Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Clash of the titans Digital 3D issues

This is topic Clash of the titans Digital 3D issues in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000540

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 04-01-2010, 06:57 PM:

After from hearing from a friend who screened the 3D version of the movie he told me 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.

Apparently when he complained they said it was due to being filmed in 2D and the conversion was rushed.

I cannot believe this, THIS is the problem with D-cinema, the movies i've seen that were actually filmed in 3D were awesome, but when the film companies see that they can make more $$$ off the surchage and do this crap conversion at the last minute it makes me so angry.

Glad I work with cinema-art

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 04-01-2010, 08:40 PM:

Screened ours earlier today (RealD) and it gave me eye fatigue. This is the first 3D feature that I have watched that has done this. I did notice a lot of the problems you mentioned as well as how dark the picture was than normal. Unfortunately I don't have a 2D version to compare to.

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 04-01-2010, 09:14 PM:

I have to agree with you guys. I watched a bit of it last night, and it was ridiculously dark, and the 3D looked like shit at times.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-02-2010, 12:12 AM:

Blecchhh...3D by Dodgy Conversions Inc.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-02-2010, 12:27 AM:

...just one movie that should have stayed in the original 2D release....

Looks like "Dragon" is the clear winner for a 3D release this early spring.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 04-02-2010, 02:11 AM:

i have not had a good look at my digital copy yet , but the 1.9 letterboxed ratio looks crappy since i dont have top and bottom masking.

Why dont they just stick to 1.85 for flat and leave it there ?

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 04-02-2010, 07:40 AM:

Are you playing it in Flat Phil? I'm pretty sure it's meant to be played in Scope. Correct me if I'm so ridiculously wrong that I should be shot, but everything I've seen says it's scope, and it looks fine. I did notice the aspect ratio on the Qube saying 1.9, but we just assumed that was an error and played it in scope. Am I retarded?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-02-2010, 07:53 AM:

1.9 *IS* Scope for some people.

[Smile]

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 04-02-2010, 08:23 AM:

I'm a noob. Why do they do this?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-02-2010, 03:05 PM:

quote: Jeremy Weigel
Screened ours earlier today (RealD) and it gave me eye fatigue. This is the first 3D feature that I have watched that has done this. I did notice a lot of the problems you mentioned as well as how dark the picture was than normal. Unfortunately I don't have a 2D version to compare to.

Dude, Just switch your server to 2-D!

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 04-02-2010, 05:14 PM:

Yeah, I don't think WB would like that too much.

Posted by Matt Johnston (Member # 5457) on 04-02-2010, 06:08 PM:

quote: Manny Montes
After from hearing from a friend who screened the 3D version of the movie he told me 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.

Apparently when he complained they said it was due to being filmed in 2D and the conversion was rushed.

Check your PM's. [beer]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-02-2010, 07:58 PM:

1.9 is 1.896 is when rounded. 1.896 IS THE ratio of digital imagers. Both 2K and 4K. That is probably what they meant. It would be shorthand for saying "2048" as opposed to "1920".

The flaw being...I know of no 1.896 movies that use the ENTIRE imager at once. Scope being 2048 x 857 and Flat being 1998 x 1080.

Steve

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-02-2010, 08:01 PM:

Steve the real flaw is that D-Crapema is a huge cock-up.

How often do 35mm presentations have the major fuck-ups that keep happening in D-Crapema?

This industry will NEVER learn. [Mad]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-03-2010, 07:18 AM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
How often do 35mm presentations have the major fuck-ups that keep happening in D-Crapema?

Probably everyday.

The difference being that film based problems are, more often than not, people caused...digital based problems are, more often than not, equipment caused.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 04-03-2010, 12:02 PM:

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"

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-03-2010, 01:49 PM:

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]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-03-2010, 02:16 PM:

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

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 04-03-2010, 03:57 PM:

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.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 04-03-2010, 06:41 PM:

When greed becomes more improtant than product, the end is near.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-03-2010, 10:18 PM:

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.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 04-04-2010, 05:05 AM:

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.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-04-2010, 12:33 PM:

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.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 04-05-2010, 04:45 PM:

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"

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 04-05-2010, 05:43 PM:

Wear an eye patch underneath the glasses. That seems to work, plus you get the added benefit of looking like a pirate!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-05-2010, 06:04 PM:

This one's definately a 2D experience.

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 04-06-2010, 03:25 PM:

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.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 04-08-2010, 12:58 AM:

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...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2010, 10:18 AM:

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.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-08-2010, 10:38 AM:

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.