Conversions: Retro Fit vs Integrated

[Rickyrockard]

So I thought I'd start this thread as I believe there's quite a lot to be said on both sides of this discussion. There is no right or wrong. No better or worse but I believe there is a difference that should be acknowledged.

Conversions have now got to the point where, if done correctly with appropriate time and budget, can produce results very very close to, if not indistinguishable from, native 3D.

However, I believe (and I'm not alone in this thinking) that there are two types of conversions. Ones which inform the filmmaking process, that is to say that they affect many if not all other parts of film making (possibly including the script, if you follow the train of thought from the edit room backwards) and those which are simply applied after production has wrapped and no forethought has gone into the years of work before that point.

I agree that with the amount of CGI these days, production continues long after the actors have retired to their mansions and films sets have been dismantled. However, whilst there might be a small amount of decisions that 3D will affect at this stage, by-and-large because 3D wasn't part of the planning/storyboarding phase it's a case of the conversion company working with what they're given. Many directors and cinematographers have said as much.

The overall effect is of course subjective and very hard to explain in written words. It's also very hard to demonstrate because the only way you can do that would be to take the same script and ask a filmmaker to make the film for 2D, then ask them to make it for 3D. However, I'll attempt to give an (imperfect) example.

Here we have two 'person in space' action scenes. Both tense (although are obviously different movies in tone and for this particular scene in Gravity, is shot/rendered natively but that's beside the point). The main thing I'd like to draw your attention to is the number of cuts in Star Trek vs Gravity. In my opinion, 3D movies should have far fewer cuts than 2D - that's not to say that you can't have fast cuts, but that style doesn't naturally lend itself to 3D - if you were designing the film from scratch you'd naturally chose to cut less often in 3D.

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXhHEXqMKE

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DHE7VS7lyw

What does everyone else feel on this subject? Anything? Nothing?

(btw, yes, Retro Fit and Integrated 3D are terms I made up to summarise what I see/feel with these two type of movies)

[Rickyrockard]

In my opinion, when watching in 2D, I can tell if a movie is Integrated 3D.

[Rickyrockard]

Coincidentally, James Cameron kinda talks about it here:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/termi...eron-interview

[Suntory_Times]

Quick cuts can work in 3d just as they can in 2d. They usually don't in either format as the audience gets lost regarding what is happening. I don't like the notion of retro fir vs integrated. Why? Many 3d presentations that are amazing have little thought put into them during filming by the film makers (GITS). Whilst there are certainly features that tend to make for better 3d presentations, it mostly comes down to having enough depth (preferably pushing upper medium to strong as often as possible), along with things like smoother camera pans and framing that looks a little more pulled back then the current trend for how to shoot things (I could be biased on this last point though as that is my preference in 2d as well). What the indusrtry needs to do is stop putting out half backed mild 3d (like resident evil tfc and underworld blood wars) and consistently put out great stronger looking 3d like fantastic beasts and gotg2.

I understand what your getting at but I don't really think there is a distinguishing factor that accurately represents the quality we will get. I do wonder if James Cameron has seen films like Fantastic Beasts and where to find them and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in 3d. Both are conversions, and both i'd argue are better then his native 3d effort (which was also very good). The biggest factor to weather 3d is worth it or not for a film still usually comes down to the strength of the 3d.

[Rickyrockard]

Thanks Suntory. It's interesting that you mention Fantastic Beasts and Guardians as I'd suggest those are both Integrated 3D movies. Fantastic Beasts isn't a pure conversion, there is some native 'live action' shots plus CGI renders in there.

http://www.primefocusworld.com/fanta...-to-find-them/

GOTG2 I'm fairly certain was always planned as a 3D movie. He certainly "planned all the aspect ratio changes in the script stage".

Question: Do you really like seeing movies in 3D in theaters (or on 3D TV sets ?)

James Gunn: "Only when the 3D is strongly considered during the production of the film. If it’s slapped on haphazardly - which it is in most films - no."

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The biggest factor to weather 3d is worth it or not for a film still usually comes down to the strength of the 3d.

Fair enough. I'd argue that the 'strength' or amount of parallax is just one of many elements that make an effective 3D movie.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Fair enough. I'd argue that the 'strength' or amount of parallax is just one of many elements that make an effective 3D movie.

True enough, but it is the thing, that if there is not enough of everything else become moot in terms of the 3d presentation. It really doesn't matter how well framed and thought out the 3d is, if there simply is barely any there.

A better example of very good 3d (but certainly not as good as gotg2 or fantastic beasts) would be Ghost in the Shell. This 3d had no thought by the director put into it, but as it so happened it was of a huge benefit to the film. To the point that I genuinely thought it had been clearly made with 3d in mind (even though it wasn't). So would this be integrated even though it wasn't planned, or would it be a retro fit (as it wasn't planned, but the results look like it was). Studios more or less need to be more picky with what is converted, that's not to say that no film should be converted after the fact like this. But consideration needs to be given if it is going to result in a positive benefit to the viewer based on how it was shoot, and the budget you have for the conversion.

In general we just need to see a higher standard in 3d, we are almost there. But sadly we are still getting the tacked on mild experiences of films such as underworld blood wars. Even more medium experiences like wonder woman need to push the depth more into the upper medium/strong territory. What we need is more 3d like gotg2, where people will walk away with no doubt as to if it was worth it or not due to nice strong, well considered use of 3d. Also yes, the director of GOTG clearly put effort into making it work and impressively improved the 3d from the 1st to 2nd film. Now if he could shoot the 3rd film in strong native 3d, that'd be just amazing. I must applaud him for his work though, not only do his films have more heart then anything else marvel has done, but he did the work to make the 3d inescapably worth it.

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

True enough, but it is the thing, that if there is not enough of everything else become moot in terms of the 3d presentation. It really doesn't matter how well framed and thought out the 3d is, if there simply is barely any there.

I see what you're saying and agree to an extent...however, I'd rather leave the 'amount' of 3D down to the director and for it to change throughout the feature. I personally find strong 3D all the way through a presentation to be a bit like taking a 5.1 mix, flattening it to mono and then playing it through all 6 speakers at the same volume. You lose the dynamics and therefore the effect you are trying to achieve on the viewer.

I think I consider 3D differently. I don't think of 2D cinema as being flat. It isn't. Directors and cinematographers have been thinking in depth since the beginning - how do I compose the shot to accentuate the [or really, give the illusion of] depth.

Take this image from Fury Road for example. You're looking at it in 2D right now but you can't say that the image doesn't have depth. Your brain understands that Max and the car are near you and he's standing in a vast dessert. Not everything on the same Z-axis.



So for me, most directors already shoot movies with depth, which is why some Retro-fitted 3D movies work well - and I think the ones that work well are always worth seeing in 3D because they’re just more interesting to look at, for me. But with the light-loss from the glasses, and the "convergence/focus issue"I can see why for some people the payoff isn't enough.

The same is true for camera movement and editing. Some directors already have a style which plays to 3Ds strengths, accentuating depth and making less cuts to let you enjoy the beauty of, and understand, the image.

However...where I think Integrated 3D movies are different are that the 3D is built into the storytelling. That is to say that the director will make more choices to use depth as a way of showing the same event, because:

a) he/she has more options to shoot depth (because he/she isn't relying on traditional 2D cues to give the illusion of depth). Some 3D shots don't work in 2D - ones without depth cues.
b)depth looks better in 3D.

Also, he/she will tailor other aspects to suit 3D (the framing, camera movement and editing that I mentioned above) more often if they intend/expect their audience to watch it this way.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

A better example of very good 3d (but certainly not as good as gotg2 or fantastic beasts) would be Ghost in the Shell. This 3d had no thought by the director put into it, but as it so happened it was of a huge benefit to the film. So would this be integrated even though it wasn't planned, or would it be a retro fit (as it wasn't planned, but the results look like it was).

I’d think of this as being Retro-fitted 3D. I’m not saying that there’s no value to Retro-fitted 3D just that there is a difference worth defining between these and Integrated 3D movies.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Studios more or less need to be more picky with what is converted, that's not to say that no film should be converted after the fact like this. But consideration needs to be given if it is going to result in a positive benefit to the viewer based on how it was shoot, and the budget you have for the conversion.

Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

I see what you're saying and agree to an extent...however, I'd rather leave the 'amount' of 3D down to the director and for it to change throughout the feature. I personally find strong 3D all the way through a presentation to be a bit like taking a 5.1 mix, flattening it to mono and then playing it through all 6 speakers at the same volume. You lose the dynamics and therefore the effect you are trying to achieve on the viewer.

Ohh absolutely. They should have the decisison, my thoughts however is they far to often have pushed for there film in 3d to just look like there film in 2d. See the director of the recent two ape films. Even when shooting native he wanted them to look the same with next no depth.

This is where where we may disagree. If a director is going to only use mild depth they either need the most stunning cinematography to make the most of it to make the 3d worthwhile (which is going to be rare), or they should maybe stick to 2d if they aren't willing to mostly push to at least medium levels of depth. 2d is an entirely valid option that i'm okay with. I i'm not so okay with people being asked to pay a premium for something that I don't think is worth it (mild, poorly planned for, if at all planned for 3d). Examples this year a Underworld 5 and the latest Resident Evil (though this one had some layering that made it slightly better then underworld).

Put simply if your wondering throughout a film if it is even in 3d due to how mild it is, the 3d isn't of benefit to the film. I don't think there is a way to argue artistic intent with this (though some mild shoots do make sense, I mean more a consistent feature throughout an entire film).

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Take this image from Fury Road for example. You're looking at it in 2D right now but you can't say that the image doesn't have depth. Your brain understands that Max and the car are near you and he's standing in a vast dessert. Not everything on the same Z-axis.

Fury Road may not be a good example as it was shoot for 3d, they even tried to shoot it native but due to various issues opted for a conversion. It was still shoot for 3d. I do agree that in 2d imagery much of the style is often about creating the sense of depth where there is none.

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

However...where I think Integrated 3D movies are different are that the 3D is built into the storytelling. That is to say that the director will make more choices to use depth as a way of showing the same event, because:

a) he/she has more options to shoot depth (because he/she isn't relying on traditional 2D cues to give the illusion of depth). Some 3D shots don't work in 2D - ones without depth cues.
b)depth looks better in 3D.

Also, he/she will tailor other aspects to suit 3D (the framing, camera movement and editing that I mentioned above) more often if they intend/expect their audience to watch it this way.

I’d think of this as being Retro-fitted 3D. I’m not saying that there’s no value to Retro-fitted 3D just that there is a difference worth defining between these and Integrated 3D movies.

I think realistically even native 3d films take into consideration how it will look in 2d. Because they know beyond cinemas it will largely viewed that way. But I do mostly agree, I just don't know enough regarding how lens choices etc may affect the ability to do a quality 3d version of a film so don't want to be to specific. As I know what works well and adds to 3d, but I don't know in detail how to make that happen (beyond a simple notion that pushing depth more then film makers generally have recently is a must).

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

There's no functional difference at all except perhaps certain shots were planned to stick out or have more depth on purpose rather than simply using what is there naturally. My example of Terminator 2 was on purpose as it was never filmed with 3D in mind, but the conversion is excellent and the 3D works well. The quality of the 3D itself is dependent on the software and time put into it in both cases. Some have been poor (e.g. Piraña 3D) while others have been great (T2).

No functional difference in the sense that both 2D and 3D are a series of still images which create the illusion of movement. But IMO many of the decisions with regards to the cinematography are/can/could/should/would be different and that’s important.

Various aspects of film-making can be used differently to make viewing in 3D work better or accentuate the 3D. Such as:

Framing - 3D has limitations. There are certain shots which work just fine in 2D but should be avoided in 3D. Such as where objects are in negative parallax (popping out) and touch the sides of the screen.

3D doesn’t need 2D depth queues. 2D has always been 3 Dimensional, it’s just that 2D needs ‘depth cues’ to help your brain understand that the image has depth - such as a gun pointing at the screen - which aren’t required, but do look great in 3D. With 3D you could place a jumble of objects which in 2D would be hard to distinguish as being in their own 3D space.

Camera movement - fluid sweeping camera movements rather than static shots can showcase objects and space in 3 Dimensions. Handheld/shaky shots can be very unpleasant to view in 3D.

Lens length - a shorter lens brings the background into focus which accentuates the 3D experience. ie a clear fore, middle and background rather than something in the foreground and everything else blurred out.

Editing - quicker edits can be harder to watch in 3D. Longer shots generally work better for 3D.

Light - Lighting a scene to showcase the set or props’ dimensionality will look great in 3D. Camera aperture (which also affects depth) will define the look. Both of these aspects may look different if a cinematographer intends for his movie to be watched in 3D.

Also, regardless of the display tech used, 3D is at most half as bright as 2D on the same display (because each eye gets half of the brightness each). That compressed contrast ratio will inform how a cinematographer may address light.

[VonMagnum]

I think most of your complaints are overblown. The very nature of 3D and how it varies by viewer eye placement and subjectivity as well means even which movies all e considered good, poor, great or awful are also subjective. For instance, some think Blade Runner 2049 is terrible in 3D with weak to medium effects throughout (I'll agree it's no House of Magic), but to some of us it looks so much more natural than either exaggerated 3D or 2D. It even won an award for its 3D. But in a world where people can't even agree what shade of blue the sky is, you have to expect at least some disagreement. Some hat negative parallax while others live for it. Some hate 3D period and some cannot properly see the effect, if at all due to their eye spacing being different (Something similar happens with binaural sound when the dummy head's HRTF characteristics are too different from ones own head. That's why the PS5 will have multiple models to pick from for simulated binaural and eventually a way to measure your own head if none work for you.

Thus, a fundamental issue with 3D displays is revealed. The simulation is dependent on the distance between lenses (simulated or real). Real light is not like that. It works for everyone and exists in space. That means there's probably a better way to capture or emit the information, closer to a hologram, perhaps. The light itself needed to be three dimensional in nature. We only emit a flat image and then use a 2nd flat image to simulate a single snapshot of depth at on particular location (the camera and its "eyes"). I keep imagining a sensor that detects light passing through space as it exists in that space and an emitter recreates that light in direction and photon alignment (coherent light source likely needed). It wouldn't need "focus" as it wouldn't use lenses. It would emit directional wavefronts as they exist at a point in space and you the viewer could possibly view it anywhere you want (I'm picturing a spherical capture device and emitter or at least a half sphere for one direction only).

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

No functional difference in the sense that both 2D and 3D are a series of still images which create the illusion of movement. But IMO many of the decisions with regards to the cinematography are/can/could/should/would be different and that’s important.

Various aspects of film-making can be used differently to make viewing in 3D work better or accentuate the 3D. Such as:

Framing - 3D has limitations. There are certain shots which work just fine in 2D but should be avoided in 3D. Such as where objects are in negative parallax (popping out) and touch the sides of the screen.

3D doesn’t need 2D depth queues. 2D has always been 3 Dimensional, it’s just that 2D needs ‘depth cues’ to help your brain understand that the image has depth - such as a gun pointing at the screen - which aren’t required, but do look great in 3D. With 3D you could place a jumble of objects which in 2D would be hard to distinguish as being in their own 3D space.

Camera movement - fluid sweeping camera movements rather than static shots can showcase objects and space in 3 Dimensions. Handheld/shaky shots can be very unpleasant to view in 3D.

Lens length - a shorter lens brings the background into focus which accentuates the 3D experience. ie a clear fore, middle and background rather than something in the foreground and everything else blurred out.

Editing - quicker edits can be harder to watch in 3D. Longer shots generally work better for 3D.

Light - Lighting a scene to showcase the set or props’ dimensionality will look great in 3D. Camera aperture (which also affects depth) will define the look. Both of these aspects may look different if a cinematographer intends for his movie to be watched in 3D.

Also, regardless of the display tech used, 3D is at most half as bright as 2D on the same display (because each eye gets half of the brightness each). That compressed contrast ratio will inform how a cinematographer may address light.

I understand what you’re getting at, but unfortunately in the real world this doesn’t pan out.

Take the last Resident Evil movie. It was clearly made while knowing that there would be a 3D conversion, and by a director who is more familiar with 3D movie making than most.

Yet, the end result is filled with many of the issues that you list for Retro fit vs integrated.

To me, you are splitting hairs and ignoring the big picture: how was the 3d experience in the movie without letting the history behind the 3D cloud your judgement? In the end, a million technical variables just boil down to that.