on 3D conversion vs 3D Shooting
Jan. 26th, 2011 06:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearBlue Sky Disney: To Convert Or Not To Convert...:
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.
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.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.
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 –
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.
