"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[DenonCI]

Remember, this is a Red Tagged trailer!

[Show spoiler]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Maybe it's just the angle?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Remember, this is a Red Tagged trailer!

[Show spoiler]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Maybe it's just the angle?

you'll note in that clip there's more than a slight allusion to her cinematic daughter from the famous trilogy.

Speaking of, RIP Kersh as well.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

It's news that Michael Bay is an idiotic p***k? How is that news on THIS forum of all places?

Because I’m looking forward to all the fanatical online experts in 2D -> 3D conversion processes identifying which scenes (albeit, probably a small %) in Transformers 3 were converted….
http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/20...medium=twitter

You would think that will be rather easy for them to readily differentiate, given past proclamations about conversions. When discussing dimensionalization of 2D -> 3D, perhaps these outspoken folks should not be so judgmental and pay a little bit more attention to the thoughts of a well-known filmmaker who many of them probably admire, namely Ridley Scott…..

“I’ve heard now that audiences object if it’s not purely 3D, if it’s 2D to 3D. I could show you 2D to 3D and you wouldn’t know the difference. But when they’re told it’s 2D to 3D they say, “F**k that, man! I’m paying another four dollars…” It’s about money, of course, but you’re still paying for the effect. Really, it’s very close. 2D to 3D is awfully close….from-

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45468

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Meanwhile, happy to see that work's finally proceeding on TAXI DRIVER...

The remastering consultant cinematographer Michael Chapman is in Poland today, enlightening and teaching young filmmakers his craft at The Panavision Group Seminar….
http://www.pluscamerimage.pl/index.p...085be5895d376d

As for the consultant Director, Marty S…..well, he’s working somewhere. Best to keep that a state secret to cut down on the swarms of celebrity photogs and paparazzi type people.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The remastering consultant cinematographer Michael Chapman is in Poland today, enlightening and teaching young filmmakers his craft at The Panavision Group Seminar….
http://www.pluscamerimage.pl/index.p...085be5895d376d

As for the consultant Director, Marty S…..well, he’s working somewhere. Best to keep that a state secret to cut down on the swarms of celebrity photogs and paparazzi type people.

why would they have a cinematographer's awards ceremony in Poland? It's not like there have ever been any good Eastern European Directors of Photography....

[Dennis M]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

why would they have a cinematographer's awards ceremony in Poland? It's not like there have ever been any good Eastern European Directors of Photography....

Shark, please tell me this is an attempt a humour, please....

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Dennis M

Shark, please tell me this is an attempt a humour, please....

Define "attempt"

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...

“I’ve heard now that audiences object if it’s not purely 3D, if it’s 2D to 3D. I could show you 2D to 3D and you wouldn’t know the difference. But when they’re told it’s 2D to 3D they say, “F**k that, man! I’m paying another four dollars…” It’s about money, of course, but you’re still paying for the effect. Really, it’s very close. 2D to 3D is awfully close….from-

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45468

Speaking of 3-D conversions, I saw the trailer for "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" this weekend, and the 3-D didn't "look right". It looked a little bit like a pop up book. I've never actually seen a 2D to 3D conversion before, my previous 3-D experience has been 3-D CGI movies, Pocahontas in Space, Hannah Montana Best of Both Worlds, and Jonas Brothers 3D with my daughter, and I don't know if this is an issue with the conversion process, or if the producers wanted it to look that way.

I'll probably still pay the extra $'s to see it in 3D.

[Penton-Man]

I haven’t seen it and I don’t know much about it.

I can tell you that there is more than one ‘shot in 3D’ Blu-ray out there which people think as being 100% native 3D (like AVATAR…http://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-dis...ml#post3810639)

but, actually, for one reason or another, contains some 2D -> 3D converted material intercut with the native 3D footage and which folks seem completely clueless to its presence, which you would think by all the anti-conversion sentiment online, should stick out like a sore thumb compared to the native 3D footage while viewing. Apparently not.

P.S.
Don't let your daughter see this as it may cost you even more money than your run-of-the-mill 3D theatrical outing...
http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/ent...011/111596.php

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I can tell you that there is more than one ‘shot in 3D’ Blu-ray out there which people think as being 100% native 3D (like AVATAR…http://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-dis...ml#post3810639)

I know you've mentioned Avatar a few times, do you actually know specific scenes that were converted? And, other than Jackass, I don't actually know of another live action 3D film that -didn't- use some form of 2D>3D

Just so I'm getting your argument correct, are you suggesting that there is no difference, or that the hyperbole of those complaining about a result (crappy 3D) and attributing it to a process (2D>3D) versus the quality of that process.

After all, this is an entire group taught to obsess about bitrates and competing lossless encodes, let's not forget.

Is an excellent 2D > 3D conversion, given the current set of tools (both post-production AND image capture) competitive to the best of the 3D live capture devices? And, if so, which, in your opinion is going to improve more (the cameras or the conversions), and, in turn, which will be the preferred tool set? Or, do you think we'll always use a combination of both in 3D production?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Define "attempt"

Thru the eyes of a Liverpool supporter?

Imagine: Lennon Sinks Liverpool!

http://sportspeak.eu/2010/11/28/imag...nks-liverpool/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I know you've mentioned Avatar a few times, do you actually know specific scenes that were converted? And, other than Jackass, I don't actually know of another live action 3D film that -didn't- use some form of 2D>3D

Just so I'm getting your argument correct, are you suggesting that there is no difference, or that the hyperbole of those complaining about a result (crappy 3D) and attributing it to a process (2D>3D) versus the quality of that process.

Shark, I echo the comments made by Vince Pace and Ridley Scott, which I linked a few posts back.

In essence, if you have enough money, time and talented people involved in the conversion process…the later two also being directly related to funding (MONEY), then, depending on the source material, you can get very darn 3D close to most native 3D principal photography.

So, certainly, the dimensionalization (conversion) process itself is not deserving of the bad rep it has received online both within forums and on blogger websites. I think this negativism all started with WB’s handling of Clash of the Titans and since then, it has been an uphill struggle for the 2D ->3D conversion folks to gain respect for their work. It appears to me, presently among the hobbyists and film fans, conversions have this *fake 3D* stigma attached to them, much like *fake grain* had to online grain gurus….at least, until the later found out that much of the vfx from feature films which they were loving every minute of, was comprised of artificial or *fake* grain during those sequences.

As far as the conversion scenes in AVATAR, I do know, but, it’s not my place to reveal. Perhaps if you ever interview Giovanni at an upcoming Toronto International Film Festival in the future, you can charm or pry that specific information out of him….
http://techland.com/2009/12/18/giova...t-3-d-convert/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Is an excellent 2D > 3D conversion, given the current set of tools (both post-production AND image capture) competitive to the best of the 3D live capture devices? And, if so, which, in your opinion is going to improve more (the cameras or the conversions), and, in turn, which will be the preferred tool set? Or, do you think we'll always use a combination of both in 3D production?

I’m bolding the word “best” because of the way you set-up your question to me.
The answer is….no.

For future yet-to-be-made motion pictures (I’m not talking redos of catalog/legacy titles), the direction is toward naïve, stereoscopic (i.e. ‘shot in 3D’) productions…unless you’re filming in really confined areas much of the time. I foresee the 2D -> 3D conversion processes to be most likely used only as a supplement to that basic native 3D principal photography. For example,

1. If your stereoscopic 3D footage has a lot of rapid cuts, like in action sequences, if you sparingly intercut some conservative dimensionalized 2D -> 3D conversion images between the native 3D footage edits, it will give the viewers’ eyes a breather.

2. 3D cameras can (and have) malfunctioned on the set thusly, one can only salvage the 2D imagery and you must convert that, and convert that very well, unless you want to reshoot the scene(s) - think big $$ - or just drop them altogether from the motion picture.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For future yet-to-be-made motion pictures (I’m not talking redos of catalog/legacy titles), the direction is toward naïve, stereoscopic (i.e. ‘shot in 3D’) productions…

I'm hereby outing you as a user of a smartphone with autocorrect, that must have intercepted "native" and decided (as per, I'm guessing, normal iPhone nonsense) a word better than the one you wanted.

Thanks for the thorough answers, much appreciated. Both of those latter points are ones I had not considered. I still suspect that we'll see a hybrid, where with the time pressures for =capturing= stereoscopic imagery in a flawless matter whiile on set are weighed against getting it perfect during the more contemplative process of post. Perhaps the future will be some crazy contraption that can capture live the 3D space with dozens of cameras, allowing for dialing in specific shots (be they closeups or wide shots, cranes or steadi-glides), along with specific 3D articulation, all from some central camera rig, with all decisions regarding composition done in post.

Hey, who knows...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think this negativism all started with WB’s handling of Clash of the Titans and since then, it has been an uphill struggle for the 2D ->3D conversion folks to gain respect for their work.

Well, it didn't help The Last Airbender had a crappy conversion too.

Raising theater prices, you name it. People feel ripped off.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, it didn't help The Last Airbender had a crappy conversion too.

That film certainly didn’t help the take on 2D -> 3D conversions and pertinent to the conversion process, exactly how much time was the conversion facility actually given to work with that material? About 3 months, more or less?

On the upside, at the opening, that Paramount logo with all the stars, sure was pretty darn impressive in 3D.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Raising theater prices, you name it. People feel ripped off.

Do people feel similarly ripped off with this home media 2D movie (on the right), given the prestige of the Trilogy and the milestone of its 25th Anniversary?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/4058215-post3558.html

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do people feel similarly ripped off with this home media 2D movie (on the right), given the prestige of the Trilogy and the milestone of its 25th Anniversary?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/4058215-post3558.html

...well, I haven't received my copy yet, but since I paid $24 on AZN during "Cyber Monday", no, I don't feel ripped off.

Let's turn the table, if we may - ==IF== the screenshots in that thread are in fact accurate to the film in motion (and you'll note the top frames, as least, are not identical times), then which do you feel provides a better overall image?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do people feel similarly ripped off with this home media 2D movie (on the right), given the prestige of the Trilogy and the milestone of its 25th Anniversary?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/4058215-post3558.html

Well, with all the moaning and groaning on AVS...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I'm hereby outing you as a user of a smartphone with autocorrect, that must have intercepted "native" and decided (as per, I'm guessing, normal iPhone nonsense) a word better than the one you wanted.

Thanks for the thorough answers, much appreciated. Both of those latter points are ones I had not considered. I still suspect that we'll see a hybrid, where with the time pressures for =capturing= stereoscopic imagery in a flawless matter whiile on set are weighed against getting it perfect during the more contemplative process of post...

Apparently, this is the post that has created all the controversy on the net in regards to Transformers: Dark of the Moon…
http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com...news&Itemid=71

For the sake of the advancement of 3D filmmaking, I hope that the above reporting about the alleged 3D post production difficulties is inaccurate. Although, fact of the matter is, you can’t shoot in 3D (successfully) like you can with 2D. Shaky cam, fast edits and zoom lenses (greater than say, 80mm., unless you’re very careful) don’t do well with 3D filmmaking. Vince Pace knows this and the real question is, did Michael B. follow Vince’s advice, or did he disregard it and shoot in his normal 2D style….figuring he could fix anything in post?

You see Shark, if you don’t shoot ‘good’ stereoscopic 3D, it can be very difficult to fix things in post and you may spend all of your time and money in post just to make a *reasonable* 3D end-product. If, on the other hand, you shoot good stereoscopic 3D in the first place, you can make excellent 3D in post.

B.T.W., by “post” here, I’m referring to stereoscopic 3D post, not the post process of 2D -> 3D conversions (dimensionalization).