Men in Black 3 (2012) Blu-ray 3D [Region B Locked / Free] - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

sookymonster · 09-25-2012, 10:45 PM

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

Lovemy3D · 09-26-2012, 01:42 AM

Sounds like a load of BS to me.

sookymonster · 09-26-2012, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

Sounds like a load of BS to me.

....could be!

ps. Does a good jod trying to justify things though!

sookymonster · 09-26-2012, 11:49 AM

More coolstuff on the rendering of the image for blu-ray and how the print differs from country to country. Fascinating stuff really-

Sonnenfeld cheers 3D conversion

June 1, 2012 By Scott Hettrick 4 Comments

“Men in Black 3” director Barry Sonnenfeld says James Cameron’s looking-through-a-window-into-a-world approach to the use of 3D makes sense because, “that is exactly the definition of Jim Cameron.

‘If it were up to Jim, he would live seven miles underwater in the Mariana trench – it’s about living underwater and viewing the world through a window,” Sonnenfeld said.
“In my case, I don’t even swim.”

Barry Sonnenfeld second from right.

Sonnenfeld, who chose to shoot “MiB3” on film and convert it from 2D-to-3D during post-production with the help of L.A.-based digital 3D and visual effects studio Prime Focus World and stereographer Corey Turner, prefers using 3D as a tool and a character in the movie to invite the audience into each scene. For instance, in a simple dialogue-driven scene in a diner, the images of actors Will Smith and James Brolin are both in front of the screen.
Something appears to be in front of the screen in more than two-thirds of the scenes of “MiB3,” according to Sonnenfeld.
“I don’t understand why you would shoot a 3D movie and push it behind the screen and keep the audience out of the movie,” he said. “ ‘Avatar’ and ‘Hugo’ are beautiful 3D movies but most of the scenes are at the screen or behind it. Sometimes it feels like you’re observing rather than participating.”

In fact, with many inferior 3D movies and poor theatrical exhibition in some cases – “The only thing that can kill 3D is exhibitors, if they project it at lower brightness or have a projector out of sync, prompting the customer to never go back to pay extra for 3D again.” — Sonnenfeld thinks TV may be what keeps 3D going, particularly because the transmitted light of TV screens makes the image much brighter even with dark glasses.

In the meantime, in Sonnenfeld’s preferred medium of film, he was so pleased with the Prime Focus conversion job on “MiB3” that he is ready to produce 3D conversions of the original “Men in Black” and “MiB2,” if “MiB3” plays well enough in China where the first two films never opened theatrically. Sonnenfeld already has high praise for Sony Pictures Entertainment and Columbia TriStar Motion Picture marketing and distribution chairman Jeff Blake for allowing him to make two different 3D theatrical masters for “MiB3,” one to play in countries like the USA where more than 70% of screens use the RealD 3D projection/silver screen system with more reflective light when viewed straight on with passive 3D glasses, but which is darker from the sides. The other master is being used in most other countries where the XpanD active shutter glasses 3D system is more prevalent and features roughly the same brightness no matter the viewers’ position.

The “MiB3” Blu-ray 3D version has already been transferred using a modified version of the XpanD theatrical master “because a TV set is the same brightness edge-to-edge,” Sonnenberg said. Prime Focus is currently developing a version of its trademarked View-D theatrical 3D conversion process optimized for 3D TV, mobile media and advertising markets.

As a cinematographer (“Blood Simple,” “Big,” “Misery”) and a director (“The Addams Family,” “Get Shorty”), Sonnenfeld’s decision to use conversion on his first 3D film instead of shooting in native 3D was an easy and obvious choice after he shot a series of tests using two different 3D digital camera rigs versus an Arriflex 2D film camera that was later converted (only digital cameras can shoot 3D).

First of all, Sonnenfeld was very pleased with the results of the Prime Focus View-D conversion process that has been employed on major movies such as “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” “Star Wars: Episode One – The Phantom Menace,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” and “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Prime Focus, which originated in Mumbai in 1997 under co-founders and current CEO Namit Malhotra and Chief Creative Officer Merzin Tavaria, now has offices in India, Canada, and the U.K.
“I think the 3D (in “MiB3”) looks better than almost any 3D movie I’ve ever seen,” Sonnenfeld said. “It immerses you better.”
He still prefers the look of film over digital, particularly with effects and the alien make-up, which he felt began to stand out with more of a shine and a plastic appearance in digital.
Another big objection to the digital 3D rig option was the limitations and delays.
“The added layers of technicians takes forever to change lenses and line it up. The on-set pace of shooting in native 3D was painfully slow and didn’t allow me the pace I am used to working at on set, especially with a comedy feature.”
Additionally, “If you shoot in native stereo, you have to choose and shoot the inter-ocular separation in advance and (it’s difficult to change) in post.”
By controlling the 3D conversion in post, Sonnenfeld was able to adjust the layers of depth. For instance, in certain shots filmed with digital 3D, he said Will Smith’s ears might seem inordinately far back from his nose. In converting during post-production, he
compressed Will Smith’s face to have his ears closer to his nose while still showing depth behind him.
Furthermore, Sonnenfeld created a gradual increase in the depth leading up to scenes with a big 3D effect, such as Will Smith’s character falling off the Chrysler building. “I gradually prepared the eyes of the audience for the additional depth” to avoid too big of a visual jolt, he said. Working with Sony ImageWorks and Turner, whom Sonnenfeld calls the “best stereographer around,” he also tweaked the image by creating a shadow to darken Smith during his fall. “It let your brain know to only look in the foreground.”
“That scene “would have looked a lot worse in native 3D,” he said.
The size and restrictions of the 3D camera rigs are also an issue for Sonnenfeld. He says the stereo camera has a super-wide matte box to allow for inter-ocular stereo. Since Sonnenfeld shoots with a 21mm lens, he said that in a scene, for example, in which a character is holding a gun in his out-stretched hand and the shot calls for the camera to push past the gun, the 3D camera dolly cannot go past the hand into the face because the matte box hits the gun. The only option is to use a 40mm or 50 mm lens and move the camera further back from the actor, which is not the shot that Sonnenfeld wants.

Having spent $12 mil. to $15 mil. on the 2D-to-3D conversion process, Sonnenfeld says, “Most movies would be better off converting.”
In addition to estimating costs are lower when everything is factored in – including post-production tweaks for realignment – Sonnenfeld said the process is quick in post. “We’d still be shooting if we went native,” he said.
But he admits that the choice between shooting native and converting in post comes down to personal preference.
For Sonnenfeld, the adjustment may be easier to shoot in 2D with a post-production 3D conversion in mind since he always shoots in a 3D-friendly way anyway, meaning that he uses wide angle lenses, shoots on an axis, and seldom pans.

Either way, he believes filmmakers must utilize 3D more effectively. It wasn’t the concept of conversion that sunk the poster-movie for bad 3D, “Clash of the Titans,” he said, suggesting it would have been equally bad if shot in native 3D. Sonnenfeld maintains that conversion is the way to go with the possible exception of movies featuring lots of explosions with particulates coming towards the lens.

– By Scott Hettrick

Here is the full link - http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2012/06/...3d-conversion/

Enjoy!

sookymonster · 09-27-2012, 12:01 PM

Have finished watching it now and its awesome. Quality of the 3D is top notch, with lots of depth,cool pop-outs and an image which generally sits out in front of your telly, as opposed to the usual more conservative 3D we see in movies.

Movie wise it was really fun, with great special fx and a really poignant dramatic twist of an ending. The three main actors all did an outstanding job, bit special kudo's to Josh Brolin for nailing Tommy lee Jones. Double thumbs up!

Mrbrownst0ne · 10-03-2012, 06:48 AM

just got a huge file on my computer today. i will be watching this on friday, in 3d on my panasonic. will come back to give some feedback.

sookymonster · 10-03-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrbrownst0ne

just got a huge file on my computer today. i will be watching this on friday, in 3d on my panasonic. will come back to give some feedback.

How about just buying the Blu and supporting the format we all love?

mredman · 10-03-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sookymonster

How about just buying the Blu and supporting the format we all love?

i agree. douche move to download the movie.

And yeah i got it aswell the 3D is excellent the extras are great aswell on the 2 discs

Mrbrownst0ne · 10-06-2012, 05:55 AM

The way i can afford 3d blu-rays . i have to watch it just to be sure i wont be ruining my hard earned money. It would be a douche move if i wasnt buying them( but i do buy). however if the movie blows hard, i dont want to waste 50 dollars. hopefully u get the point. here in montreal every single new 3d blu-ray almost comes close to 50$ bucks after taxes.

Owendarko · 10-06-2012, 08:08 AM

Just finished watching this! Complete surprise! Really enjoyable and the 3D was top notch! Pleased I purchased this..reminded me of the films I used to watch as a kid..great story, good action..the reason I used to go to the cinema!

Betanalken · 10-06-2012, 09:11 AM

watching the movies in 3D is really too much entertaining and full of excitement. And this is one of my best movies, whose series I prefer to watch...waiting eagerly for its release.

Nommag · 10-06-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrbrownst0ne

The way i can afford 3d blu-rays . i have to watch it just to be sure i wont be ruining my hard earned money. It would be a douche move if i wasnt buying them( but i do buy). however if the movie blows hard, i dont want to waste 50 dollars. hopefully u get the point. here in montreal every single new 3d blu-ray almost comes close to 50$ bucks after taxes.

Rent?

That's what I do before I buy.

Mrbrownst0ne · 10-06-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nommag

Rent?

That's what I do before I buy.

me and my brother were doing that hardcore. sadly every single blockbuster video store went out of business in the last 8 months. now the local video store gets new movies quite a bit late after its release which really sucks. anyway stuff i watch in theaters and like is still blind buy.. prometheus and resident evil i saw in theaters and will buy the first day on blu-ray happily!

MANUELF · 10-07-2012, 05:54 AM

Is this movie not out in the US yet? Is already out in Mexico and the 3d combo pack (bluray 3d, bluray and DVD) cost 400 pesos, something like 30 dollars so not too bad for us

PS: I already have it and Im gonna watch it tomorrow

mredman · 10-07-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MANUELF

Is this movie not out in the US yet? Is already out in Mexico and the 3d combo pack (bluray 3d, bluray and DVD) cost 400 pesos, something like 30 dollars so not too bad for us

PS: I already have it and Im gonna watch it tomorrow

it comes out in november i think.

Also have it the 3D is amazing. There is ever any doubt you are watching a 3D movie.

BleedOrange11 · 10-07-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by therainberg

I don't get the animosity this guy has for James Cameron. James Cameron 3D movies have more framed outside of the screen than most other directors films.

Me neither. I disagree with almost everything Sonnerfield said. Hugo and Avatar use more negative parallax than most movies and very rarely set convergence with everything behind the screen. His arguments for Will Smith's face looking better as a flat cardboard cutout and not being able to add CGI shadows to native 3D are completely absurd too. And if his costumes look fake on digital, couldn't they just improve the costumes, rather than hiding it with film grain? It might be easier for him to use 3D conversion, but the result certainly didn't look better than if he had used 3D cameras with a team of experienced stereographers. Not having to rotoscope beards and explosions is not the only benefit of native 3D. The big difference is that you don't have to rotoscope anything (except when they screw up a shot).

BleedOrange11 · 10-07-2012, 05:32 PM

It's also strange that he is worried about longer lenses compressing the roundness of foreground objects in his gun barrel pop-out scene but finds the roundness of converted objects in extreme negative patallax perfectly acceptable.

I'm glad that he made MIB III in 3D and is excited about using 3D creatively, but there's really no reason to downplay the benefits of 3D cameras or to act like MIB III is a better 3D experience than Hugo and Avatar.

sookymonster · 10-07-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

It's also strange that he is worried about longer lenses compressing the roundness of foreground objects in his gun barrel pop-out scene but finds the roundness of converted objects in extreme negative patallax perfectly acceptable.

I'm glad that he made MIB III in 3D and is excited about using 3D creatively, but there's really no reason to downplay the benefits of 3D cameras or to act like MIB III is a better 3D experience than Hugo and Avatar.

It is really odd when you think about it.

Maybe its for publicity because its hard to believe a man that intelligient and creative could really believe such absurdities..

BleedOrange11 · 10-07-2012, 08:19 PM

It sounds like it was faster, cheaper, and easier for him to film in 2D and sculpt the 3D in post, rather than having to deal with the on-set problem solving associated with 3D cameras. Now, maybe he is just going overboard trying to justify his choice that conversion was the best way to create his 3D, artistically as well as logistically.

And I don't mean to be too down on the 3D. I saw it in theaters and have watched the trailers at home. As I've said before, I really liked how he used the 3D creatively but felt that faces and other objects looked slightly smushed, which prevented me from being fully immersed like I am when watching Avatar, Hugo, etc.

levcore · 11-03-2012, 01:24 PM

Just got my copy in the post today from Play. Blind buy for me, looking forward to watching it!

09-25-2012, 10:45 PM	#21
sookymonster Special Member Member since:Apr 2012 Blu-ray collection:89	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 Last edited by sookymonster; 09-25-2012 at 10:48 PM. Reason: Added a bit.

10-07-2012, 08:19 PM	#39
BleedOrange11 Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Sep 2011 4K collection:20 Blu-ray collection:986 DVD collection:62 Blu-ray reviews: 44 Trading Score:4	It sounds like it was faster, cheaper, and easier for him to film in 2D and sculpt the 3D in post, rather than having to deal with the on-set problem solving associated with 3D cameras. Now, maybe he is just going overboard trying to justify his choice that conversion was the best way to create his 3D, artistically as well as logistically. And I don't mean to be too down on the 3D. I saw it in theaters and have watched the trailers at home. As I've said before, I really liked how he used the 3D creatively but felt that faces and other objects looked slightly smushed, which prevented me from being fully immersed like I am when watching Avatar, Hugo, etc. Last edited by BleedOrange11; 10-07-2012 at 08:31 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-26-2012, 01:42 AM	#22
Lovemy3D Blu-ray Guru Member since:May 2010 Blu-ray reviews:2	Sounds like a load of BS to me.

09-26-2012, 11:49 AM	#24
sookymonster Special Member Member since:Apr 2012 Blu-ray collection:89	More coolstuff on the rendering of the image for blu-ray and how the print differs from country to country. Fascinating stuff really- Sonnenfeld cheers 3D conversion June 1, 2012 By Scott Hettrick 4 Comments “Men in Black 3” director Barry Sonnenfeld says James Cameron’s looking-through-a-window-into-a-world approach to the use of 3D makes sense because, “that is exactly the definition of Jim Cameron. ‘If it were up to Jim, he would live seven miles underwater in the Mariana trench – it’s about living underwater and viewing the world through a window,” Sonnenfeld said. “In my case, I don’t even swim.” Barry Sonnenfeld second from right. Sonnenfeld, who chose to shoot “MiB3” on film and convert it from 2D-to-3D during post-production with the help of L.A.-based digital 3D and visual effects studio Prime Focus World and stereographer Corey Turner, prefers using 3D as a tool and a character in the movie to invite the audience into each scene. For instance, in a simple dialogue-driven scene in a diner, the images of actors Will Smith and James Brolin are both in front of the screen. Something appears to be in front of the screen in more than two-thirds of the scenes of “MiB3,” according to Sonnenfeld. “I don’t understand why you would shoot a 3D movie and push it behind the screen and keep the audience out of the movie,” he said. “ ‘Avatar’ and ‘Hugo’ are beautiful 3D movies but most of the scenes are at the screen or behind it. Sometimes it feels like you’re observing rather than participating.” In fact, with many inferior 3D movies and poor theatrical exhibition in some cases – “The only thing that can kill 3D is exhibitors, if they project it at lower brightness or have a projector out of sync, prompting the customer to never go back to pay extra for 3D again.” — Sonnenfeld thinks TV may be what keeps 3D going, particularly because the transmitted light of TV screens makes the image much brighter even with dark glasses. In the meantime, in Sonnenfeld’s preferred medium of film, he was so pleased with the Prime Focus conversion job on “MiB3” that he is ready to produce 3D conversions of the original “Men in Black” and “MiB2,” if “MiB3” plays well enough in China where the first two films never opened theatrically. Sonnenfeld already has high praise for Sony Pictures Entertainment and Columbia TriStar Motion Picture marketing and distribution chairman Jeff Blake for allowing him to make two different 3D theatrical masters for “MiB3,” one to play in countries like the USA where more than 70% of screens use the RealD 3D projection/silver screen system with more reflective light when viewed straight on with passive 3D glasses, but which is darker from the sides. The other master is being used in most other countries where the XpanD active shutter glasses 3D system is more prevalent and features roughly the same brightness no matter the viewers’ position. The “MiB3” Blu-ray 3D version has already been transferred using a modified version of the XpanD theatrical master “because a TV set is the same brightness edge-to-edge,” Sonnenberg said. Prime Focus is currently developing a version of its trademarked View-D theatrical 3D conversion process optimized for 3D TV, mobile media and advertising markets. As a cinematographer (“Blood Simple,” “Big,” “Misery”) and a director (“The Addams Family,” “Get Shorty”), Sonnenfeld’s decision to use conversion on his first 3D film instead of shooting in native 3D was an easy and obvious choice after he shot a series of tests using two different 3D digital camera rigs versus an Arriflex 2D film camera that was later converted (only digital cameras can shoot 3D). First of all, Sonnenfeld was very pleased with the results of the Prime Focus View-D conversion process that has been employed on major movies such as “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” “Star Wars: Episode One – The Phantom Menace,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” and “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Prime Focus, which originated in Mumbai in 1997 under co-founders and current CEO Namit Malhotra and Chief Creative Officer Merzin Tavaria, now has offices in India, Canada, and the U.K. “I think the 3D (in “MiB3”) looks better than almost any 3D movie I’ve ever seen,” Sonnenfeld said. “It immerses you better.” He still prefers the look of film over digital, particularly with effects and the alien make-up, which he felt began to stand out with more of a shine and a plastic appearance in digital. Another big objection to the digital 3D rig option was the limitations and delays. “The added layers of technicians takes forever to change lenses and line it up. The on-set pace of shooting in native 3D was painfully slow and didn’t allow me the pace I am used to working at on set, especially with a comedy feature.” Additionally, “If you shoot in native stereo, you have to choose and shoot the inter-ocular separation in advance and (it’s difficult to change) in post.” By controlling the 3D conversion in post, Sonnenfeld was able to adjust the layers of depth. For instance, in certain shots filmed with digital 3D, he said Will Smith’s ears might seem inordinately far back from his nose. In converting during post-production, he compressed Will Smith’s face to have his ears closer to his nose while still showing depth behind him. Furthermore, Sonnenfeld created a gradual increase in the depth leading up to scenes with a big 3D effect, such as Will Smith’s character falling off the Chrysler building. “I gradually prepared the eyes of the audience for the additional depth” to avoid too big of a visual jolt, he said. Working with Sony ImageWorks and Turner, whom Sonnenfeld calls the “best stereographer around,” he also tweaked the image by creating a shadow to darken Smith during his fall. “It let your brain know to only look in the foreground.” “That scene “would have looked a lot worse in native 3D,” he said. The size and restrictions of the 3D camera rigs are also an issue for Sonnenfeld. He says the stereo camera has a super-wide matte box to allow for inter-ocular stereo. Since Sonnenfeld shoots with a 21mm lens, he said that in a scene, for example, in which a character is holding a gun in his out-stretched hand and the shot calls for the camera to push past the gun, the 3D camera dolly cannot go past the hand into the face because the matte box hits the gun. The only option is to use a 40mm or 50 mm lens and move the camera further back from the actor, which is not the shot that Sonnenfeld wants. Having spent $12 mil. to $15 mil. on the 2D-to-3D conversion process, Sonnenfeld says, “Most movies would be better off converting.” In addition to estimating costs are lower when everything is factored in – including post-production tweaks for realignment – Sonnenfeld said the process is quick in post. “We’d still be shooting if we went native,” he said. But he admits that the choice between shooting native and converting in post comes down to personal preference. For Sonnenfeld, the adjustment may be easier to shoot in 2D with a post-production 3D conversion in mind since he always shoots in a 3D-friendly way anyway, meaning that he uses wide angle lenses, shoots on an axis, and seldom pans. Either way, he believes filmmakers must utilize 3D more effectively. It wasn’t the concept of conversion that sunk the poster-movie for bad 3D, “Clash of the Titans,” he said, suggesting it would have been equally bad if shot in native 3D. Sonnenfeld maintains that conversion is the way to go with the possible exception of movies featuring lots of explosions with particulates coming towards the lens. – By Scott Hettrick Here is the full link - http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2012/06/...3d-conversion/ Enjoy!

09-27-2012, 12:01 PM	#25
sookymonster Special Member Member since:Apr 2012 Blu-ray collection:89	Have finished watching it now and its awesome. Quality of the 3D is top notch, with lots of depth,cool pop-outs and an image which generally sits out in front of your telly, as opposed to the usual more conservative 3D we see in movies. Movie wise it was really fun, with great special fx and a really poignant dramatic twist of an ending. The three main actors all did an outstanding job, bit special kudo's to Josh Brolin for nailing Tommy lee Jones. Double thumbs up!

10-03-2012, 06:48 AM	#26
Mrbrownst0ne Active Member Member since:Oct 2011 Location:Montreal,Canada	just got a huge file on my computer today. i will be watching this on friday, in 3d on my panasonic. will come back to give some feedback.

10-06-2012, 05:55 AM	#29
Mrbrownst0ne Active Member Member since:Oct 2011 Location:Montreal,Canada	The way i can afford 3d blu-rays . i have to watch it just to be sure i wont be ruining my hard earned money. It would be a douche move if i wasnt buying them( but i do buy). however if the movie blows hard, i dont want to waste 50 dollars. hopefully u get the point. here in montreal every single new 3d blu-ray almost comes close to 50$ bucks after taxes.

10-06-2012, 08:08 AM	#30
Owendarko Active Member Member since:Nov 2010 Location:UK Blu-ray collection:90	Just finished watching this! Complete surprise! Really enjoyable and the 3D was top notch! Pleased I purchased this..reminded me of the films I used to watch as a kid..great story, good action..the reason I used to go to the cinema!

10-06-2012, 09:11 AM	#31
Betanalken Junior Member Member since:Sep 2012 Location:usa	watching the movies in 3D is really too much entertaining and full of excitement. And this is one of my best movies, whose series I prefer to watch...waiting eagerly for its release.

10-07-2012, 05:54 AM	#34
MANUELF Member Member since:Sep 2012 Location:Sinaloa, México Blu-ray collection:58	Is this movie not out in the US yet? Is already out in Mexico and the 3d combo pack (bluray 3d, bluray and DVD) cost 400 pesos, something like 30 dollars so not too bad for us PS: I already have it and Im gonna watch it tomorrow

10-07-2012, 05:32 PM	#37
BleedOrange11 Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Sep 2011 4K collection:20 Blu-ray collection:986 DVD collection:62 Blu-ray reviews: 44 Trading Score:4	It's also strange that he is worried about longer lenses compressing the roundness of foreground objects in his gun barrel pop-out scene but finds the roundness of converted objects in extreme negative patallax perfectly acceptable. I'm glad that he made MIB III in 3D and is excited about using 3D creatively, but there's really no reason to downplay the benefits of 3D cameras or to act like MIB III is a better 3D experience than Hugo and Avatar.

11-03-2012, 01:24 PM	#40
levcore Blu-ray Grand Duke Member since:Jun 2011 Location:Dryland 4K collection:306 Blu-ray collection:2617 Trading Score:3	Just got my copy in the post today from Play. Blind buy for me, looking forward to watching it!

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals