Use of Conversion in "Native" 3D Films

[UFAlien]

It's not really a secret anymore that a lot of 3D movies touted or generally thought of as "native" use conversion for at least some shots or scenes. Even Avatar is noted for using it in 40-50 shots. There's not exactly a "line in the sand" drawn as an actual, agreed-upon limit to how much conversion can be used in a film that's called "native", which can be a bit frustrating from time to time.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is still considered native in many circles even though it's plain from even the tiniest amount of research that around half, at least, was converted. The claims by the filmmakers and the conversion companies - primarily Legend3D - were that no one would be able to tell the difference. The conversion was generally pretty good, and that was probably true for most general audiences, but it's still not perfect or seamless work.

It's still a pretty good example, though - in contrast, a decent number of films that are mostly native with a small number of converted shots have atrocious conversion work. I noticed this issue prominently in Bait, Dredd, Flying Swords of Dragon Gate, and Apartment 1303. It's as if someone figured "we already shot most of this in native 3D so no one will care if we just rush through the converted bits and don't really try", but the rest of it being native just makes it that much more obvious and distracting...

Also, I feel sometimes more conversion really ought to be used. I have plenty of problems with Silent Hill: Revelation, but the 3D is, for the most part, not one of them. That said, there are some shots or scenes with fairly bad retinal rivalry - mismatched colors or exposure between eyes, lenses a bit out of alignment, in the worst shot bands of light running through the frame in only one eye - which in a bigger-budget, more polished production could have been fixed by taking the better of the two images and doing a straight conversion. As far as I can tell, the only conversion used in that film was for one flashback scene to the first movie, which actually turned out rather well (for some reason, perhaps financial, there are additional flashbacks which use footage from the previous movie that were simply left flat).

What are some other people's thoughts on the subject? How much conversion, to you, is too much for a movie to be called "native"? Have you noticed any jarring, obviously-converted moments in "native" films? Felt any movie should have used it more?

[BleedOrange11]

Cool topic.

I feel comfortable calling a movie "native" 3D if around 50% of it is shot or CGI-rendered in 3D, especially if it is obvious that the director is trying to use it to tell the story.

There are some particularly flat scenes in The Amazing Spider-Man that could probably be made better with conversion. Much of A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas looked absurdly flat to me. There was also a messed up, almost completely flat sequence in Dial M for Murder.

The conversion of the old film footage at the beginning of The Great Gatsby was a little jarring but still kind of interesting due to the novelty factor. I thought the converted sequences of Georges Méliès film in Hugo looked much better.

[Rickyrockard]

Spot on. I hate the Real vs Fake debate - it's a way for people to categorise how they should feel about the cinematography of a film before they see it.

Sometimes fake 3D can look great and real 3D can look terrible and often people couldn't tell you which parts of films were which without researching. Especially on CG heavy movies.

Essentially there's no hard and fast rule, it's all subjective. But of course you can't go into a movie theatre without taking something with you that prejudges what you're about to see. If anything I would say it's more to do with whether there was an on-set stereographer/the shots were designed with 3D in mind. That's what gets me excited to see a 3D film.

[Suntory_Times]

The problem with conversions as opposed to native is the cost associated with conversions. They are far more expensive and the 3d is far more likely to be tacked on as opposed to when the film is made in native 3d. Layering within oibjects still remains a problem that few whole conversions have escaped having notable issues with.

A film to me is native if it is primarily shoot for and in 3d. If it is a mix where a significant portion of the film is converted (like Dark of the Moon) it is a hybrid native/conversion and of course if it is all converted it is conversion. I really think films that are entirely converted and the film maker has no interest/not been involved with the conversion should not be released in 3d.

One of the big problems 3d is facing is the number of horrible and unnecessary 3d presentations people have paid a premium for and ultimately had an inferior experience (this started with Clash of the Titans and then was compounded by Airbender and Narnia 3). This year has been a step in the right direction with even the tacked on 3d films (Godzilla) being at least competently handled and a far larger number of film makers being actively involved with the conversion process for converted films (with many being shoot for 3d in 2d, which whilst not perfect is better then it simply being added on by the studio so they can charge more for a ticket). Sadly the number of native films doesn't seem to be growing.

From the consumer perspective it would be easy to say you shouldn't care if it is native or converted as long as it is done well and to a point I understand this point of view. However the cost of conversions is just to limiting on what films can be made for 3d and that is a limitation I don't particularly think is healthy for the format. I don't want just big spectacle films in 3d, I want to see it whenever the film makers wish to use it. Be it in a drama, an action film, a musical etc and with a low or high budget.

[Suntory_Times]

^ I can't think of a single converted film that matches the best of native.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ I can't think of a single converted film that matches the best of native.

Please (re)watch Titanic 3D.

[Rickyrockard]

@tigermoth said "they just aren't quite there yet ... where they can match native"

Titanic in 3D can never match say Avatar in terms of the stereoscopy because it was never intended to be in 3D. There will always be things (camera movement, framing etc) that a director would do differently to take advantage/be mindful of 3D if that's how he/she is intending the film to be seen.

It might look convincing and be more immersive than it's original 2D format....and you might not be able to tell the difference between a converted and a native shot, but it's the director's intentions that separate 'made for 3d' vs 'made for 2d'. 'Made for 3D' (native or converted) will always be better than a 'made for 2D' conversion.

Not that I have anything against converting old 2D films - just don't expect it to push the envelope on 3D.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by notops

Please (re)watch Titanic 3D.

I have seen it many times and it looks great, but I agree with Cameron whilst it can come very close it can't get the whole way their. Maybe some day it will, but currently it simply isn't as good.

The best conversions do look better then poor, average and good native, but I have not seen one that comes close to native at its best (Hugo, Life of Pi, HTTYD2).

[UFAlien]

Well this thread has been necroed AND gone completely off topic in the space of two days after no posts for over a year...

[Geoff D]

I agree with your original topic though UFA, people still seem to think that every native movie simply puts the original camera record as-is on the screen, when that's far from the truth as post-production sweetening and outright conversion of material happens all the time on native 3D shows. But the bias and snobbery against converted material will persist until 3D's dying day, sadly.

[Rickyrockard]

OK sorry, back to your original questions:

Originally Posted by UFAlien

What are some other people's thoughts on the subject?

That "Native" is used as a marketing tool to sell 3D after the era of bad conversions. People boycotting the stereoscopic version of a movie because it isn't "native" is as ridiculous to me as saying "I'll turn the sound off for any film that uses ADR because the audio wasn't captured on set".

This is nonsense to me:

http://realorfake3d.com

Whereas this is more interesting:

http://3defence.blogspot.co.uk

Originally Posted by UFAlien

How much conversion, to you, is too much for a movie to be called "native"?

I hold no stock in the term Native so it doesn't matter to me. I'm more interested in whether the film was designed for 3D or designed for 2D.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Have you noticed any jarring, obviously-converted moments in "native" films?

I saw Transformers 3 and I remember one bit where Shia Lebuf was flying through the air like a cardboard cut out. In Dredd the bits that jarred with me were the Slo-mo. Were the the converted bits? If so, yes, they dropped the ball.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Felt any movie should have used it more?

I can't say I've noticed but I'll bear it in mind the next time I see a film shot with 3D cameras.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

That "Native" is used as a marketing tool to sell 3D after the era of bad conversions. People boycotting the stereoscopic version of a movie because it isn't "native" is as ridiculous to me as saying "I'll turn the sound off for any film that uses ADR because the audio wasn't captured on set".

I understand what you are saying, but that is a false equivalency if ever their was one. No matter how good the conversion it can never be better then what native is capable of. ADR can be better.

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I understand what you are saying, but that is a false equivalency if ever their was one. No matter how good the conversion it can never be better then what native is capable of. ADR can be better.

Sorry the context of that statement wasn't about the quality of the stereoscopic image produced but was more about people who disregard conversions or hybrids from a "purists" stand-point.

I tend to agree with Céline Tricart's, Chris Parks's and John Harper's responses here to the Native v Converted question. You can hear from the horses mouth that their concern is less to do with image quality and more about the director's approach to how the shots are composed:

"CT: The real debate is elsewhere. I don't care if it's native 3D or conversion, if the 3D is considered as a filmmaking tool and used properly in accordance to the story, then I'm in. I believe in the future of hybrid movies, part of it being shot natively, part of it converted depending on what's easier / has a better quality / is cheaper. I generally prefer native 3D because it means having 3D monitors on set and that gives the creative crew the opportunity to learn this new medium and use it in a better way. "

"CP: They are both very useful tools that together allow you to achieve creatively what is impossible with just one or the other. Native 3D will give you the best results, but only if you shoot the film in a way that is designed to achieve what you want to in 3D as well as 2D. If, as a director, you just want to shoot your film as you would if it was just going to be in 2D, then most of the time you would achieve a better end result by converting some or all of it. If you have a lot of VFX, then the results from converting those fully CG shots can be as good as rendering them in stereo.

The other thing that conversion allows you to do, is to distort space. When I am doing a conversion project, I am not trying to recreate what the scene would look like if it had been shot with a native rig. I am trying to create a native aesthetic but I am changing the spacial relationships, the volumes of characters and objects to give a better result than if they had been shot natively. A hybrid solution where the decision to go native or conversion on each shot or sequence is made from a creative standpoint rather than for logistical reasons would allow the stereographer to craft the most rewarding experience for the audience."

"JH: In Native, 3D is composed and create live on set. With the help of 3D screens, the director and DP are put into direct involvement with the dimensional aspects of the scene. Creative and technical decision can be dealt with on set and later refined if needed in post. This to me is a key advantage in shooting native. The director is choreographing many different elements during a scene (action, lighting, 3D, camera movement, etc.) being able to see how all the elements interact within the scene has strong advantages. In Conversion, a larger portion of the 3D decisions can be left till post production. It gives the director a few less things to think about but in my experience often leads to the 3D considerations of the project being overlooked as the shoot progresses.

The effectiveness of using 3D in the story telling is that it needs to be kept in mind during the shooting process. Using the 3D as a tool to enhance immersion and composition through out the narrative. This being true for both native and post dimensionalized projects. Using it as an after thought (as we have seen from the response of audiences in the past) has drawn a lot of criticism and rightly so. Another point about the conversion process is that the edit and VFX must be locked earlier, to provide ample time for decent 3D conversion. This cuts down the amount of time the director has to refine the story line and VFX to tweak their work. Both technologies have their definite advantages and continue to improve. The competitive nature of native versus conversion breeds positive advancements in both technologies. The last show I participated on was a hybrid (80% native, 20% conversion). The Director Bryan Singer and DP Newton Thomas Sigel ASC used both technologies to their distinct advantages (eg. 3D rig could not fit into the cockpit of the aircraft), the shot was post dimensionalized. I see this as a highly effective way (creatively and economically) to facilitate 3D in production. To ignore either technology reduces the ability to use the right tool to get the shot the director envisions."

Chris talks more about the experience of being a stereographer, shooting in 2D:

If you have worked with 3D conversions as a stereographer adviser on set, how are the general interactions with the cinematographer and director as opposed to a native 3D production?

CP: The big difference is that on set you are talking in very abstract terms when working in 2D. There is no way to show how doing something will affect the 3D. You can suggest that changing the camera position, or lens or lighting etc will give better 3D – but better for whom? Maybe what I as stereographer think will be better actually takes it further away from what the director wants, but with no way to view it the discussion becomes much less precise. I try to counter that with conversations and screenings prior to shooting – looking at a selection of 3D material and gauging what the director lights. From that I can get a feel for what would work to support the film that they are doing. I will then suggest an approach for the 3D and we will refine it as much or as little as they want to. From that point, if we are on set, I can say relate comments to what we have discussed and what I know they want - ‘If you want the feel that we talked about then you need to stay wider’ for example. They can then decide whether in this case they do want that feel, or whether going tighter actually gives them what they are looking for."