3D Conversions of movies shot in 2D

[Canada]

To me there is a disturbing trend in 3D now both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek into Darkness are both 3D conversions. 3 years after Avatar, directors should make up there minds whether they want to do a 3D film or not, the other side to that coin is the director wanted to make a 2D film but the studios wanted to make more money so they post converted the film to 3D. To me 3 years after Avatar we should only see new native 3D films, 3D conversions of older film or 2D films that's it!

[AmrlKJaneway]

Some are getting okay results. And in the case of Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel, Wrath of the Titans and I'm sure a few others, it allows the director to use film if that is how they prefer to work. And in the case of Star Trek, IMAX film!

But yeah, native films look a lot better. They're often going for that "this is what 3D can ADD to a film" angle, whereas a decent conversion is just nice to look at whilst you enjoy a plot that doesn't really benefit from 3D.

There's a couple scenes in Iron Man that use 3D well. I'm not a huge fan of conversions though either. But it's like a best of both worlds situation for directors and studios.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Canada

To me there is a disturbing trend in 3D now both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek into Darkness are both 3D conversions. 3 years after Avatar, directors should make up there minds whether they want to do a 3D film or not, the other side to that coin is the director wanted to make a 2D film but the studios wanted to make more money so they post converted the film to 3D. To me 3 years after Avatar we should only see new native 3D films, 3D conversions of older film or 2D films that's it!

The truth of the matter is that even movies that are shot native 3D still require post-conversion.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

The truth of the matter is that even movies that are shot native 3D still require post-conversion.

They do? That's news to me.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Canada

They do? That's news to me.

http://www.postmagazine.com/Publicat...x#.UYX6NbXvuSo

[Mikeatron85]

I was totally with you on this, but to be honest, I'm seeing far more impressive results from conversions lately than I am from native 3D productions.

In comparison to Oz, I felt Jurassic Park and Iron Man both looked far better in the format. I'll reserve final call until I see Oz and Iron Man at home, but that's my first reaction.

Will be seeing Star Trek tomorrow so can add that into the mix after then

[tigermoth]

Conversions are ok but the picture quality and dimension are no where near as good as native 3D done properly. Unfortunately the quality of native 3D titles has been lacking with exception dreamworks animation titles.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

The truth of the matter is that even movies that are shot native 3D still require post-conversion.

Yes, but only to fix sequences where the camera crew screwed up or sequences that couldn't be filmed with a 3D rig for technical reasons. For a film with a savy director, a large budget, and an experienced camera crew, that's a miniscule amount, compared to the majority of the movie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Canada

To me there is a disturbing trend in 3D now both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek into Darkness are both 3D conversions. 3 years after Avatar, directors should make up there minds whether they want to do a 3D film or not, the other side to that coin is the director wanted to make a 2D film but the studios wanted to make more money so they post converted the film to 3D. To me 3 years after Avatar we should only see new native 3D films, 3D conversions of older film or 2D films that's it!

+1. Films shot entirely in 2D should not exist in 3D, period. I am tired of people trying to justify this as if it's actually a good thing.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

+1. Films shot entirely in 2D should not exist in 3D, period. I am tired of people trying to justify this as if it's actually a good thing.

I added color to Metropolis, dubbed in dialogue, re-filmed the lost scenes and converted it to 3D. I'll send you a copy. You'll love it!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

I added color to Metropolis, dubbed in dialogue, re-filmed the lost scenes and converted it to 3D. I'll send you a copy. You'll love it!

I always need additional targets.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I always need additional targets.

Hah! You rock!

[Canada]

I just saw Star Trek Edge of Darkness 10/10
3D the must have spent along time on the 3D transfer 10/10

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

+1. Films shot entirely in 2D should not exist in 3D, period. I am tired of people trying to justify this as if it's actually a good thing.

There are many people, including me, that disagree with you. Anybody who has seen Titanic 3D will surely disagree with you.

[ahmedreda]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

+1. Films shot entirely in 2D should not exist in 3D, period. I am tired of people trying to justify this as if it's actually a good thing.

It can't be too much of bad thing when those who don't like conversions can continue to watch the movies in 2d.. I have enjoyed jurassic park and titanic in 3d and I probably wouldn't have rewatched them if it wasn't for the 3d.

[Deciazulado]

The OP requested the move because he meant it better for here. Since they're conversions, they are technically 2D movies' electronically rechanneled Stereo

[mar3o]

As a few have mentioned, some conversions now look better than many natively-shot films. This is because the company behind the conversions of Titanic and Jurassic Park know good 3D - they know what to do to make a scene work in 3 dimensions. Many filmmakers have no clue what to do with a 3D camera once they get their hands on one. It takes more than just the equipment - it takes a knowledge of how to shoot with it and use it to its maximum effect.

Many filmmakers that shoot in native 3D are afraid to push the stereo window - meaning they don't want anything going too far back in the distance, and they don't want anything really coming out of the screen either - leaving many 3D productions looking weak. They're afraid of alienating audiences with "too much" depth, so they play the safe route and make their 3D films with little actual depth. I read an article last year about this. Read it here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...aste-of-money/

It's called "Why 3D movies are a waste of money", but it's not saying 3D sucks, it's saying that the way they're currently making 3D movies sucks. From the article:

"The problem: studios have been too conservative, and have been reluctant to go too deep with the 3D, resulting in a 3D movie that doesn't satisfy anyone...They tend to be conservative partly because they fear that audience members will complain about discomfort"

Go watch "Creature from the Black Lagoon" or "House of Wax" in 3D and then you'll get an idea of how amazing 3D films used to look back in the 50's. They weren't afraid to use depth. Many 80's 3D films were also well done in terms of its use of 3D. There are sadly not too many 3D movies that have impressed me too much that I've seen theatrically recently. "My Bloody Valentine" was actually quite good, and of course Avatar and Hugo, and some animated films like Polar Express and A Christmas Carol. But too many films hold back. The new Tron is a great example of a disappointing 3D presentation - I wasn't at all impressed with the depth. Prometheus is another example - weak. Sure the 3D was comfortable, but it was weak, with very little effort put into filming with 3D in mind.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by mar3o

As a few have mentioned, some conversions now look better than many natively-shot films. This is because the company behind the conversions of Titanic and Jurassic Park know good 3D - they know what to do to make a scene work in 3 dimensions. Many filmmakers have no clue what to do with a 3D camera once they get their hands on one. It takes more than just the equipment - it takes a knowledge of how to shoot with it and use it to its maximum effect.

Many filmmakers that shoot in native 3D are afraid to push the stereo window - meaning they don't want anything going too far back in the distance, and they don't want anything really coming out of the screen either - leaving many 3D productions looking weak. They're afraid of alienating audiences with "too much" depth, so they play the safe route and make their 3D films with little actual depth. I read an article last year about this. Read it here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...aste-of-money/

It's called "Why 3D movies are a waste of money", but it's not saying 3D sucks, it's saying that the way they're currently making 3D movies sucks. From the article:

"The problem: studios have been too conservative, and have been reluctant to go too deep with the 3D, resulting in a 3D movie that doesn't satisfy anyone...They tend to be conservative partly because they fear that audience members will complain about discomfort"

Go watch "Creature from the Black Lagoon" or "House of Wax" in 3D and then you'll get an idea of how amazing 3D films used to look back in the 50's. They weren't afraid to use depth. Many 80's 3D films were also well done in terms of its use of 3D. There are sadly not too many 3D movies that have impressed me too much that I've seen theatrically recently. "My Bloody Valentine" was actually quite good, and of course Avatar and Hugo, and some animated films like Polar Express and A Christmas Carol. But too many films hold back. The new Tron is a great example of a disappointing 3D presentation - I wasn't at all impressed with the depth. Prometheus is another example - weak. Sure the 3D was comfortable, but it was weak, with very little effort put into filming with 3D in mind.

What a fantastic post! Nobody seems to want to look at it from that perspective.

I should add that I've noticed a gradual increase in "3D aggressiveness" over the last 2 years (with conversions anyways), and I think they are gradually tempering out senses for "deeper" application of the technique.

[Deciazulado]

Before this gets into a 3D celebrity deathmatch, maybe some filmmakers prefer a natural depth and some prefer a stylistically created depth (similar to on audio recordings natural stereo image with minimalistic michrophone technique vs multichannel panpotted surreal stereo a la old 60's beatle recordings ) and some viewers prefer one over another too.

Also, most movies are watched on theater screens a 2X the field of view (middle of the theater) than they are at home (where most people watch BDs as if they were sitting the last row of the theater) so this changes the depth perception (On theatrical fields of view they would look deeper)

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The OP requested the move because he meant it better for here. Since they're conversions, they are technically 2D movies' electronically rechanneled Stereo

Why not the Movies section, then? 3D is available around the world, not just in North America.