on 3D conversion vs 3D Shooting

[acroyear]

Blue Sky Disney: To Convert Or Not To Convert...:

In fact, it makes sense especially with the blockbusters that are using mo-cap or heavy fx, why would you want to shoot Optimus Prime or Yogi Bear twice by dual rendering? You have to shoot the left and than the right, instead you can just wait till the fx are done, hand the material over and then post convert it. Shooting a film in 3D is only right for the big boys, the studio tent poles, it costs over 30% more (sometimes up to 50%) to shoot a 3D show, where as converting is a fraction of that cost. And just because “Titans” and other hack job conversions are done, that doesn’t mean they should all be done that way. That is like judging “Batman and Robin” was a bad film, so nobody should see “The Dark Knight” because Batman sucks.

Don’t judge the conversion process by one, two or even five films, when the technology is so new and fresh. And that is the exciting thing about 3D, is we are on the cutting edge of technology. 3D gets us away from the music video Michael Bay like cinematography and makes us focus more on the classic style of film-making. 3D is a check and balances, because it makes the filmmaker focus on the frame and everything in it, makes them think before shooting –

I agree with the artistic conclusion: shooting in 3D does make one be more careful about what goes into a shot and thus it will inspire and drive a new generation of cinematographers to the fore in ways that under "MTV" style quickflash editing they were relegated out of shot.

On the other hand, I think he underestimates how clever computers can be.  Shooting real 3D with real cameras is tricky and expensive.  "Shooting" a CGI-rendered scene in 3D is trivial, once you've got the numbers right, and they've had the numbers right more or less since the 18th Century.  The animator only has to set where in 3D space the object is - the rendering system takes over and can give the left and right eye perspective with absolute consistency, and it is trivial to do.

Comments

[tomble.livejournal.com]

I would be quite interested to see a play, opera or live musical performance in 3D, shot from a single, static camera as if I were in a good seat at the concert myself.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Carmen 3D is coming out this spring. http://www.operatoday.com/content/2010/06/first_opera_in_.php

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

First, I think he needs to hedge his bet that 3D is the savior. While he claims that 3D is popular because of box office receipts, fact is that most of the showings of a new film are in 3D. I also question how much those people who bought 3D-capable TVs are actually using it for watching 3D movies.

Aside from that tho, I did see Green Hornet and I thought the conversion work they did on that film was decent. Some of the 3D effects would have been done in post anyways (There was a scene with multiple shots showing them mobilizeing that was enhanced with 3D effects.)

I'm sure there are going to be guidelines as far as shooting with 3D in mind. From my understanding, that was a problem with Clash, that it really was a poor subject for a conversion. Dark and with quick edits that doesn't let the eye adjust.

That being said, Hornet was the first live-action film that I saw that has been in 3D. The bulk have been animated films, where doing things in 3D is going to be easy.

BTW, I know that the Ghost In The Shell: SAC movie "Solid State Society" is getting the 3D treatment and is getting released to theaters. (It wasn't released theatrically the first time around.)

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

3D movies make more than 2D movies because there is a $3 surcharge on EVERY ticket. That does NOT mean they are more popular. That said, a fair number of theatres only show the 3D version so you can't even go to the 2D even if you prefer to (grumble, grumble, grumble).

My understanding is that 3D post treatment is Rather Expensive and pretty ugly if not done right. That is why HP 7.1 was going to be post-production 3D (since they hadn't done it 3D filming) then changed back to 2D to have a better movie.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

yes, the 3D process is expensive and yes there's an upcharge. Sterling (with 20 screens) has always had 2D and 3D side-by-side for any recent hits. I don't know that I'd say "ugly", but "wrong" comes to mind. And one problem with critical reviews is that if the 3D is bad, the whole film is chastised for it even if the film would otherwise be considered good. On the other hand, if the 3D is great, it could make up for what is otherwise a lousy film. That's why it's still a gimic.

it's kinda like irish dance - girls were making more and more elaborate costumes and hair styles to hide the fact that their dancing wasn't necessarily getting better, 'til some authority stepped in and standardized the whole thing.