Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: James Cameron: 3D conversion best for classic films

This is topic James Cameron: 3D conversion best for classic films 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=002439

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 11-05-2010, 09:20 AM:

From BBC NEWS:

Full Artical

---------------------------------------------------
James Cameron: 3D conversion best for classic films

James Cameron has taken a swipe at studios who add 3D to films in post-production, saying that 3D retro-fitting should only be used for classic movies like Jaws or ET.

The Avatar director said it had been a "mistake" to attempt to add 3D to the latest Harry Potter film, the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

And he predicted that the practice of adding 3D to movies in post-production would end with the widespread take-up of 3D by TV broadcasters.

Speaking at the Blu-Con event in Beverly Hills, Cameron repeated his assertion that studios should not attempt to "shoehorn" 3D conversion - after the film has been shot - into the normal post-production time frame.

"I maintain you can't do a good conversion of a two-hour movie with high quality in a few weeks like they tried to do with Clash of the Titans.

"I don't mean to throw that movie under the bus because my buddy Sam [Worthington, star of Avatar] is in it, but I think everybody realised that this was a point at which people had gone too far."

Cameron added: "You see another stumble with the most recent Harry Potter movie from the same studio making the same mistake - except really getting spanked for it now because they didn't get the film done.

"They announced it in 3D - threw a bunch of money trying to convert it to 3D in post-production and it simply didn't work. They just didn't get it done."

3D ET

Last month, Warner Bros said it could not complete the 3D conversion of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 in time for its 19 November UK and US release date.

Warner Bros said it did not want to keep fans waiting for the film.

Cameron said: "My personal philosophy is that post conversion should be used for one thing and one thing only - which is to take library titles that are favourites that are proven, and convert them into 3D - whether it's Jaws or ET or Indiana Jones, Close Encounters... or Titanic.

"Unless you have a time machine to go back and shoot it in 3D, you have no other choice. The best alternative is if you want to release a movie in 3D - make it in 3D."

At the end of October, it was announced that the first sequel to blockbuster hit Avatar will be released in December 2014 with a second to follow 12 months later.

Avatar holds the record for the highest-grossing film ever, having earned some $2.77 billion (£1.76 billion) at the global box office. A "special edition" 2D Blu-ray version of Avatar is set for release in November, with a 3D Blu-ray release in the pipeline.

Cameron predicted that the days of 3D conversion in movies were numbered.

"The thing that's going to be the coffin nail for conversion is when the broadcasters start broadcasting thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours a year in 3D.

"If you've got 5,000 cameras doing live sports feeding in over many different network delivery systems, it's going to be pretty hard for Hollywood producers to claim that 3D is just too complicated to make a movie in 3D, when it's being done every day by people a lot less talented and a lot less well-funded."

The director also said that glasses-free 3D would be a reality within a decade.

"Once we get to auto-stereoscopic, that's watching 3-D without glasses, it is going to be the way we watch all of our media. That's probably eight to 10 years away."
-------------------------------------

So let me get this absolutely clear, he hates 3D conversion on new titles but would be perfectly happy to go and ruin classics like Jaws and ET??

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-05-2010, 10:28 AM:

James Cameron, the Ted Turner of our times.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-05-2010, 10:48 AM:

He doesn't see it as ruining it -- and I don't take it to mean that he personally wants to see those movies in 3-D -- he's using them as examples of movies that:

(a) already exist in 2-D and
(b) would have a built-in audience, given their popularity

FWIW, I don't think 3-D conversion automatically "ruins" a movie. For example, I think Disney exercised a lot of restraint with NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. Did 3-D improve the movie? No. Did it ruin the movie? I didn't think so.

I wouldn't mind seeing 3-D classics re-released in digital 3-D...

CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and/or REVENGE OF THE CREATURE
JAWS 3-D
CAPTAIN E/O

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-05-2010, 02:02 PM:

Michael, there seems to be some glitches with your copy/paste from the article. I've made the corrections below for you.

quote:
Last month, Warner Bros said it could not complete the 3D conversion of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 in time for its 19 November UK and US release date.

Warner Bros said it did not want to wait any longer for their money and saw this as a unique opportunity to milk the movie for even more money by doing a delayed release in 3D before the final Potter movie opens next spring.

quote:
Cameron said: "My personal philosophy is that post conversion should be used for one thing and one thing only - which is to take movies either Spielberg or myself have made, and convert them into 3D - whether it's Jaws or ET or Indiana Jones, Close Encounters... or Titanic.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-05-2010, 03:04 PM:

There should be absolutely no reason to change a classic movie to 3D.

Cameron really should re-think the idea to modify Titanic.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 11-05-2010, 03:34 PM:

Mr. Cameron seems to have forgotten that three of his four 3D films (Ghosts of the Abyss, Aliens of the Deep, Avatar) had scenes that were shot in 2D and then converted to a stereographic image in post.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-05-2010, 04:23 PM:

He's referring to "rush jobs" that are done without proper planning beforehand. In that case I agree with him....it shouldn't be done.

As for 3-D'ing old classics? I can't imagine how it would improve anything.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2010, 11:41 PM:

While I detest 2D to 3D conversions, I think a movie studio can do the artificial 3D thing to a catalog or classic movie. However, I think it is extremely important to preserve the original 2D version of the movie and keep it available.

The special edition stunts like those pulled by George Lucas to make the original version of Star Wars unavailable is just wrong. It may be his movie, but it's also an important part of movie history. By making the original 1977 cut unavailable he is effectively removing a piece of film history. That's wrong.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-06-2010, 02:14 PM:

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
Mr. Cameron seems to have forgotten that three of his four 3D films (Ghosts of the Abyss, Aliens of the Deep, Avatar) had scenes that were shot in 2D and then converted to a stereographic image in post.

Do you have a link or anything that would show this to be true? Why would he deviate from shooting with his 3-D cameras and use 2-D cameras on certain scenes of Avatar?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 11:17 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
Do you have a link or anything that would show this to be true? Why would he deviate from shooting with his 3-D cameras and use 2-D cameras on certain scenes of Avatar?

You make a good point. I doubt Avatar was ever 2D and then converted. The others, I am not familiar with.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-09-2010, 04:54 AM:

I know Ted Turner has been vilified for many years for his foray into the "colorizing" of many of the films in his library when he owned the MGM titles. BUT, he never colorized FILM....he only colorized video, and let's face it, if people were watching his colorized VHS tapes and thinking they were seeing our film history the way the filmmaker indended, they might as well have been wading around up to their eyeballs in a cespool.

Yes, Turner made lots of money selling rights to broadcast/cable outlets and from retail tape sales. The thing that most people overlook is the fact that with those profits, he quietly went about striking new 35mm film prints of many of the bigger MGM titles in that library -- he WAS preserving film history and giving more people the chance to see the filmmaker's ACTUAL historic work.

That colorization process got art houses new film prints; we would have been running battered old warehouse prints if he didn't go about using the colorization process and its profits for film restoration. No one in the arthouse end of exhibition thinks coloriztion was bad at all; as far was we were concerned, he could colorize as many VHS tapes as he wanted. It meant that we were able to book those titles with spanking new 35mm film prints and show them on a big screen in a MOVIE THEATRE [thumbsup]

Ted Turner, our hero; James Cameron, looking to 3D-ize TITANIC....not so much.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-23-2010, 02:02 PM:

Avatar was 3D well done and let me just tell you that the visuals actually look eye poppingly brighter in 2D on a good big hidef tv. TV 3D is useless to me because i multitask at home and 3D glasses get in the way. Plus what if I have guests and people are walking in and out of the room wanting to check out a few scenes ? Do they have to keep putting on and removing the 3D glasses? TV cant even do 2D right with the amount of compression used.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-23-2010, 03:24 PM:

Rules of thumb in my house -- if we are watching a MOVIE, we watch the movie -- we don't TALK, we certainly don't WALK IN AND OUT, and we keep the lights at a low, this-is-not-walking-around light level. If anyone isn't cool with that, they go to their rooms. If guests come over, they know me well and they know that we either socialize or we watch a movie. Never EVER the two at the same time. Simple rules and they work. They also significantly reduce the number of visitors to only the most tolerant and best of our friends. [thumbsup]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-23-2010, 09:57 PM:

When you watch a few movies a week at home like I do, it is tough to treat each movie as an experience. Most movies are not worth my undivided attention.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-24-2010, 12:03 AM:

quote:
Avatar was 3D well done and let me just tell you that the visuals actually look eye poppingly brighter in 2D on a good big hidef tv. TV 3D is useless to me because i multitask at home and 3D glasses get in the way. Plus what if I have guests and people are walking in and out of the room wanting to check out a few scenes ? Do they have to keep putting on and removing the 3D glasses? TV cant even do 2D right with the amount of compression us

I have seen parts of Avatar on 3D in the home. It looks outstanding!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-24-2010, 01:56 AM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Most movies are not worth my undivided attention.

Do what everyone else does when there is a crappy movie playing, pull out your cell phone and start texting! [Razz]

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-24-2010, 03:24 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
James Cameron, the Ted Turner of our times.

Well Joe, if you did a little research, you would know that a lot of that had to do with extending copyright on classic films, so it was actually a pretty clever move.

I've been afraid several times trying to buy classic B&W movies on VHS/DVD (moreso with former) and seeing a colorized box! Fortunately, most of the time it is false advertising and the movie is unscathed.

So if you have a bunch of idiots that will actually buy a B&W movie with a color box, but not a B&W movie with a B&W box, which approach is foolish?

quote:
I have seen parts of Avatar on 3D in the home. It looks outstanding!

While I agree with you that classic movie history shouldn't be "rewritten" in 3D, you seem to be very pro digital and pro 3D. Do you not care about the fact that 3D movies throw out half of the SPATIAL resolution for mostly redundant stereo pairs?

I've even seen you say that Tech 3D sucks. Care to give a reason why your home set is better than a 35mm print other than the new car smell and the wow factor?

Not trying to pick a fight, just would like to see you back what you say up with reasons WHY you like 3D TV and RealD, and that they are better than alternatives.

I've not seen 3D television, but almost everything I have heard about it is unimpressive. Small screens and the need to exaggerate the stereo effect had something to do with it. . .

Overall, I think 3D conversions and colorization of movies are just fine. . . for home viewing because you can simply turn them off. You can desaturate a color movie and watch a 3D movie in 2D.

So there aren't to the same level of lobotomy as scrapping all the original effects and matte paintings in a classic film and telling the craftsmen and artists who labored for years on them to "FUCK OFF."

Lucas at least left some of the good stuff in (I like how he didn't' touch any of the space battle footage in ROTJ because they did work as good with 100 pieces of composited 35mm film as they can do today with an acre of supercomputers). But whoever "improved" the original "Star Trek" totally butchered all the fine effects by the Howard Anderson company and Vandervere Optical, even the beautiful matte paintings in "The Menagerie."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2010, 04:02 PM:

3DTV is fairly unimpressive so far. Too much flicky flick. 120Hz is too slow.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-24-2010, 05:10 PM:

That second quote isn't Joe I'm responding to, it's what Tom said.

Joe: Do you really think 3DTV is going to catch on? I think 3D is rapidly going for another quarter-century hibernation period. . .

It'll probably hold on with cartoons, since the 3D installations really aren't going anywhere.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-24-2010, 07:03 PM:

I think the movie theaters should just stop charging the 3D surcharge, and maybe just raise prices in general by 50 cents a ticket, and put up signs saying that 50 cents of every ticket sold goes to a "projection equipment upgrade fund."