Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Clash of the titans Digital 3D issues (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Clash of the titans Digital 3D issues
Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

- posted 04-03-2010 12:02 PM      Profile for Jim Cassedy   Email Jim Cassedy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Manny Montes
it had tons of problems including: Foreground images being shown in the background. Background images being shown in the foreground. 3D images appear layered as opposed to smooth.
Multiple times where the image loses all 3D effects and left/right eye images appear to be out of sync/alignment.
You have no idea how releived I am to read some of these comments.
The problems with "CLASH" are not limited to digital presentations.

I ran a test screening of "C-O-T" in the new Technicolor 3D system the other night and was appalled at what I saw, especially since I had I had just carefully set up the system
using the test loops and screened a T-Color demo film the day before and everything looked great.

I even went in early the morning after the test screening to double check the equipment to make sure I hadn't knocked something out of alignment. But I soon realized the problem was not with my system but with the source material.

The comments made by many here confrimed that.

I've seen some decent 2D-to-3D conversions, but this definately isn't one of them. It reminds me of when they were colorizing films about 30 years ago and sometimes to save money they would colorize only the foreground images but leave the background in black & white. There's a few scenes in "C-O-T" that look like they only partially 'dimensionalized' them, and some scenes look like they had no 3D imaging done at all. And in many scenes where they added the 3D effects, it was done badly.

Definately the worst 3D conversion I've ever seen.

One movie reviewer summed it up best by writing:
"The only thing 3D adds to this film is a headache"

 |  IP: Logged
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

- posted 04-03-2010 01:49 PM      Profile for Tony Bandiera Jr   Email Tony Bandiera Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
.....The difference being that film based problems are, more often than not, people caused...digital based problems are, more often than not, equipment caused.
Spot on. And guess which one is easier and less costly to correct? [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged
Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

- posted 04-03-2010 02:16 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As a person who love 3-D, I was very upset to learn how bad the the 2-D to 3-D conversion of THE CLASH OF THE TITANS turned out. Conversion from original 2-D to 3-D can be good if one plans for it and spend a lot of time on the project. such as Disney's A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. I was told the decision to release THE CLASH OF THE TITANS in 3-D was a last minute decision and Warners did the conversion in only a very short period of time. With the success of many previous 3-D films especially AVATAR, and ALICE IN WONDERLAND and the current HOW TO TERAIN A DRAGON", the process may have suffered a severe setback especially for those who saw a 3-D movie for the very first time with TCOTT. I also feel very sorry for exhibitors who had to make last minute decisions to add more 3-D screens at their facility to show two 3-D films that opened about the same time. I also feel sorry for those who passed on HOW TO TRAIN A DRAGON because they felt THE CLASH OF THE TITANS in 3-D would be more successful.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged
Jeremy Weigel
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1062
From: Edmond, OK, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

- posted 04-03-2010 03:57 PM      Profile for Jeremy Weigel   Email Jeremy Weigel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So far it seems, as usual, the general movie going public doesn't realize just how bad what they are viewing/hearing really is. I've not talked to anyone who was disappointed with the 3D and our attendance is quite strong so far.

 |  IP: Logged
Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 04-03-2010 06:41 PM      Profile for Bruce Hansen   Email Bruce Hansen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When greed becomes more improtant than product, the end is near.

 |  IP: Logged
David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

- posted 04-03-2010 10:18 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The first movie I saw in Real-D was "Monster House". The digital setup was brand new (at a Cinemark). The image polarity was reversed or something - You had to turn your glasses upside down to get the proper 3D. Nobody in the audience seemed to know any difference (Why should they? Presumably the 3D was installed by someone knowing what they were doing, so it must be right!). Anyway I informed management, got them to come in the theater with me, showed them the difference between glasses rightside up and upside down and they agreed with me. But they were prohibited from messing with the projector. In fairness the problem was corrected at a show a couple days later, but still.

Regal recently converted one of their two largest screens here to Real-D. "Clash 3D" is in that house now and selling out shows. I'm really tempted to go just to see what it looks like.

 |  IP: Logged
Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009

- posted 04-04-2010 05:05 AM      Profile for Elise Brandt   Email Elise Brandt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jeremy; thank you for that. Aside from what I Know is good and what is not, the main thing I worry about is the public coming to see the movie. If they're happy, cash flow continues. Let's face it, it's all about the money at this end. The 3D conversion can be all crap, I can live with that if the audience doesn't see the difference and leaves the heater going "wow that was cool".

We were getting a bit worried here, hearing all that's been said about COT.

 |  IP: Logged
Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

- posted 04-04-2010 12:33 PM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The first movie I saw in Real-D was "Monster House". The digital setup was brand new (at a Cinemark). The image polarity was reversed or something - You had to turn your glasses upside down to get the proper 3D. Nobody in the audience seemed to know any difference (Why should they? Presumably the 3D was installed by someone knowing what they were doing, so it must be right!). Anyway I informed management, got them to come in the theater with me, showed them the difference between glasses right-side up and upside down and they agreed with me. But they were prohibited from messing with the projector. In fairness the problem was corrected at a show a couple days later, but still.
That was just a simple matter of flipping a switch. On the original RealD Z screen system you had a phase switch on the back of the RealD control unit. On the RealD XL units the phase control is done in the projector settings.

 |  IP: Logged
Thomas Pitt
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: May 2007

- posted 04-05-2010 04:45 PM      Profile for Thomas Pitt   Email Thomas Pitt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I sure hope the 3D in Clash isn't going to make me feel too ill...

I have several old Real-D glasses lying around at home. Perhaps I could dismantle a couple of pairs and make one pair that sends the 'left eye' image to both eyes, so that I could watch in 2-D [Big Grin]

Given the choice though, and the fact that it was a rush conversion to 3-D, I'd perhaps opt for a 2-D showing... though I would prefer the crispness of digital projection to a wobbly, soft-projected film image...

Perhaps theaters should put a notice on the door saying "Clash of the Titans may cause motion sickness or nausea, due to the 3D effects"

 |  IP: Logged
Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008

- posted 04-05-2010 05:43 PM      Profile for Jonathan Althaus   Email Jonathan Althaus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wear an eye patch underneath the glasses. That seems to work, plus you get the added benefit of looking like a pirate!

 |  IP: Logged
John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 04-05-2010 06:04 PM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This one's definately a 2D experience.

 |  IP: Logged
Geena Phillips
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 198
From: Norcross, GA / USA
Registered: Apr 2006

- posted 04-06-2010 03:25 PM      Profile for Geena Phillips   Author's Homepage   Email Geena Phillips   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I screened the 2-D film of Clash last week, and I kept noticing that some of the CG compositing was terrible. At first, I was puzzled by this, as this film was a while in the making. Then, it occurred to me: The shots I was seeing problems with were the effects that were re-composited to lend themselves to 3-D conversion (which, as has been previously discussed, was done VERY last-minute). So, they compromised the look of even the 2-D film version to get their money-making gimmick in there.

BTW, our 3-D-loving roommate saw the 3-D version, and said the 3-D was awful.

 |  IP: Logged
Thomas Pitt
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: May 2007

- posted 04-08-2010 12:58 AM      Profile for Thomas Pitt   Email Thomas Pitt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw the 3D version and it wasn't that bad, though I did notice several oddities. For example, panning shots often had 'halo' effects around things in the foreground, and battle scenes seemed to have several distinct layers. There were even a couple of absurdities of perspective, e.g. a background tree appearing to pop out at you while the actor in the foreground was flat on the screen.

The CG stuff (such as the Kraken) can easily be re-rendered in 3D; it's just a question of placing an extra virtual camera inside the computer and rendering the other eye. The live-action stuff, on the other hand, is a different matter...

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 04-08-2010 10:18 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Conversion from original 2-D to 3-D can be good if one plans for it and spend a lot of time on the project.
The problem is no movie studio in existence is willing to spend the amount of time and money to do a 2D to 3D conversion properly. IMHO, they shouldn't bother. If a movie studio wants a movie to be produced in 3D they should make that decision BEFORE the movie goes into production.

To convert a 2D image into 3D every object in the scene has to be isolated and extracted out of the film/video frame onto its own floating layer. Then the object has to be manipulated further to have 3D volume. That's not easy, especially if you have visual objects that are difficult to extract (such as hair, water, ice, smoke, fire, vegetation, etc.). It's easy to burn through hours of time trying to mask any of that stuff in a regular photograph much less try to do so with a series of motion picture images.

Precise edge detail is also critical for a 2D/3D image conversion to come off well. You don't get that all the time with live action cinematography. Many scenes do not have deep depth of field. Often you have shallow depth of field with many objects in the foreground or background blurred out of focus. That adds another dimension of pain in the ass to people doing the 2D/3D conversion work.

Even when a movie is natively shot or animated in 3D, a good amount of trial and error is required to get the right balance of 3D so viewers don't get headaches or eye strain. It's not so easy to tweak a 2D/3D conversion.

quote: Jeremy Weigel
I've not talked to anyone who was disappointed with the 3D and our attendance is quite strong so far.
A lot of people don't like admitting they paid too much money for a crappy product. It's just like someone saying, "the movie was decent," when you ask him about a really bad movie he saw over the weekend. Some people are embarrassed to admit they wasted their money.

Unfortunately, the bean counters at Warner Bros. will take any box office success of Clash of the Titans as vindication for their slap-dash 2D/3D conversion job and use the same sorry method on future movie releases.

quote: Thomas Pitt
The CG stuff (such as the Kraken) can easily be re-rendered in 3D; it's just a question of placing an extra virtual camera inside the computer and rendering the other eye.
It's not that simple.

Effects/CG scenes or sequences can take weeks or even months to produce the final render in standard single camera 2D. That requires a lot of planning and also makes it necessary to job out certain effects sequences to different firms instead of keeping it all under one roof.

With all the CG work completed the finished render has to be composited with the live action elements. After that you have the usual finishing/color grading work. All of that stuff takes a good deal of time to do right. Many different parts of a movie will be at various stages of completion during the post production process. Some of the CG/effects work may be significantly under way before any of the live action footage is shot.

That kind of makes me wonder if Warner Bros. had the 2D/3D conversion produced after everything else was completed.

 |  IP: Logged
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 04-08-2010 10:38 AM      Profile for Hillary Charles   Email Hillary Charles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


quote: Jeremy Weigel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not talked to anyone who was disappointed with the 3D and our attendance is quite strong so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people don't like admitting they paid too much money for a crappy product. It's just like someone saying, "the movie was decent," when you ask him about a really bad movie he saw over the weekend. Some people are embarrassed to admit they wasted their money.
Absolutely. Plus many people don't know what they should be expecting. It reminds me of a story from Stereovision founder Chris Condon (about misframed over/under 3D):


I had seen this happen with "Friday the 13th Part III in a theater in North Carolina. I walked in in the middle of the picture, and here it is in reverse. It's running pseudostereoscopically, and 150 people in the audience were just sitting there watching the film with the 3-D turned inside out.
So I went up to the projection booth and I tried to tell the guy. And he says, "No, you're not allowed to be in here."
I said, "Look. My name is Chris Condon. I'm very experienced in this field. You've got it misframed. It's in reverse."
He said, "No, it looks fine to me."


So a projectionist and an entire audience couldn't tell that the 3D was wrong! Does anyone think people have really gotten more savvy since then? Maybe enough for that, but many will accept poor conversions and be mildly entertained by it, but may not be so enthusiaastic to pay extra for it next time.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.