| Author | Message | ||
     yuriythebest (Yuriythebest) Junior Member Username: Yuriythebest Post Number: 23 Registered: 2-2008 Rating: N/A |
"You are not sure if a 3D movie was shot in 3D or if it was converted from 2D? There is a new website with the info for some 100 movies up to now. Many film studios are trying to cash in on moviegoers' craving for 3D films. However, many studios are "faking it" by converting 2D films into 3D post-production. Worse, the studios are not being upfront in their advertising. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHaUm4lguro | ||
| Fronzel Neekburm (Fronzel) Advanced Member Username: Fronzel Post Number: 84 Registered: 7-2009 Rating: N/A |
Very interesting! However, from the lsit the only fake movie i have seen were "Alice in wonderland" . ALice was actually not bad to be honest. I did not know it was fake 3D until someone told me it was a conversion. Later i found out that "around 75%" were shot in 2D, i assume the rest was computer animation. Afterwards i think some scenes looked a bit too flat but in general i did not feel "scammed", for a conversion it was definitely "one of the better ones".´ If you compare with the trash of "Razor 3D" who ran some trashy public domain movies through some automated conversion program the "professional" conversions definitely rule. Why directors still decide to make a movie in 2D and then converting is stays a riddle to me though. I mean either i want it in 3D and if the cameraman starts whining i just kick him and tell to get lost. I do have 2D and 3D cameras and i don't find 3D that much of a challenge that i would be like "Okay we are too stupid to film it in 3D, lets fall back to 2D". Sure pro equip costs more in 3D and sure there are problems like with zooming that might be a bit different from 2D, but I'd say if you can't cope with it then you fail as a director or camera man. I am generally against conversions, for old movies maybe it adds a kick, but anyone filming in 2D in 2010 and converting it should be shot. | ||
| Tony Asch (Tone) Member Username: Tone Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
I think you underestimate the extra effort, skills, and expense required to shoot 3D vs 2D feature films, assuming you're interested in producing quality 3D. I've tried 2 stage and 3 stage model rockets and neither is very challenging, but I'd be the first to admit that I'm too stupid to launch a full scale Martian Rover. Try spending a few days on a feature film shoot (or post-production.) However, I think we're in agreement about shooting 2D and converting to 3D in 2010. Bad 3D releases poison the market for everyone in the 3D industry. Consumers have one or two miserable experiences in a 3D theater and never come back. VRtifacts.com | ||
| yuriythebest (Yuriythebest) Junior Member Username: Yuriythebest Post Number: 24 Registered: 2-2008 Rating: N/A |
Tony I don't underestimate the effort of manual 2d->3d conversions, where probably hundreds of people painstakingly do the frame by frame conversions. However it's still disingenuous to label a converted movie as "3D" as if it was shot in 3d. This lack of standard may (and is) flooding the market with converted films and as such actual 3d films are suffering. | ||
| Tony Asch (Tone) Member Username: Tone Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
Yuri - Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the effort required to shoot in 3D. I don't have as much experience with conversions. I agree that it is totally disingenuous to label a converted 2D->3D film as 3D, and I believe the market (consumers) will ultimately reject all 3D if this practice continues. VRtifacts.com | ||
| yuriythebest (Yuriythebest) Junior Member Username: Yuriythebest Post Number: 25 Registered: 2-2008 Rating: N/A |
Well, while I'm sure it's expensive to shoot in IMAX 3d quality I'm a student and somehow I can shoot and edit 3d videos and upload 3d videos to youtube roughly once a week so their excuse that it's Hard/expensive doesn't satisfy me - if it's too expensive they should find/make a cheaper 3d camera NOT spend $$$ on 2d->3d conversions | ||
| Tony Asch (Tone) Member Username: Tone Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
Yuri - I know you'll remain dissatisfied, but feature film production just isn't equivalent to work with the Minoru3D. The cost of 3D production isn't much affected by the price of the camera, but much more so by the extra work in pre-production, shooting, editing, compositing, etc., etc. Indeed, the excuse that building a private jet is hard/expensive doesn't satisfy me. "They" should find a way to make it cheaper so that I can have it to use all the time. The truth is: if you're not satisfied with something, don't rely on "them" to fix it, rely on "you" to make it happen. VRtifacts.com | ||
| yuriythebest (Yuriythebest) Junior Member Username: Yuriythebest Post Number: 26 Registered: 2-2008 Rating: N/A |
ok- I agree that there are high production costs to justify this, however 2d->3d conversions and "original 3d" should not be put in the same basket - my point is that consumers should be as aware as possible what it is they will be watching. | ||
| Rrrob (Rrrrob) Senior Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 211 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
anything is better than superliving 3d  | ||
| Fronzel Neekburm (Fronzel) Advanced Member Username: Fronzel Post Number: 85 Registered: 7-2009 Rating: N/A |
I think what the industry lacks is a "standard". Something like THX - only certified and tested theaters that grant a minimum sound quality gained the prestigeous plaque "THX Certified", unfortunately that came out of fashion as it DOES cost money to do that. Something similar would be required for 3D, a (non-profit?) organisation that has a distinguished "REAL 3D" or whatever logo that is copyrighted and will only be awarded if the movie fulfills some standards. But besides the fact that i don't see anyone in these forums opening up such a company and the lack of funding (It DOES cost money to "advertise" such a standard properly and gain some respect) would be obvious. But also the problem is that it would be hard to define such a standard. 3D animated material is hard to judge, but also not much of a problem as only an idiot would have problems making good stereoscopic material of a 3D animated scene. I just think of panasonics new "HD 3D camera" which - unlike their "pro" model for 20 grand - was barely more than a bad joke - one of their crappy 2D cameras fitted with a nu-view clone. My first idea was like "too bad nu-view didnt patent their crap". I mean come on, nu-view is not really "bad", but for obvious reasosn it effectively "halves" the horizontal resolution and its neither perfect nor new. When i saw that cam i really labeled this year the year of "3D scams". I cant even decide whats worse - labeling shutterglasses the "new 3D revolution of 2010" or selling a nu-view clone as "the latest 3D consumer camera". I can barely decide what is worse. And defining a 3D standard you'd have to deal with such stuff. I really can't see this happen any time soon, although I'd instantly pledge for such a standard. | ||
| yuriythebest (Yuriythebest) Junior Member Username: Yuriythebest Post Number: 27 Registered: 2-2008 Rating: N/A |
Fronzel Neekburm did you watch my videos? we basically agree. In my video I called the proposed standard "original 3d" and proposed that the nonprofit company to implement this be MTBS3D | ||
| Rrrob (Rrrrob) Senior Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 220 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
i finally checked out alice in wonderland...i was impressed, but then again, maybe i wasn't expecting much....the 'real world' stuff is fairly flat (maybe on purpose like they did with Coraline), but once she's in wonderland I thought the 3D was quite good. And it was the best movie Burton has done since Pee Wee's Big Adventure. It would be nice if they could convert other movies this well...classics like Wizard of Oz, etc., but of course those movies didn't have rendered backgrounds that could be regenerated in 3D, but who knows what the future may bring? |
