wherever you've got your information from, it's wrong.
err... this website. Main Page posts. Ridley doesnt like 3D. I assumed nothing had changed, my bad if I have missed the update.
Quote from: Fujimaster on Jul 14, 2011, 10:45:03 AM
err... this website. Main Page posts. Ridley doesnt like 3D. I assumed nothing had changed, my bad if I have missed the update.
they have even gone into as much details as letting us know which cameras are being used, called RED epic... don't ask me for a reliable source, but it's been said like half a year ago and i've never heard ANYTHING stating the opposite. Scott supposedly was quite excited about avatar when he visited cameron at the set - that's probably where he got the idea from.
Quote from: azrael55 on Jul 14, 2011, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: Fujimaster on Jul 14, 2011, 10:45:03 AM
err... this website. Main Page posts. Ridley doesnt like 3D. I assumed nothing had changed, my bad if I have missed the update.
they have even gone into as much details as letting us know which cameras are being used, called RED epic... don't ask me for a reliable source, but it's been said like half a year ago and i've never heard ANYTHING stating the opposite. Scott supposedly was quite excited about avatar when he visited cameron at the set - that's probably where he got the idea from.
My cousin is a director for Vision3, a 3D consultancy firm in the UK. He indeed said they have spoken to Ridley about using 3D in what he referred to as the "alien prequel". He found this surprising as he didn't think Ridley would move over to 3D.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 14, 2011, 12:35:03 AM
No. Really. How.
3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo...
:o With all due respect Sil, and I do have it, but I guess you don't know how brain processes 3D. No photo can ever do what 3D imagery does. Simply because in 3D you see two photographs at once. In most cases it is not exactly at the same time but at a speed high enough for the brain to never notice the difference, as it is able to "smooth" the image just like it is able to fill the blind spot.
You can do all sorts of photography stunts and will never get a true 3D effect. So no, it can not be called enhancement.
In 3D movies each of the eyes is given a different picture and the brain combines it into REAL 3D. I wrote real because what you see in your everyday life is the exact same thing. Two photos at once, all the time. The base (distance between the shots being taken) dictates how noticeable the 3D effect will be.
Truth be told, movies definitely make the effect larger then reality as they want it to be noticed and if you overdo it it makes it look fake. Avatar IMO did not overdo it to that extreme.
I hope this explains HOW 3D is different from 2D. To me it is bery alike to the difference between B'n'W and colour. If you do not WANT to see the difference between 2D and 3D, I really don't care to pursue this discussion any further. It would be just like persuading a deeply religious person that there is no god.
Different doesn't equate better. Your argument has lost its merit.
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 16, 2011, 11:36:17 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 14, 2011, 12:35:03 AM
No. Really. How.
3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo...
:o With all due respect Sil, and I do have it, but I guess you don't know how brain processes 3D. No photo can ever do what 3D imagery does. Simply because in 3D you see two photographs at once. In most cases it is not exactly at the same time but at a speed high enough for the brain to never notice the difference, as it is able to "smooth" the image just like it is able to fill the blind spot.
You can do all sorts of photography stunts and will never get a true 3D effect. So no, it can not be called enhancement.
In 3D movies each of the eyes is given a different picture and the brain combines it into REAL 3D. I wrote real because what you see in your everyday life is the exact same thing. Two photos at once, all the time. The base (distance between the shots being taken) dictates how noticeable the 3D effect will be.
Truth be told, movies definitely make the effect larger then reality as they want it to be noticed and if you overdo it it makes it look fake. Avatar IMO did not overdo it to that extreme.
I hope this explains HOW 3D is different from 2D. To me it is bery alike to the difference between B'n'W and colour. If you do not WANT to see the difference between 2D and 3D, I really don't care to pursue this discussion any further. It would be just like persuading a deeply religious person that there is no god.
What about those pics and youtube vids where they have two images at slightly different angles and you cross your eyes to merge the images to get 3D, it really is cool. Search 3d in youtube and have a look a t some. Hurts your eyes after a while.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Jul 16, 2011, 12:31:02 PM
Different doesn't equate better. Your argument has lost its merit.
Better in this case is a matter of personal taste. If anyone finds 2D better I have absolutely nothing against it.
Prometheus is definitely being filmed in 3D, using the new RED EPIC cameras.
There's a few credits in the IMDB list that back this up:
* Dominic Rau .... 3D video assist operator
* Camadeus Film Technologies ... cmotion 3D lens control systems
I'm not sure what to make of 3D in general really. When I saw Avatar I was disappointed at how imperfect it was, considering all the hype by Cameron over the new technology. I like the idea of the technology, but I just don't think the way it is right now is worth using.
Personally I'd probably rather had Prometheus filmed on Anamorphic the old fashioned way, but hopefully Ridley can get some great visuals out of the digital cameras.
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 16, 2011, 11:36:17 AM
With all due respect Sil, and I do have it, but I guess you don't know how brain processes 3D.
I'm well aware of how it works.
But nothing in your post actually addresses my point, or even begins to :-\ The argument is
how it can change the way stories can be told.
The fact they've tricked your brain into processing a flat image in stereo to create depth perception is all well and good, but as I already addressed -- it's a
sense of depth. It isn't
actually there. You can't move through the image. Sitting to one side of the screen or the other will only affect the image when you leave its effective viewing range, not give you a wholly different perspective on the scene itself. You're still
entirely limited to what can be recorded and displayed in a two-dimensional image, even if you're using two images in a fancy way.
I say it's an enhancement because it is. And all your post did was explain how the enhancement works to people who already know, not how it can be used to tell stories in ways that
could not be done without it. :-\
Quote from: SiL on Jul 16, 2011, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: Space Voyager on Jul 16, 2011, 11:36:17 AM
With all due respect Sil, and I do have it, but I guess you don't know how brain processes 3D.
I'm well aware of how it works.
But nothing in your post actually addresses my point, or even begins to :-\ The argument is how it can change the way stories can be told.
The fact they've tricked your brain into processing a flat image in stereo to create depth perception is all well and good, but as I already addressed -- it's a sense of depth. It isn't actually there. You can't move through the image. Sitting to one side of the screen or the other will only affect the image when you leave its effective viewing range, not give you a wholly different perspective on the scene itself. You're still entirely limited to what can be recorded and displayed in a two-dimensional image, even if you're using two images in a fancy way.
I say it's an enhancement because it is. And all your post did was explain how the enhancement works to people who already know, not how it can be used to tell stories in ways that could not be done without it. :-\
Sorry SV but I have to agree with SiL. I fully support 3D and have since watching AVATAR, but it doesn't effect the story in any way.
I think what SiL (sorry mate not trying to put works in your mouth) is trying to say is that 3D cannot be included in the narritive the same way as colour can.
For example, in the Martix when Morpheus offers Neo the pills, he offers Red and Blue. If you watch the film in Black and White, you would not know which pill was which unless they used another method of showing which is which instead of colour cues.
You could never really have the narritive properly reference the 3D depth in a way that couldn't be done through cinematography. For example, you could have a character telling someone to grab the pill closest to them. Now the 3D might give two different perspectives of depth, but the outcome could be the same in 2D. When colour is referenced, it would have to be shot or told differently to achieve the same outcome in black and white.
It can never enhance a story (not in its present form) but thats not to say it can't enhance the experience. Sometimes things are allowed to just look pretty. People are always going to sit on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to what looks pretty though.
People sit on the other side of the fence. Period.
so yeah. Audrey II alien.
neato.
http://www.prometheus-movie.com/ (http://www.prometheus-movie.com/)
Quote from: Ghostface on Jul 17, 2011, 04:23:51 AM
It can never enhance a story (not in its present form) but thats not to say it can't enhance the experience.
That's it in a nutshell.
I'm not really opposed to 3D in general, but it's not the revolution people like Cameron have tried to make it out to be. It's an embellishment, nothing more, nothing less, just like Imax or 7.1 sound.
For now.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 16, 2011, 11:26:12 PMThe argument is how it can change the way stories can be told.
Ah, that I do agree with. As Ghostface posted, it enhances the experience (at least to some people, me included) and I'm perfectly happy with it.
If movies ever get to what you are suggesting, walking through the story, they better include a real toilette for movies like Alien. I'd need it. ;D
I'm still waiting till the day of proper VR when I can run around blastin' xeno. Until then, I'm happy watching space jockey's in 3D.
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Jul 17, 2011, 04:45:04 AM
so yeah. Audrey II alien.
neato.
Feed me Jockey,
Feed me all night looong...
this is a job for Spaghetti!
See it in 3D. There will be plenty of opportunities to see it in 2D later.