| Author | Message | ||
     Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) Junior Member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 23 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
I just went and saw Harry Potter last night with the last 20 minutes converted to 3D! It was very good. Has anyone else seen this? Dann | ||
| Scott Warren (Scott_warren) Junior Member Username: Scott_warren Post Number: 36 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
I saw it (Halifax IMAX). Unfortunately, I was way too close to the screen, so there were times where it didn't FUSE correctly (double image). Some parts are particularly good, some less so (it was, after all, converted from 2d after the fact). Still, very worth it! I really liked the hallway perspectives and the fore/mid/background clarity of the multiple characters. Scott | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) Junior Member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 25 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Yeah, I made sure to sit toward the back. I was trying to figure out what makes the IMAX 3D experience so much better than my home viewing system (field sequential) In the IMAX it really "pops off the screen." Is it just because it's so much bigger of a screen already, that there is more perceived depth? Well regardless, I loved it, but yes it is true that some shots were much better than others. Dann | ||
| Charles Arrants (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 49 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Dann: The amount of overall perceived depth in a stereoscopic image depends on several factors, including the width of the image and the viewer's distance from the screen. For maximum "in your face" effect, the screen must be wide enough so that fusing of the crossed left-eye and right-eye images results in fully crossed eyes. Your brain will then perceive the forward image as being suspended within inches of your face. Enlarging the image further won't move the location of the perceived object any closer to your face. However, a larger image usually means that you are sitting further away from the screen, and this increases the distance between the perceived object at your face and the background objects at or behind screen level -- so the overall depth effect is greater. Even a relatively small increase in image size and distance (for example, a projected 3-D image 6 feet wide, viewed at a distance of 8 feet or so) will produce dramatically greater depth effects than are possible on a standard size CRT monitor. | ||
| Peter Žiak (Hornet) Intermediate Member Username: Hornet Post Number: 70 Registered: 4-2006 Rating: N/A |
Hi, have tested Harry Potter (and other 2D movies) in pseudo 3D (playback with stereoscopic player - view scalled) with shutterglasses and projector, and with emagin Z 800 3D vizor. Both vere no bad, i think better than 2D. With this software is possible with Z800 3D viewing normally AVi, MPG, and other files from internet (the xxx files are no bad:-) in pseudo (pulfrich) 3D. I recomende this. | ||
| Michal Husak (Husakm) Intermediate Member Username: Husakm Post Number: 73 Registered: 4-2006  Rating: N/A |
I saw Harry Potter 3D in Prague IMAX as well ... The converison was not bad ... But generaly the character were looking like flat moving bilboards ... The CG generated background was O.K. ... This obesrvation makes me more sure 2D->3D converison can never work O.K. , the only way is true 3D shooting ... | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) Junior Member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 27 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Yeah, I noticed that too. I realized the reason for that is obviously, they just double the image of the Harry (or whatever character) because they don't have a true right eye view, so it's just a doubled flat image rather than a "true different perspective" of the chacter. Nonetheless, it was quite impressive for 2D-3D conversion. I've never seen the results of this process until this film. It was quite enjoyable. Dann (Message edited by stannmaple on July 20, 2007) | ||
| Marvio Santos (Marvio) New member Username: Marvio Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2006 Rating: N/A |
I have to disagree with the whole "flatness" of the 3D effect; Sure it was a conversion, but somebody took a lot of time and put a lot of love into it. I didn't notice any flatness, and I'm a little more then your casual viwer. But aside from the technical merits, what's really important, to me anyhow, is, did it make the movie any better? and like with Superman returns the answer would be a resounding YES!! The 3D sequence at the end conveys like no other format could the imidiacy of the situation and the danger they're in. absolutely outstanding!!! | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) Junior Member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 38 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Yeah. I definitely agree it made the movie even better (although I'm a little biased since I'm a big 3-D fan) I was hoping however, that they would make it 2-D until Harry opened the door at the end of the corridor, then have the frame and everything around it in 2-D and everything through the doorway in 3-D. That would have been so cool, since he had dreamed about the corridor so many times. It would even better indicated his dreams becoming a reality. Either way though, it was a great film and great 3-D. I didn't necessarily think it looked flat as in "cardboard-cutouts flat" it was just clear (if you're looking for it) that it was not a true stereoscopic view. It was artificially created. It was created very well though. Dann | ||
| Marvio Santos (Marvio) New member Username: Marvio Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2006 Rating: N/A |
Absolutely, like I said, it is a conversion, but an outstanding conversion!!  I really wish filmmakers would see the use of 3D, not for just the sake of it, but as a story telling tool. Can you even imagine that last scene without it? IT's almost like it was always meant to be that way. Same thing with Superman, in the begining when his remembering the past, it made me care much more about the carachter, because 3D made me feel I was living those memories with him, just the snense of closeness to the carcther, you know? |
