Use of Conversion in "Native" 3D Films - Blu-ray Forum

UFAlien · 10-26-2013, 11:18 PM

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?

10-26-2013, 11:18 PM	#1
UFAlien Blu-ray Guru Top contributor Member since:Oct 2008 4K collection:128 Blu-ray collection:475 Blu-ray reviews: 14 Trading Score:29	Use of Conversion in "Native" 3D Films 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?

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals