Quote:
Originally Posted by Objectivity
On a side note, I have a general question about movies shot for conversion. Many, like Thor, seem to be shot like a typical film, with 3D added to give depth ("Look, I can visualize the space between the actors). While others, Like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One, seem to have been shot with the intention of having the 3D "pop" in conversion.
I know that conversion wasn't done (yet) but to me the 3D aesthetic was still visible. There was a noticeable amount of "actor in foreground with something also of interest in the distant background, but still somewhat in focus" composition of many shots. Since that wasn't the case for previous films in the series by the same director, I'm assuming the choice to covert played a role in that process.
My question (  ) is whether that discussion is taking place with many 3D conversion movies (even if you can't talk about HP7 directly) and if so, do you expect a style shift to take place in the near future, with those kinds of choices visually branding the films of this era in a way similar to the way you can often identify films of the 70s and other eras based on the film stock and shooting/editing styles. |
Well, I think there has already been a “style shift” since when 3D motion pictures first arrived on the scene at your local Multiplex…..specifically, they have gotten more conservative, meaning exhibiting less negative parallax (*in yo face*) in filmmakers’ response to being more ‘gentle’ to audiences’ depth sensibilities because 3D is so new to most viewers accustomed to watching movies, sports broadcasts, etc. in 2D for years.
Be that as it may, I think that “this era” as you term it, will be more remembered, retrospectively, not so much by the current aesthetics of the 3D format, but more by/about the technical challenges of getting everything *right*. By that I mean, doing good high quality 3D without inducing eye discomfort and distractions related to cardboard cut-out effect, poor depth blending, lack of good character roundness, retinal rivalry or polarization issues.
For the record, I am more of a ‘camera guy’ than a ‘computer guy’ but as far as ‘conversions’ go, (and I’m talking about future yet to be shot motion pictures, rather than converting old classics like Titanic, etc.) I believe that as 3D rigs get smaller and lighter and filmmakers achieve true expertise in the 3D format over the course of time, conversions will be limited to select scenes rather than entire motion pictures. Just like right now with some 2D motion pictures consisting of
hybrid acquisition…i.e. using both film and digital cameras to capture scenes. That’s not to say that converted scenes are inherently *inferior* to native 3D capture, as it is really not as simplistic as that. Select ‘converted’ scenes can be an excellent tool.
For instance, ‘2D -> 3D conversion’ will allow one
more control over the final image as compared to native stereoscopic imaging. What I mean is that in post, you can take elements of one shot, and, at the cut, carry over these elements, like pieces of flying debris such as glass, etc. – to the next shot. In that way, there’s a sense of continuity of 3D space that you wouldn’t have naturally if one is solely restricted to native 3D cinematography for a motion picture.
Also, for example, during a native 3D production there are practical considerations which can be subsequently solved with 2D -> 3D conversion in post. What I mean is that, 3D looks BEST when short focal length lenses are used (50 mm. or less); however, for close-up scenes with actors, this sometimes necessitates the actor being extremely close to the mirror box which produces issues with lighting and performance and also wider lenses make actors’ faces appear unnatural, so these scenes also would be prime candidates for conversion.
I foresee select use of ‘conversions’ being just another tool in the filmmakers’ arsenal to tell/show a
better looking story
, despite the online simplistic negativistic reputation they have garnered to date.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
on such things (reviewer vs. reviewer), might I make a scientific post….as they seem always to have an effect similar to that of taking a cold shower. Firstly, to determine such things accurately, I would encourage folks who have not had their displays calibrated, to pop in one of the latest SPHE discs (such as The Mechanic) and peruse the complementary test signals which are helpful in showing when signal processing is turned on somewhere along your display chain (which you may be unaware of) and which can ultimately harm otherwise great pictures.
Linear Mode
