Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Real 3D vs. Fake 3D

This is topic Real 3D vs. Fake 3D in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002420

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-06-2010, 07:26 PM:

I have nothing but the utmost respect for everyone here who said that Piranha 3D was great and wonderful 3D. I just WHOLLY disagree. Just about every shot had a mistake (and sometimes a glaring one) that stuck out for me.

I can't take it. I have yet to see a good example of fake 3D. What I have seen that was somewhat OK was Alice in Wonderland - which was largely CGI anyway. The live action backgrounds just looked like a flat background from a view master or some sort of rear projection thing. But then Clash of the Titans was all CGI too, and from what everyone said, that 3D looked like utter crap. Superman was somewhat OK too - but it was only certain shots in the movie - and how much of that was CGI? I don't remember really. Step Up, on the other hand, which was shot in 3D, everyone agreed that the 3D looked brilliant. Of course it did!

I don't know what Hollywood doesn't get. Movies being shot in 2D with the intention of converting it to 3D later?? Hey HOLLYWOOD - SAVE THE MONEY ON THE CG WORK, AND ALL OF THE ARTISTS, AND ALL OF THE SOFTWARE LICENSING, AND ALL OF THE HARDWARE, AND ALL OF THE TIME AND TROUBLE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND GET ANOTHER CAMERA AND SHOOT THE OTHER EYE!!!!

Damn it! Is it really THAT much cheaper to NOT shoot the right eye and try to create it artificially from scratch? It seems like an infinite amount of work to create it out of thin air, and a simple solution to just SHOOT the damn thing. What is so hard about this?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-06-2010, 07:34 PM:

"Reprocessed for stereo!" Louis

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-06-2010, 09:14 PM:

I feel your pain, Mark

I was not willing to admit I saw it but I have to agree with you how destructive "fake" 3-D can be and totally turn people off like the recent CATS & DOGS movie.I only saw it because I love both cats and dogs and have 3 felines. I did not get any advance heads up on this film informing me that this was another 2-D movie converted to 3-D. The entire movie was almost 2-D with only a slight sense of depth and I felt like kicking myself for paying four dollars more for this travesty.

When I saw PIRAHNA last week in 3-D, the theatre showed several live action movie trailers that will be shown in 3-D including ones for TRON, SAW 3-D, RESIDENT EVIL 3-D and Wes Craven latest film MY SOUL TO TAKE. With the exception, of TRON, I am sure all the other films will be 2-D films converted to 3-D and I will avoid seeing them.

-Claude

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-06-2010, 10:34 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Damn it! Is it really THAT much cheaper to NOT shoot the right eye and try to create it artificially from scratch? It seems like an infinite amount of work to create it out of thin air, and a simple solution to just SHOOT the damn thing. What is so hard about this?

I agree. With the sudden stampede toward the 3D love-in, I can forgive shows already shot and then transferring to 3D a-la Clash Of The Titans, but from a certain point in time onward, there is no excuse. Any movie started post say April of this year and still shot in 2D and converted should be avoided like the plague.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-06-2010, 11:22 PM:

The 3D people in Hollywood movie studios and electronics companies are trying as hard as they can to totally fuck up any opportunity they have in making 3D work. I mean it. These dipshits really need a severe beating about the head, neck and chest with some sledgehammers or at least some hard rubber mallets!
[Roll Eyes]

I don't know anything about the production process of "Piranha 3D." But the feedback I've read in various places clearly suggests this was yet another perverted, shameful, need to get one's ass kicked badly-worthy fake 2D to 3D conversion. Maybe there needs to be a meeting of the Geneva Convention or something discretely outlawing any and all fake ass 2D to 3D conversion nonsense. Or maybe the executives who suggested the 2D to 3D conversion need to be rounded up, bound and gagged, thrown into a pickup bed and then dumped off at some saloon parking lot in darkest East Texas or Far West Louisiana. Shove them out of the pickup bed to be delivered into one really serious ass beating.

I think it has already been clearly stated just how I feel about 2D to 3D conversions. That previous comment only illustrates the standing more clearly.

Likewise, the HDTV companies (and movie studios in cahoots with them) deserves an extreme amount of negative criticism over how they have handled the introduction of the Blu-ray 3D format. Seriously. No one could fuck up a situation any worse than these idiots, not even if they deliberately tried.

The vast majority of Blu-ray 3D movie titles now available on the market are only available as bundled items with specific 3D capable HDTV sets. The only way someone could have a complete collection of Blu-ray 3D movies currently available would be from buying multiple types of 3D capable HDTV sets. I really want to drop kick an electronics executive right square in the face over this sheer idiocy. There is absolutely no excuse for this nonsense. And these pricks wonder why electronics sales are a little slow right now?
[Mad]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-07-2010, 02:23 AM:

Resident Evil was shot using the same cameras that Camaren used on Avatar.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-07-2010, 05:17 AM:

It only costs $50 to buy the iphone/pad application to be able to correctly shoot 2 camera 3d. No need for headaches in the 21 century. Speedwedge designed the software and have premade camera rigs avaliable to match.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 09-07-2010, 06:49 AM:

Resident Evil and Saw is shot in real 3D

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-07-2010, 07:01 AM:

What about HARRY POTTER? The previous TWO had partial conversions to 3D. Tell me that the studio that gave us HOUSE OF WAX in 1953, which is one of the greatest 3D movies of all time, got their act together for HARRY POTTER after completely screwing CLASH OF THE TITANS.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-07-2010, 09:18 AM:

"Real 3 D versus fake 3D?? Isn't everything we project fake. I know. . .I know. . . I'm just playin'. Louis

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 09-08-2010, 11:55 AM:

Thanks for starting this thread - it needed to happen!

The thing that annoys me now is the phrase 'planned for 3D', as in: 'yes, this movie was shot in 2D and converted to 3D but it's better than other crappy 3D conversions because we 'planned' the shots for a 3D conversion before we shot it in 2D'.

Give me a break!

I have seen exactly ZERO evidence that so-called 'planned' 3D converted movies look any better or worse than 'unplanned' conversions, so this 'planned for 3D' crap is just so much nonsense to me.

It's like saying that my movie was planned for 70MM photography, but I actually shot it on video. But not to worry, it will be just as crisp as 70MM because, after all, the shots were all planned for 70MM.

This is the same level of absurdism to me.

And this is where my rant ties into Mark's: If you 'planned' it in 3D before you shot it, then why didn't you just shoot it in 3D?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-08-2010, 12:09 PM:

I fully agree with you, Michael [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by David Stone (Member # 4846) on 09-17-2010, 04:19 AM:

Hi,

Ha sanyone seen a Harry Potter 7 3D trailer ?

We can only get 2D trailers..Is there something WB doesn't want us to see,

Cheers,

David.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-17-2010, 10:46 AM:

I think the media is blowing the horn about the crappiness of conversions loud enough that the studios will start to back down on them. There's been too many situations where you have studio people saying "Most conversions are terrible, but OUR conversion was done much better, so our movie is great!" but then the movie still looks terrible.

Harry Potter is a huge question mark.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-17-2010, 03:43 PM:

That may be the understatement of the year. I would LOVE to see Harry Potter in IMAX 2D (probably multiple times), but I'm not planning to see it in IMAX 3D. I'll be seeing a decent 35mm presentation.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-18-2010, 09:27 AM:

I ended up taking my glasses off during PIRANHA 3D a number of times.

That opening title sequence set the tone -- it got the movie off on the wrong foot.