Men in Black 3 (2012) Blu-ray 3D [Region B Locked / Free]

[sookymonster]

Yet to watch it, though i have bought it. In the meantime I came across this interview with the director talking abut the 3D specifically and why he prefers the conversion process. Really interesting stuff -

Question: Why did you decide to switch from 3-D production to 3-D conversion?

Barry Sonnenfeld: We never actually started to shoot in native 3-D but we shot a lot of tests. I can go into great detail as to why converting is better and I'll give you some reasons. First of all, if you shoot in native 3-D, you have to shoot on video. You can't shoot on film. All of Rick Baker's aliens - when you go through the printing process to a release print on video - don't look as good on video. The latex starts to look more obvious. Film is a better medium. Although digital is getting better, I wanted to shoot on film. Second of all, I use very wide-angle lenses. In order to have what's called inter-ocular separation, the matte box on a 3-D camera is this wide. Because I use wide lenses, I said, "Will Smith hold the gun out. I'm going to push past the gun in 3-D and onto your face." I want to push past the gun to his face and here's the matte box. Boink! Now what do I do? Do I have him aim the gun like that so I can get past him. Or do I put the gun down? If you use long lenses, it's not a problem. If you use long-lenses, it is a problem. Another reason: Will Smith's ears are here and his nose is here. In native 3-D, his nose is here. His ears are back here. If you convert, you control the depth of everything, including faces. If I'm a portrait photographer and I want to make someone look handsome or beautiful, I use a long lens because that compresses [his or her] face. That's not my style. I'm a wide-angle guy. I don't want anyone to see Will Smith's face the way it really is like because his ears would be in Philadelphia and his nose would be here in Cancun. So by shooting 2-D and converting, I could actually control the depth of a face. When you see this movie in 3-D, you will say, "Oh my God, why would anyone shoot native 3-D?" It takes too long. There's no momentum in shooting comedy because it takes forever and the technicians don't have set savvy and are always coming to you. On the set after lunch, the technicians said, "You know everything we did this morning? We're going to have to reshoot it." I'm telling you, when you see this movie in 3-D, especially because I use wide lenses…The other thing is most 3-D movies put the convergence at the screen and all the 3-D depth is in the distance. Where's the joy in that? Why am I seeing a 3-D movie where in every over-the-shoulder shot, the person I want to look at is back there. Because of the wide lenses I use, they're actually in front of the screen and the audience, not as a gag, there's not like spears coming at you - the audience will feel they have never seen a 3-D movie like this. You literally feel like they are in the room with you. Do not shoot native 3-D unless there are a lot of explosions and a lot of glass. Then you shoot native 3-D because you don't want to rotoscope it. Other than that, native 3-D is better.
Here is the full interview with other stuff... -

http://www.girl.com.au/barry-sonnenf...-interview.htm