Reboot in 3d : Yay or Nay

[matrix_ghost]

Your thoughts ?

Personally i'm pro 3d if done right. Especially with visually appealing movies like Superman.
Like all things , i think the best results are achieved when someone knows how to use something.
For example when it comes to CGI there are those who can use it to great effect ( Spielberg) and those who just go completely overboard yet still fail to make something look exciting ( Stephen Sommers).

WB Is serious about 3d given the fact that they will release Clash Of The Titans and both Potter movies in 3d. So i think it's safe to say that they are seriously considering this. Nolan i believe will have a hands off approach to the technical aspects of the reboot. I think that he'll be more focused on getting the right story , "mentoring" the new director ( if he needs it) and maybe advise on the casting.

With the news of Marc Webb ( director of the spidey reboot) meeting the Avatar team to learn more about shooting in 3d , i think it would also be a nice touch if the next superman director would do this.
Ideally the best way of watching something in 3d is to shoot the entire movie in 3d. Look at IMAX. You can shoot a movie on a normal print and then blow it up to the IMAX format yet the image clarity , scale and depth is nothing compared to when you're shooting scenes with an IMAX camera.
Unfortunately it has it's drawbacks. In the case of IMAX it's the camera itself that poses problem.
IT's big , very loud and uses film stock instead of shooting digital.
With 3d time is an issue because of the fact that VFX shots need to be created twice ( for the left and right eye).
Converting the movie to 3d is definatey less costly ( what WB is currently doing wit Clash of the Titans and Potter) but definatel not the preferred way to go.

Currently there isn't a director attached however assuming that WB may release the next supes movie in summer of 2013 , i think there ma be enough time for the director to get a understanding of shooting a movie in 3d.

[BH/HHH]

Not for me its 3D overkill at the moment, my brother went to see Avatar (he hated it btw) and he said after about an hour you forget its even in 3D. The 3D fad will once again only last so long and then it will fade out.

[FilmNerdJamie]

**** that gimmick.

[FlawlessVictory]

^LOL, agreed.

Directors and writers will begin to go out of their way to incorporate 3D into scenes just to make sure things look "cool". Stories will suffer. Scenes will feel forced. Just wait.

3D will be the downfall of cinema. :csad:

[dark_b]

who didnt like the flying scenes in 3D in Avatar?

dont you dare :awesome::up:

[dark_b]

Not for me its 3D overkill at the moment, my brother went to see Avatar (he hated it btw) and he said after about an hour you forget its even in 3D. The 3D fad will once again only last so long and then it will fade out.that was the point :bow:

and if you forget it it pulls you inside the movie :up:

[dark_b]

^LOL, agreed.

Directors and writers will begin to go out of their way to incorporate 3D into scenes just to make sure things look "cool". Stories will suffer. Scenes will feel forced. Just wait.

3D will be the downfall of cinema. :csad:like every blockbuster or expensive movie? cinematic lighting? every shot looks like it has perfect lighting with a perfect camera angle? :cwink:

but back to what you said. people were afraid with CGI the same. and some go overboard. but this is their fault. did Nolan go nuts with CGI or Speiberg?

[GreenKToo]

I dont think so. If there wasnt sooo many now, then yeah, but right now it would just seem to be jumping on the band wagon.
Now if they could make it in 4D where he snatches your azz outta your seat, then he11z yeah.:awesome:

[BH/HHH]

that was the point :bow:

and if you forget it it pulls you inside the movie :up:

But then whats the point of it? If you forget about it you may aswell just watch a 2D movie.

[dark_b]

But then whats the point of it? If you forget about it you may aswell just watch a 2D movie.isnt this what everyone wanted? didnt everyone before Avatar complain that 3D is to forced?

when you walk around on the street do you notice things flying at you ? do you ever notice stereo depth when you look out of the window?the 3D after 1 hour was still there. but your brain adjusted for the extra depth information and it didnt stand out more.

now if you think about specific scenes from the movie you dont just remember the color and shape. you also remember the depth information this is very important. because the depth information tells you how big in scope something is. for example the Pandora forest.now imagine the depth information from Supeman in the sky above the clouds.

the point is to not think about it. you dont think about the colors in movies and you dont think about all the sound effects. if you have a 3D or 4D sound system at home you can get a similar effect like in theater. when something happens behind you you hear it. or left and right. but you never think about all those sound effects right? well this is how they wanted to use the stereoscopic 3D.

[Daybreak_st]

Avatar was the most amazing visual experience I’ve ever had at the movies! Blew my wife and me away!

That being said I don't necessarily advocate them doing superman in 3d unless it really works with the film. I could see certain scenes being done in 3d but then taking off, putting on the glasses may take you out of the experience. 3d fit with Avatar perfectly, if it can fit that well with Superman then great go for it, it not stay away.

Personally I’d love a scene where Clark (either at the fortress or thru some other technology) gets his first view of krypton view fully holographic immersion. Now see that in 3d could be amazing visually. Like see the planet on avatar for the first time.

[BH/HHH]

I personally would see a 3D film to see everything coming out at me yet when I didnt notice it anymore it becomes pointless. You might aswell watch a 2D movie.

Well point is I don't want a 3D Superman movie.

[BH/HHH]

I personally would see a 3D film to see everything coming out at me yet when I didnt notice it anymore it becomes pointless. You might aswell watch a 2D movie.

Well point is I don't want a 3D Superman movie.

[Daybreak_st]

BH/HHH did you see Avatar in 3d yet? I was skeptical at first but really impressed with how far they've come, like nothing i've ever scene before. Don't knock it until you've tried it. That's just my two cents.

[B]

Well, I'm thinking that if visually the flight scenes can look as good as the visuals from Avatar then I wouldn't be against it.

[Webhead2006]

i do love 3d movies and all that, i would be for superman being in 3d. But i doubt they would film the whole film in 3d like avatar did. It is still a very expensive process and i am sure the studio probably wants to have a nice fixed budget for superman around 150mill or so. At most i could see maybe a few scenes being converted to 3d.

[BH/HHH]

BH/HHH did you see Avatar in 3d yet? I was skeptical at first but really impressed with how far they've come, like nothing i've ever scene before. Don't knock it until you've tried it. That's just my two cents.

I saw My Bloody Valentine in 3D and whilst I enjoyed it I just thought the 3D aspect was ok. I personally am not interested in 3D tbh, doesnt really appeal to me for something I would want to watch again and again. I dont wanna see Avatar at all either, not a huge fan of James Cameron or sci-fi (certain types).

[dark_b]

I personally would see a 3D film to see everything coming out at me yet when I didnt notice it anymore it becomes pointless. You might aswell watch a 2D movie.

Well point is I don't want a 3D Superman movie.a hint how to own me.

'' dark_b if the point is to make a movie where you dont notice the 3D then why do we have to pay more money''
:cwink::hehe:

[BH/HHH]

a hint how to own me.

'' dark_b if the point is to make a movie where you dont notice the 3D then why do we have to pay more money''
:cwink::hehe:

Im not trying to own you, I just disagree with you. Not hating here or owt :D

[Daybreak_st]

I saw My Bloody Valentine in 3D and whilst I enjoyed it I just thought the 3D aspect was ok. I personally am not interested in 3D tbh, doesnt really appeal to me for something I would want to watch again and again. I dont wanna see Avatar at all either, not a huge fan of James Cameron or sci-fi (certain types).


I gotta say i think it's a shame to miss out it. If sci-fi isn't your thing then i understand. I for one enjoyed the story (don't care if it is recycled how many romantic comedies have the same plot) and love the visuals. Just for the visualization alone it worth the price of admission, but i am a scifi guy so i can only talk for myself. Also it gets over looked but i think it's the most fully realized digital character/actors ever put on screen. I was truly impressed and had no problem investing my emotions in these characters. The commercials don't do it justice.

Simply from a visual effects/ film making interests i'd say it's worth seeing. Ok, stopping the advertisement now.

[dark_b]

Im not trying to own you, I just disagree with you. Not hating here or owt :Dbut its true in a way right? :yay:

[Dark Knight]

Silly question.....but OF COURSE the next Supes film should be in 3D!

Todays technology demands a Superman film to be shot or shown in 3D format.

That's just the way it is folks.

[Adenjo]

I'd be hapy with it in 3d as long as it was done right..
mind you i'd be happy with an all CGI Superman movie (think The Polar Express but with a bloke flying round in a cape) shot in 3D.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Everyone tries to pretend this thread wasn't made because of the awesome 3d work in Avatar...

Good luck with that ;)

Yes a 3d version is necessary especially with all the cool things Superman can do. Heat vision coming at you, flight at ridiculous speed maybe even from his pov in a scene, freeze particles, etc... Sooo many useful 3d effects for Superman.

[dark_b]

Everyone tries to pretend this thread wasn't made because of the awesome 3d work in Avatar...

Good luck with that ;)

Yes a 3d version is necessary especially with all the cool things Superman can do. Heat vision coming at you, flight at ridiculous speed maybe even from his pov in a scene, freeze particles, etc... Sooo many useful 3d effects for Superman. you are talking about the old gimmicky 3D effects.i think 90% dont want this.

[Bad Superman]

I would love to watch it on 3D but it should be done in a balanced way. I prefer they focus more on delivering an epic film with a great story than focus too much on making it 3D. If all of that can be done, I'm all for it.

[dark_b]

I would love to watch it on 3D but it should be done in a balanced way. I prefer they focus more on delivering an epic film with a great story than focus too much on making it 3D. If all of that can be done, I'm all for it.why does noone complain that a studio and director should not focus so much on lighting in movies and mroe on the story? why does noone complain that they should not focus so much on the sets and the story? its not like they would spend 80% time on the 3D only.


IMO :dry:

[Billy Batson]

Yay

[Doc Ock]

I could care less for 3D, so Nay!

[SuperDaniel]

HELL YEAH. I agree with Daybreak. If it fits the movie, HELL YES. Seeing Krypton in 3d would be ****ing awesome. And flying with Superman too. Imagine a great aerial battle in 3d. That would be sweet.

[Webhead2006]

Totally there is some great scenes that would look stellar in 3D. But the whole film doesnt need to be 3D in my opinion. At maybe maybe 3-5 scenes like they have done with harry potter films or how some other films have done 3d in the past.

[dark_b]

Totally there is some great scenes that would look stellar in 3D. But the whole film doesnt need to be 3D in my opinion. At maybe maybe 3-5 scenes like they have done with harry potter films or how some other films have done 3d in the past.from now on every movie that will be 3D will be from the beginning to the end.

[Webhead2006]

Well i doubt that, some may only want to do it for select scenes were others like avatar could be full on 3d. But its still a very expensive process to have a full on 3d film for 2hr+ so i doubt it will be a thing we see it alot of films.

[matrix_ghost]

Well i doubt that, some may only want to do it for select scenes were others like avatar could be full on 3d. But its still a very expensive process to have a full on 3d film for 2hr+ so i doubt it will be a thing we see it alot of films.


dark_b is right. After the success of Avatar as well as upcoming flicks like Alice In WOnderland, Toy Story 3 and Tron Legacy , it would be a dumb move for studios not to go full 3d.
Theaters ( and possibly) moviegoers would complain about paying full price for seeing select sequences in 3d.

It was a expensive process to full convert scenes in 3d and that is why alot of studios were waiting to for the prices to drop AND to see how avatar would perform. No doubt that Avatar showed them the potential of 3d movies but the biggest hurdle was the price. With the reports that a korean movie could convert movies from 2d-to-3d with the same quality and lower price , it suddenly became possible to warrant such an invesment.

Take the Potter movies for example. While many of them have been released in IMAX , their biggest success comes from 2d screens. The last movies made over 900 million WW. With more and more screens being converted to 3d , WB would gladly spend 15 million extra to convert them to full 3d features. Hell that 15 million will ensure that the last 2 potter movies will go beyond 1 billion WW ...each.

[Webhead2006]

well those films were already scheduled to be in 3d prior to avatar's release and big sucess. I am sure yes there is going to be films that are 3d. But thats all up to the studio, the director, and the type of film it is. As for being whole film in 3d or just select scenes that is also up to the film makers. I am sure its going to happen but its probably going to be a few yrs down the road seeing tons and tons of films in full 3d. Plus there is still going to be alot of films in 2d. since not every film needs to be 3d.

[Willi Berg]

Not every film needs to be in 3D or should be in 3D but I think Superman is going to be made in 3D. WB is aiming for it to be a big event movie, and it has to compete with all the other event movies now coming out in 3D. They should be willing to invest a lot of money into it.

As for whether it should be only partially in 3D or fully, if they're aiming to make an epic film, with scenes of Krypton, space, the Fortress of Solitude, Metropolis and Superman flying etc. etc. then that's more than enough to take advantage of 3D and use it for the entire movie.

[Adenjo]

Superman being in 2D would be a missed oppurtunity..
Your basic cinema going kid has a choice one rainy Saturday afternon..
Watch Superman 2D or watch Iron Man 3 in 3D.. 3D wins every time..
Even if by 2013 (or whenever) 3D has become the norm and every action film is made in 3D going the 2D route will just come across as Superman being made on the cheap.
Not mention the visual spectical of an exploding Krypton in 3D .. Now who among us would want to miss that?

[dark_b]

well those films were already scheduled to be in 3d prior to avatar's release and big sucess. I am sure yes there is going to be films that are 3d. But thats all up to the studio, the director, and the type of film it is. As for being whole film in 3d or just select scenes that is also up to the film makers. I am sure its going to happen but its probably going to be a few yrs down the road seeing tons and tons of films in full 3d. Plus there is still going to be alot of films in 2d. since not every film needs to be 3d.
give me one reason why a director would want selected scenes in 3D.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Personally, no, I dont think the next Superman movie should be in 3D, Avatar was great, but Hollywood needs to learn not EVERY movie needs to be in 3D, it will get boring very quickly.

[dark_b]

Personally, no, I dont think the next Superman movie should be in 3D, Avatar was great, but Hollywood needs to learn not EVERY movie needs to be in 3D, it will get boring very quickly.like color and sound :cwink:

[Webhead2006]

well maybe their budget, or they just not into making 3d films. I dont know.

[Willi Berg]

why does noone complain that a studio and director should not focus so much on lighting in movies and mroe on the story? why does noone complain that they should not focus so much on the sets and the story? its not like they would spend 80% time on the 3D only.


IMO :dry:

I think the worry here is if 3D takes precedence over the story - that the director will only think about piecing together set pieces/sequences because they will look good in 3D. Love of visuals and action over the story is a concern time and time again. Like CGI, there can be overkill. Or a director can be hired who has strength in one field but not the other.

If they hire a filmmaker who knows what they are doing in both the storytelling aspect as well as the technical then that shouldn't be a problem. But hiring a director who will give nothing but effect (say like Batman and Robin) is increased with the sudden trend of 3D. The same thing happened with CGI- they can be so enamoured with the look of CG that they focus a lot on that, to the detriment of the story.

I'd be for it if the filmmakers understand that it is part of the story, not the whole thing. Empty spectacle is a concern. They have to know how to use it.

Also, since the audience has to wear glasses, this may make filmmakers/studios hate the idea of "talky" scenes, of focusing on drama, because they may think audiences want to go right on to the action.

[Webhead2006]

Totally

[dark_b]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/18/all-warner-bros-tentpole-movies-will-be-released-in-3d/#disqus_thread

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/18/peters-thoughts-on-the-post-converted-clash-of-the-titans-3d-footage/
''I will be completely honest — it did not look great. It looked passable. General audiences might not notice the difference, but they will feel it.''

[Kurosawa]

After Avatar, for good or not, many if not most major effects movies will be 3D. I'm surprised Marvel isn't going 3D as well.

[matrix_ghost]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/18/all-warner-bros-tentpole-movies-will-be-released-in-3d/#disqus_thread

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/18/peters-thoughts-on-the-post-converted-clash-of-the-titans-3d-footage/
''I will be completely honest — it did not look great. It looked passable. General audiences might not notice the difference, but they will feel it.''

Well it shouldn't have to be a bad thing IMO.
They could easily shoot the movie in 3-d

[The ?ion]

It has already been announced that all future DC Comics films will now be in 3D (the Superman Reboot included). I for one, can't imagine anyone having a complaint about a Superman film in 3D. All of the flying scenes and speed scenes would be absolutely epic in 3D.

[Bad Superman]

why does noone complain that a studio and director should not focus so much on lighting in movies and mroe on the story? why does noone complain that they should not focus so much on the sets and the story? its not like they would spend 80% time on the 3D only.


IMO :dry:

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see this film on 3-D. What I meant was that the producers/director should focus more on a good epic story than just film Superman in 3-D just for the fx's only. Both the visual aspect and the story aspect of the film should be top notch. I wouldn't like to see the 3-D misused just to get a cheap thrill/reaction, for example, the famous "long stick" sticking out of the screen, the "water squirt", etc. The 3-D feature and other fx's should complement the story.

[Webhead2006]

saw the news of alan horn saying all dc films from 2011 and on and tentpole films will be in 3d. I said in other threads i dont mind 3d much myself. as long as it looks good and is used in the right way. But i dont need to see every type of film in 3d. Though where i live got multiple theaters and they offer both 3d and 2d version of films. So for me it will just be a matter of what i am interested in viewing and if i have the money for 3d. in my area standard 2d films are aroudn 9$ and 3d films around 13$ so not much of a difference.

[Zorex]

If it were to be shot in 3D, I'd feel less hesitant about it. However, SlashFilm's assessment of the "Titans" 3D footage made me completely lose interest in seeing that movie in 3D. I didn't feel like "Alice" benefited much from the conversion, and it sounds like "Titans" didn't either. If they invest the money in making the effect less of an afterthought and actually a part of the process from the beginning, then, sure, I'll look forward to seeing Superman fly in 3D.

[Webhead2006]

totally yea its all about how it is being used if its done in post to made it look good and used in the right manner. That is why i rather if its 3d conversion for films to just be select scenes over the whole dam film. Now if its shot in 3d cameras like avatar and i believe the up coming tron 2. That is the better way to go. So we are working with it already shot in 3d. So in the sfx/post work it looks better.

[Dark Knight]

I think the Nolan produced Supes film should most definitely be SHOT IN 100%3D like Avatar was.

[Webhead2006]

well yea for the films likely to be shooting ing 2011 and beyond the option to shoot in 3d with 3d cameras will probably be the way to go. though it will probably all count on director's view on 3d cameras, and the production cost for the film and how much it would cost to shoot in 3d.

[Sentinel X]

YES!!

Im against Batman in 3D but movies like Superman are made for 3D. It should be awesome.

[Dark Knight]

YES!!

Im against Batman in 3D but movies like Superman are made for 3D. It should be awesome.





Yeah....Batman 3 should have more IMAX shot scenes than TDK had....but the Supes reboot film should be shot 100% with 3D cameras!

[Webhead2006]

yea hopefully the films shooting for 2012 and beyond releases will be shot in 3d if the whole 3d all dc film thing sticks for all.

[The ?ion]

Warner Bros as a whole is convinced that 3D is the next step in the evolution of immersive entertainment. They have already announced that the next Harry Potter film will be in 3D. All of their DC film properties will be in 3D. I have no doubt that they will stick to it. Television manufacturers are also making the push for 3D televisions (perhaps a hasty move given the low adoption rate for HDTVS in this country). Even PC games are starting to be made with 3D effects (e.g. Resident Evil 5, Batman Arkham Asylum etc). Like it or not, the onslaught of 3D is here.

[Willi Berg]

I would hope that they would shoot in 3D too. I never expected that Superman could possibly be converted to 3D in post, I thought they wouldn't treat it like that. I thought that they would be more serious about it. Upconverting it to 3D seems like a quick and cheap way. No matter what Horn says, a film converted in post will have less credibility/prestige than one shot with 3D cameras. I wonder how Nolan would feel about his movies treated that way too.

I was glad to hear the potential director for Flash, Greg Berlanti, saying he would want to shoot movies in 3D. I hope other DC movie directors will follow suit, if WB is going to release them in 3D anyway.

[The ?ion]

But how many of us have noticed or will notice the difference between post processing and live 3D shoots? honestly, at this point, they are just buzz words for blogs and articles. We have no idea how 3D films in the past were recorded and produced. Avatar is the first film to really involve such an in depth focus on the production process. So we know the camera types and filming techniques that were used to create the film. But what about everything else? I am not saying that there is no difference, or that live shooting in 3D isn't superior. I am merely asking if we the viewer, have ever or will ever notice the difference.

[Willi Berg]

People are already noticing the difference. Yes, mainly bloggers (they're people too!) but it doesn't bode well that people are already complaining about the small footage of "Titans" they've seen, or making remarks about "Alice In Wonderland", being indifferent about the 3D. I am not interested in seeing "Alice" so can't compare but I will see "Titans" to compare it to "Avatar".

Horn and WB will say that converting in post is fine because they have a movie to promote- "Clash of the Titans".

But if more people are going to start buying 3D TVs then that means these 3D movies will live long after their theatrical releases so wouldn't you want your superhero movies like Superman to be the best 3D they can be, if you are watching them at home on Blu-Ray/DVD.

Also, if a filmmaker is engaged in shooting the film using 3D cameras, then I think that will make a huge difference than just shooting it in 2D and letting people do what they want with it in post. Their style of filmmaking will change, adapt.

I think if 3D becomes more and more mainstream, then audiences will become more sophisticated and *will* start noticing the differences in 3D quality. "3D" is the buzzword here- the studios heard it and are applying it to everything they can now, there will be carelessness in that.

[Willi Berg]

I feel most uncomfortable with WB just saying "Everything will be in 3D now!" when talking about their DC movies, because it doesn't seem very well considered. Just a rushed idea brought about by a trend. That could potentially turn out uneven results. But I hope it turns out well, as I like DC superhero movies and I like 3D, but I wasn't comforted by this news, that EVERYTHING would automatically be 3D.

[Superark]

If it gets more people to the theaters then I'm all for it

[Webhead2006]

yea we will just have to see how the whole 3d kick will go. And i am sure some films will probably be converted in post like clash and gl. But films shooting next year and beyond will probably have the option to shoot in 3d bearing the crew know how to use the equipment, and if its cost effective for the studio.

[The ?ion]

I feel most uncomfortable with WB just saying "Everything will be in 3D now!" when talking about their DC movies, because it doesn't seem very well considered. Just a rushed idea brought about by a trend. That could potentially turn out uneven results. But I hope it turns out well, as I like DC superhero movies and I like 3D, but I wasn't comforted by this news, that EVERYTHING would automatically be 3D.

3D is the next step in the progression of immersive entertainment. It allows theatres to be more competitive with the home space, now that people have their own surround sound systems and huge televisions. But what don't we have at home? 3D. Even that is changing. At the last CES, plenty of manufacturers unveiled 3D televisions. It is only logical that studios would be making moves to generate content for that paradigm shift. That was the one thing that caught Blu Ray off guard. The content didn't seem meaningful soon enough to make it catch on quickly. Apparently, studios and manufacturers don't seem likely to make that mistake this time around.

[AgentPat]

**** that gimmick.

^LOL, agreed.

Directors and writers will begin to go out of their way to incorporate 3D into scenes just to make sure things look "cool". Stories will suffer. Scenes will feel forced. Just wait.

3D will be the downfall of cinema. :csad:^I read a mere three posts into this thread and had to laugh. I think Superark "gets" it, however...

If it gets more people to the theaters then I'm all for itIndeed.

Folks, here's some perspective:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/sound.cfm

[RachelDawes]

If it gets more people to the theaters then I'm all for it

This is exactly how I feel.

[Willi Berg]

I like 3D. If it does bring more people into the theatre, then they should get the best 3D possible. If people are jumping onto the trend, then studios might feel that they can put out any kind of 3D out there and people will just eat it up. My point was, they should treat 3D filmmaking seriously, truly make it part of the process, not just have it as an afterthought.

[Asgard]

I really doubt theyre going to shoot this movie in 3D like they did with Avatar. From what I understand, itll be very costly do so and I dont think WB are going to risk spending any more than they have to.

Theyll just do the conversion thing.

I say go for it if they want to. If I read any reviews that say that the 3D sucks then Ill just watch the 2D version.

[Willi Berg]

I think there is still a a chance (maybe slight) that Superman will be shot in 3D. It's one of WB's biggest superheroes, why should they skimp on the finances. Besides, they haven't even announced a director yet. Marc Webb directing Spider-Man is planning to shoot in 3D, meeting up with Cameron's team and all, that's what Superman has to compete with. Guess it depends on which director they get.

[The ?ion]

This is exactly how I feel.

And that is the goal of these companies. You can't pirate 3D. It is a new way to compete with piracy and the home space. I know plenty of people who pass on the theatre, because they already own 32 inch to 52 inch HD televisions. They already have Dolby surround sound speakers. They essentially have a personal theatre in their own living room or bedroom. But what they don't have is that 3D experience that makes films just that much more immersive. Like it or not, it is the next stage in the evolution of digital entertainment. But people always complain this way when a change comes.

- "CD-ROM games have loading, they should stick to cartridges"
- "Color movies are a gimmick."
- "Nobody will use iTunes."

This is why I leave people to their Luddite tendencies. They eventually come around.

[The ?ion]

I really doubt theyre going to shoot this movie in 3D like they did with Avatar. From what I understand, itll be very costly do so and I dont think WB are going to risk spending any more than they have to.

Theyll just do the conversion thing.

I say go for it if they want to. If I read any reviews that say that the 3D sucks then Ill just watch the 2D version.

I feel that this is going to be the more likely route that Warner Bros will take. After giving up huge budgets for Watchmen and Superman Returns, only to have a slim profit margin, is not likely something that Warner Bros will want to repeat a third time around. At least that is my best conjecture.

[Webhead2006]

well thats the thing we dont know how any of the dc hero films will be shot after green lantern comes out in 2011. Sure they could likely just do it in post since its is faster and cheaper to do it that way. But if more and more places are using the 3d cameras and it becomes a bit cheaper to use. They could probably use the 3d cameras. its just all about production costs, and probably up to the film makers on how they want to craft the films.

[The ?ion]

Well we know that Superman will begin next year, or else Warner Bros risks being sued by the Siegel family for lost revenue opportunities. So we will have to see how they approach the 3D for that film.

[Dark Knight]

Warner Bros as a whole is convinced that 3D is the next step in the evolution of immersive entertainment. They have already announced that the next Harry Potter film will be in 3D. All of their DC film properties will be in 3D. I have no doubt that they will stick to it. Television manufacturers are also making the push for 3D televisions (perhaps a hasty move given the low adoption rate for HDTVS in this country). Even PC games are starting to be made with 3D effects (e.g. Resident Evil 5, Batman Arkham Asylum etc). Like it or not, the onslaught of 3D is here.






I have been saying the same thing regarding TV manufacturers are in the process of developing HD 3D TV'S and some TV shows and channels such ESPN and Discovery Channel plan to broadcast certain programming in 3D.

I believe the 2010 World Cup or at least some games if not all, will be broadcast in HD 3D.

[Webhead2006]

well what ever happens i hope it works out best for all invovled on the film making process and for us viewing fans to have a real treat with the film.

[Willi Berg]

Michael Bay, James Cameron Skeptical Of 3D Conversions: `The Jury Is Out':

http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-the-jury-is-out/

[dark_b]

as a huge 3D fan(avatar style of 3D) i didnt like the 3D in Alice.

my theater also doesnt show ALice in 2D anymore. Clash of Titans will not be shown in 2D. so they only way to watch the movie will be in bad 3D.

if you are in a similar position then dont watch COTT in 3D. we need to send WB a message. that summer blockbusters need to be quality movies.

i can not belive that 3 months and 5 days after Avatar was realesed theaters are already forcing us with 3D movies. i expected this in 2-3 movies. but in no way in 3 months.

[The ?ion]

This change was coming long before Avatar. It merely proved to be the turning point where companies felt they could unload their existing plans onto the public. Unlike HDTV, which was created with no real content to back the product, 3D televisions and video games have been under development for some time. Avatar was just the right nudge with the public to help make the transition.

[Webhead2006]

well we will just have to see how things turn out for films. Plus on the plus side films that dont go into production for like a yr or two maybe by then the 3d cameras will be cheaper to use so if they want to do film in 3d they have the option to actually shoot it in 3d. and i do feel bad for the folks who theaters/cities/towns dont have the option to see 2d or 3d of same film.

[dark_b]

well we will just have to see how things turn out for films. Plus on the plus side films that dont go into production for like a yr or two maybe by then the 3d cameras will be cheaper to use so if they want to do film in 3d they have the option to actually shoot it in 3d. and i do feel bad for the folks who theaters/cities/towns dont have the option to see 2d or 3d of same film.
1. why would the cameras get cheaper? they are build.
2. the cameras are not expensive.

[Willi Berg]

Bay was talking about how the 3D cameras were too cumbersome for his style of shooting, maybe at some point the cameras will be less bulky.

Cameron talks about 3D cameras here:

3pFHgC8tAdo

But yes right now the sudden demand outweighs directors having experience with this type of shooting.

It's happening so suddenly that okay, Green Lantern and probably Superman will probably be converted. But as time passes and these movie series keep going, maybe their sequels will be shot in 3D.

[dark_b]

the point of the Fusion 3D cameras was that a grown man can have the camera on hes shoulder and make a movie. the camera is not heavy.

i even think that the IMAX cameras are more bulky.

[Willi Berg]

the point of the Fusion 3D cameras was that a grown man can have the camera on hes shoulder and make a movie. the camera is not heavy.

i even think that the IMAX cameras are more bulky.

Okay. Wonder what Bay was complaining about though.

[dark_b]

Okay. Wonder what Bay was complaining about though.
he could be lying or he used the wrong words.

i think he meant that when it comes to movie editing hes style is to fast and aggressive for 3D. eyes can not for 2 hours adjust every 2 second.

you will see how that kind of style will not work with Clash of Titans. Leterrier is using a similar style.

[Webhead2006]

i was just pointing out the difference of 2d hd cameras to 3d hd cameras are that the 3d ones probably do cost a bit more presently compared to 2d cameras. So that could possibly be a factor in on production costs and the total production value for said films.

[Willi Berg]

In case you missed it, Nolan talks about his attitude towards 3D:


Collider: I was curious if you could talk about IMAX and 3D? These are both things that are…you really pioneered what IMAX could do with “Dark Knight” and 3D seems to be a revolution and it’s changing everything. Could you talk about your feelings about 3D and also with IMAX, did you shoot any of “Inception” in IMAX or was it all done in post?

Nolan: We shot the film with a mixture of mostly the predominant bulk of the film is anamorphic 35mm, which is the best quality sort of practical format to shoot on by far. We shot key sequences on 65mm, 5 perf not 15 perf, and we shot VistaVision on certain other sequences. So we’ve got a negative - a set of negative - that’s of the highest possible quality except IMAX. We didn’t feel that we were going to be able to shoot in IMAX because of the size of the cameras because this film given that it deals with a potentially surreal area, the nature of dreams and so forth, I wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Not be bound by the scale of those IMAX cameras, even though I love the format dearly. So we went to the next best thing which was 65mm. So we have the highest quality image of any film that’s being made and that allows us to reformat the film for any distribution form that we’d like to put it in. We’re definitely going to do an IMAX release. We’re excited about doing that and using our original negative 65mm photography to maximize the effect of that release. 3D I think is an interesting development in movies or the resurgence of 3D. It’s something we’re looking at and watching. There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film. And so then you’re looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways. So really, for me, production of a large scale film is all about recording the best, highest quality image possible so that you can then put it in any theatre in the best way possible. And 65mm film, IMAX film, VistaVision, 35mm, that’s the way you do that.


http://www.collider.com/2010/03/25/director-christopher-nolan-and-producer-emma-thomas-interview-inception-they-talk-3d-what-kind-of-cameras-they-used-pre-viz-wb-and-a-lot-more/

[matrix_ghost]

the point of the Fusion 3D cameras was that a grown man can have the camera on hes shoulder and make a movie. the camera is not heavy.

i even think that the IMAX cameras are more bulky.


Okay. Wonder what Bay was complaining about though.


I think the camera is still in it's development stages . While it is true that Fusion Camera system developed by Pace and Cameron is contiuining to be refined , it's not something that needs to be tailored made for each movie. I think with normal cameras , there needs to be slight adjusments such as lenes being changed etc. OTherwise it pretty much comes down to putting film into the camera and shoot the sequences. Not only that but the 3-d cameras have a problem shooting at higher framerates. For Tron Legacy Kosinski and co. used a different HD digital camera called te Phantom Camera to shoot scenes at 1000 frames per second.


Bay style of shooting is very hectic and he typically uses 3-4 camera shooting the same scene , all filming at different speeds and angles. THe Fusion Camer system would have to be refined to all those specifics which is what i think Bay is referring to. If you've seen the behind-the-scenes footage of Bay's movie you'll see that even though he plans his sequences ahead , he's improvising when he's on set choosing angles as looks at the shots that are about to be filmed.So while he would've planned maybe 3 camera set ups early on , he could easily do another 2 set ups on the spot . Because Bay works with his own team , the guys pretty much know what kind of cameras he needs . To film Bay's movies with the Fusion Camera would have to mean that the camera would have to a kind of all purpose camera.





In case you missed it, Nolan talks about his attitude towards 3D:



http://www.collider.com/2010/03/25/director-christopher-nolan-and-producer-emma-thomas-interview-inception-they-talk-3d-what-kind-of-cameras-they-used-pre-viz-wb-and-a-lot-more/

I posted the entire article in the Inception thread but yeah , interesting for Nolan to say this. He is looking at the conversion techniques as a win-win scenario. Creating something in 3-d without the loss of resolution you'd otherwise get with shooting something on film.

Slashfilm says that what Nolan is doing with Inception is as close to IMAX resolution as one can get :
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/25/christopher-nolan-filmed-some-of-inception-using-65mm-calls-3d-an-interesting-development/#ixzz0jIq6q0Yp
Nolan admits as much to Collider, saying that he “didn’t feel that we were going to be able to shoot in IMAX because of the size of the cameras because this film given that it deals with a potentially surreal area, the nature of dreams and so forth, I wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Not be bound by the scale of those IMAX cameras, even though I love the format dearly.” He then went on to reveal that they “went to the next best thing” … “a set of negative - that’s of the highest possible quality except IMAX.”

They shot the majority of the film using anamorphic 35mm, but Nolan says they “shot key sequences on 65mm” with “5 perf not 15 perf,” and they “shot VistaVision on certain other sequences.” For those of you who aren’t film tech geeks, this is a significant difference: 65mm 5 perf gives you 4.2 times the available image area behind the lens compared to regular four perf 35mm. Go check out the 1992 documentary Baraka to see what 65mm 5 perf can look like. The result is very vivid, practically no grain. In IMAX the film should look amazing.

[Zorex]

So really, for me, production of a large scale film is all about recording the best, highest quality image possible so that you can then put it in any theatre in the best way possible. And 65mm film, IMAX film, VistaVision, 35mm, that’s the way you do that.
I'd much sooner take this for Superman, or any live-action, CGI Animation-light film, over last minute 3D conversion

[The ?ion]

It looks like Nolan is joining the ranks of those who are not entirely enthusiastic about shooting in 3D, despite being interested in what 3D can do for films.

[dark_b]

i dont think he doesnt like the depth. he just likes working with ''film'' . digital is something that a lot of directors dont want to use.

directors who worked their whole live with film wont just chagne their mind and start using digital. Cameron didnt do a 180 in 1 year. he used digital cameras for years when he was doing documentary's. the same with Mann. its different with the director of Tron Legacy because this is hes first movie. he doesnt know anything else.

just dont force Nolan with 3D. the worst part is that at the end hes Batman 3 will be in 3D and 90% of theater showing will be in 3D. so if the studio f.... up the conversion it will not end very good for hes movie. of course the Nolan defenders will scream that he is a god and that he will invent a new technology for addnig depth.

[The ?ion]

Honestly, I don't think the general audience will notice a difference between post process conversion and filming with a 3D camera. If it wasn't such a buzz term and a media focus right now, nobody would even be aware that there was some alternative processing method. I think people will enjoy the experience either way. We are forum goers after all. We are the nerdy types who spend our time scrutinizing everything with our laundry list of factoids. For the general public, there is only 3D or 2D (or iMax).

[Webhead2006]

well its nice to see what he thinks of it. with that statement it does look like he will probably want to shoot batman 3 and with who ever it is on superman reboot to shoot in 2d hd and post work. I do wish the best of luck with the tech for both to get better and better in the coming years.

[batlovescatDC]

I would be all for 3D if it was just certain points of 3D peppered throughout the film. I don't want every single action scene in the film to be in 3D. It's different for Green Lantern because of the powers/effects coming from the ring. Using 3D in the Superman reboot at certain times in action scenes to make effects more realistic would be awesome.

[The ?ion]

They tried that with Superman Returns at the iMAX. That didn't turn out so well. I am not saying that that movie is the reason why it no longer happens, but I am sure it served as an example to Warner Bros and studios alike that you are better off doing full 3D rather than partial.

[matrix_ghost]

With more and morefull 3-d movies coming out , i think it would be a bad move to release a superman movie with only select 3-d scenes.
Audiences would complain about them paying full price for something that isn't 3-d. It isn;t a case of good 3-d vs bad 3-d but a case of 3-d or no 3-d.
People would get pissed as well as theater owners who would have to lower prices because not having everyting is in 3-d.

[Lucid]

Directors and writers will begin to go out of their way to incorporate 3D into scenes just to make sure things look "cool". Stories will suffer. Scenes will feel forced. Just wait.

3D will be the downfall of cinema. :csad:Just like in 1927 sound was the downfall of cinema.

[dark_b]

Honestly, I don't think the general audience will notice a difference between post process conversion and filming with a 3D camera. If it wasn't such a buzz term and a media focus right now, nobody would even be aware that there was some alternative processing method. I think people will enjoy the experience either way. We are forum goers after all. We are the nerdy types who spend our time scrutinizing everything with our laundry list of factoids. For the general public, there is only 3D or 2D (or iMax).stop insulting my eyes. :o

i saw Alice in 3D. it was not the end of the world but the difference was obvious.

but hey its SHH so someone must be smarter right? :whatever:

[dark_b]

well its nice to see what he thinks of it. with that statement it does look like he will probably want to shoot batman 3 and with who ever it is on superman reboot to shoot in 2d hd and post work. I do wish the best of luck with the tech for both to get better and better in the coming years.why does everyone think that Nolan will force the director to everything that he wants for hes movies?:huh:

[Webhead2006]

yea i wouldnt mind if it was just select scenes like certain movies have done in the past few yrs. But since its the whole film in 3d or most of the film in 3d these days. It will more then likely be full on 3d. As for it being shot in 3d or done in post only time will tell with these future dc films.

[FlawlessVictory]

Michael Bay, James Cameron Skeptical Of 3D Conversions: `The Jury Is Out':

http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-the-jury-is-out/

Cameron is skeptical of conversions yet he is converting Titanic himself into 3D. His problem lies more with the studios making these decisions and not the directors.

March 24, 2010 - Having spoken out against the recent trend of 3D conversions of 2D films, what does James Cameron (http://stars.ign.com/objects/916/916364.html) have to say about converting his own film, Titanic (http://movies.ign.com/objects/033/033861.html), into 3D for re-release in theaters? In an interview at an event to promote the April 22 release of Avatar (http://movies.ign.com/objects/800/800318.html) on DVD and Blu-ray, Cameron explained the distinction between taking the initiative as a filmmaker and having the studio dictate the conversion.

"We're converting Titanic, but we're doing it right," Cameron said. "What I'm not a fan of is a rushed or slapdash conversion that's not done right. And, I'm certainly not a fan of conversion when you could shoot the movie in 3D."

The problem, he said, is when the decision is made by the studio and not by the directors themselves.

"Right now, they're being made by studios because all the filmmakers hung back and said, 'Well, let's go see if Cameron hangs himself. Then we can forget about this 3D thing, and roll over and go back to sleep.' That didn't happen, so now they've gotta go, 'Oh, (expletive), maybe I have to think about doing a movie in 3D,' as opposed to what should have happened. They should have been pounding on the gates of the studios, saying, 'We want to make movies in 3D. It looks cool. It's a new art form. Let's go. Give us the money.' That didn't happen, so now they're paying the price, which is the studio telling them to make their movies in 3D and they're caught with their pants down."

Cameron went on to further excoriate his fellow filmmakers: "They're not standing up. It's like, 'Come on! Show some spine, guys.' The studios have the power. They're going, 'You're doing your movie in 3D. Guess what? You don't have a choice. You don't want to do it? That's fine. We'll get someone else.' That's not how it was supposed to be. But, if the filmmakers take control of this thing, like they should, and like they control any other aesthetic aspect of their movie, then you'll have the quality and people will spend the money."

Cameron also assured fans that he will personally oversee the Titanic conversion in parallel with his next project (which he wouldn't reveal). The target release date is currently Spring 2012, to coincide with the 100-year anniversary of the sailing of the Titanic, "a nice marketing hook."http://movies.ign.com/articles/107/1079704p1.html

[Webhead2006]

yea if its the director having a hand in how its turns out it would probably turn out to be a better thing. Then just some hack editor doing it for the studio with no hand in with the director.

Dark b i wasnt trying to say nolan will force who ever is director to do what he wants. We still dont know who is the director, and how much of a hand in producing nolan will have. All counting on when this reboot is filming compared to when he is shooting batman 3 and all that. Now sure who ever is the director will probably have their opinion on things. But with nolan helping out they would probably welcome his hand in shaping and forming this new film universe for superman.

[dark_b]

is Cameron even aware that not every director in hollywood has a 2 billion movie?

SPielberg,Nolan,Scorsese,Mann,...... that kind of director can choose if they will make a 2D or 3D movie. smaller dierctors wont have this option. so if a studio gives you a big budget movie then you will do it in 3D if they want to .


but it would be very nice if Nolan,Scorsese,Jackson,.... would have the balls to go infrton of the camera and explain how they dont like that they are trying to force them in 3D. they are big enough to talk about this. but no. sheeps.

[FlawlessVictory]

is Cameron even aware that not every director in hollywood has a 2 billion movie?

Right. He speaks as if these other directors have the same sway at a studio he does. Obviously, he can voice his opinion and not take orders from a studio because he has gained that clout. These other directors are not in that position. It would take all these other directors to band together and be in agreement to not film a project or have it converted if it is not their choice. Fight the studios together. And not have a situation where if director A chooses not to film a project in 3D than director B will step right in and take over the project. Director B has to have director A's back. The studio has to be worried that a project would be left hanging because no director is willing to take it on unless their creative demands are met. But in the end, this isn't very realistic. Directors have had to have their creativity compromised plenty of times even before 3D came around.

SPielberg,Nolan,Scorsese,Mann,...... that kind of director can choose if they will make a 2D or 3D movie. smaller dierctors wont have this option. so if a studio gives you a big budget movie then you will do it in 3D if they want to .

but it would be very nice if Nolan,Scorsese,Jackson,.... would have the balls to go infrton of the camera and explain how they dont like that they are trying to force them in 3D. they are big enough to talk about this. but no. sheeps.On one hand you are saying Spielberg, Nolan etc.. can make the choice themselves if they want 3D or not yet you also say they should speak up because 3D is being forced on them. Which one is it? If 3D is not being forced on them, why would they step up and protest? You want them to step up for the "smaller" director and help them take on the studio? Is that what you mean?

[dark_b]

You want them to step up for the "smaller" director and help them take on the studio? Is that what you mean?
this is what i meant. :yay:

i have now a feeling that they are all quiet because they dont want to have arguments with the studio.

they didnt become big because they sucked producers coc...... they are big because they have talent and they are standing out of the commercial directors. they will get a lot of work even if they sometimes speak up and are honest.

look Nolan is maybe popular at WB but he will not force WB to not realese batman in 3D. so lets say that Nolan films the movie with normal cameras. then WB will convert the movie in bad 3D and theaters will(are already now) realese the movie only in 3D. so the only way to watch the movie would be in bad 3D(like Clash of Titans).

can you imagine all the stylistic and composition choice's destoryed by some bad 3D? its not anymore the question if the movie will be filmed in 3D or not. studios have a chance to convert every movie in 3D. and theaters want to realese only 3D movies.

[FlawlessVictory]

look Nolan is maybe popular at WB but he will not force WB to not realese batman in 3D. so lets say that Nolan films the movie with normal cameras. then WB will convert the movie in bad 3D and theaters will(are already now) realese the movie only in 3D. so the only way to watch the movie would be in bad 3D(like Clash of Titans).

can you imagine all the stylistic and composition choice's destoryed by some bad 3D? its not anymore the question if the movie will be filmed in 3D or not. studios have a chance to convert every movie in 3D. and theaters want to realese only 3D movies.

You are the expert on this subject, but why are you automatically assuming it will be bad 3D? I point to this quote from Cameron

"We're converting Titanic, but we're doing it right," Cameron said. "What I'm not a fan of is a rushed or slapdash conversion that's not done right. And, I'm certainly not a fan of conversion when you could shoot the movie in 3D."

If converting Titanic into 3D is good enough for Cameron, why are we assuming that the conversion for a Batman 3(if there is one) will be bad? Perhaps the Batman 3 conversion will be just as good as the Titanic conversion. Isn't that possible?

[BenReilly]

You are the expert on this subject, but why are you automatically assuming it will be bad 3D? I point to this quote from Cameron



If converting Titanic into 3D is good enough for Cameron, why are we assuming that the conversion for a Batman 3(if there is one) will be bad? Perhaps the Batman 3 conversion will be just as good as the Titanic conversion. Isn't that possible?

Titanic is a thirteen year old movie. It's only option for a 3-D release is a conversion, as opposed to to shooting a new film in native 3-D, when the technology is at the filmmaker's disposal.

Like in the quote from Cameron that you posted, he's not a fan of converting a film to 3-D, when you can shoot it in 3-D. It's basically akin to shooting a film in black and white and colorizing it in post-production.

You can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it but they'll never look as good as a film that was shot and conceived in 3-D. It's as simple as that.

[dark_b]

you know Cameron is also a lot of times full of bulls.....he hyped hes Avatar game like it will change the future of games. i think i will not watch titanic again since its 3 hous long, a chick flick and its 3 hours long. maybe if i get the 3D ticket for free. i just dont belive that the 3D will look better then Alice.

for 3D converted movies you need to rotoscope a lot. i tryed rotoscoping a lot of times. it takes time . curly hair is almost impossible. trying to make curly hair in 3D is impossible. well you can try.........but you will fail. there was a scene in Alice in Wonderland where the camera roated aroud Johnny Depp. in the movie he has curly hair. it was an insult to my eyes. there was some deformation happening that didnt make sense. why? becuase its hard to make something 2D to 3D.

rotoscoping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z32h-b9-8Qw

and you need to build almost everything in close ups as 3D models. i want to see those guys to rebuild batman's cape or supermans cape in 3D. you know how a cube looks. and your brain knows how a cube looks when its rotated and when its visible under a different angle. you dont know how a cape looks in 3D space since it has 10000 of different shapes.

maybe if they would convert movies for one whole year i would have some hope. but less then 6 months? and i just know that they wont convert batman 3 for more then 3 months.


Alice's 3D was not the end of the world.maybe i am even overreacting. but for that kind of prices i can not support it.

[FlawlessVictory]

Titanic is a thirteen year old movie. It's only option for a 3-D release is a conversion, as opposed to to shooting a new film in native 3-D, when the technology is at the filmmaker's disposal.

Like in the quote from Cameron that you posted, he's not a fan of converting a film to 3-D, when you can shoot it in 3-D. It's basically akin to shooting a film in black and white and colorizing it in post-production.

You can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it but they'll never look as good as a film that was shot and conceived in 3-D. It's as simple as that.

I realize this but my point was, if 3D conversion is so horrible as some people claim, why is Cameron bothering to convert Titanic at all? Obviously, he thinks the end result will be good otherwise he wouldn't be going through the process at all.

yfor 3D converted movies you need to rotoscope a lot. i tryed rotoscoping a lot of times. it takes time . curly hair is almost impossible. trying to make curly hair in 3D is impossible. well you can try.........but you will fail. there was a scene in Alice in Wonderland where the camera roated aroud Johnny Depp. in the movie he has curly hair. it was an insult to my eyes. there was some deformation happening that didnt make sense. why? becuase its hard to make something 2D to 3D.

rotoscoping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z32h-b9-8Qw

and you need to build almost everything in close ups as 3D models. i want to see those guys to rebuild batman's cape or supermans cape in 3D. you know how a cube looks. and your brain knows how a cube looks when its rotated and when its visible under a different angle. you dont know how a cape looks in 3D space since it has 10000 of different shapes.

maybe if they would convert movies for one whole year i would have some hope. but less then 6 months? and i just know that they wont convert batman 3 for more then 3 months.

Alice's 3D was not the end of the world.maybe i am even overreacting. but for that kind of prices i can not support it.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining. I figured that time constraints could possibly play a factor in this. Cameron won't be up against a deadline for Titanic, so if he chose, he could spend 5 years converting, whereas of course other films would only have a certain amount of months.

Nolan had mentioned this:

I think is an interesting development in movies or the resurgence of 3D. It’s something we’re looking at and watching. There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film. And so then you’re looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways.

Do you think there will be significant, gradual or no improvement in the post-conversion process over the next few years?

[BenReilly]

I realize this but my point was, if 3D conversion is so horrible as some people claim, why is Cameron bothering to convert Titanic at all? Obviously, he thinks the end result will be good otherwise he wouldn't be going through the process at all.

It's not horrible. Like I said, you can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it, but it will never look as good as native 3-D. If your shooting a new film and you have the option, why settle for good, if you can have great?

[FlawlessVictory]

It's not horrible. Like I said, you can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it, but it will never look as good as native 3-D. If your shooting a new film and you have the option, why settle for good, if you can have great?

In the case with Nolan though, he won't shoot on video, only film, which eliminates native 3D right? The studio still wants their 3D film, Nolan won't shoot on video, so I guess they are left to compromise by doing the conversion. Unless Nolan has enough to pull, and we know he as a ton of it, to state he wants nothing to do with 3D and the studio obliges.

[Webhead2006]

well for me if 3d is to be the only game on the field in the coming years for films and film makers. i do hope it will become a more easier and cheaper process on shooting with 3d cameras, and i hope the tech for converting in post to become better and better over time. So it wouldnt really matter if it was shot in 3d or was done in post.

[dark_b]

Do you think there will be significant, gradual or no improvement in the post-conversion process over the next few years?here is a video that shows how they are doing it. i remember i saw a video 3 years ago where they showed how they did the 3D in superman returns.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/video-how-imax-wizards-convert-harry-potter-to-3-d/

as you see in the video artist will allways need to cut out characters and all the objects that are close to the cameras. and they will need to recreated everything with 3D objects. they will always need artist to do this by hand. no software will do this automatic. make no mistake they will realese a software where they will lie that it does it automatic. but it will be fake. they are right now working on a TV that will be able to do automatic 3D for every movie, tv show and tv series. its fake and they are trying to get sheeps to buy those Tv's.

a lot of people said that the HP 3D as good. i didnt see it in 3D. but i remember the beginning of Alice where its 100% live action. some parts were not in 3D because they wanted to save on money. and there were 3 big crowd shots. sorry but it looked like flat cards in 3D space. it couldnt look different. we can not expect from artist to model 50 random looking humans with complex cloths and hairstyles and then match it 100% in 3D space.


will it get easier in the future? i think yes if in the middle of filming they plan for the conversion. they should take a lot of reference pictures and mesaure every set.


some intersting info about Alice in Wonderland.they used only digital cameras for filming live action. so the question now is why didnt they use 3D cameras?:cwink:

[dark_b]

i found the superman 3d imax video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/157753/superman_returns_3d/

[dark_b]

edit

[Willi Berg]

So here's part of the review of "Clash of the Titans" at AICN:


this stands as THE defining moment we watched 3-D actually destroy a film and stand testament to the terrible, terrible idea of adding it in post-production. It is an effect so bad that it is all most of us can talk about. I know half a dozen critics who watched half of the film blurry rather than subject themselves to the torment of this bastardized hack job of a 3-D render; the rest of us suffered in silence, occasionally checking out the shot composition by lowering our glasses for a moment, repeatedly. How bad is it? See it in 2-D if at all possible. Do not, under any circumstances, watch the 3-D version of this film.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44470

also:


As I understand it, the main thing one needs to consider while editing in 3-D is that no single shot can be shorter than 2 seconds. Any shorter than that and the brain doesn’t have time to adjust to the new 3-D surroundings and cannot properly process the information, leaving you confused and a little off balance if you cut away too soon.

One of the great things about AVATAR is that they went into the movie understanding this. You can have fast moving action, but it needs to be in sustained shots. Think back on the most stunning shots of that movie – they are fluid, but not rapidly edited. Instead they are more classically edited. Now imagine if those action sequences were directed by Paul Greengrass in full on BOURNE SUPREMACY-mode and you begin to get an idea of what watching action sequences in CLASH is like. There is a real, honest to god reason people like Michael Bay are resistant to 3-D – because it changes the way you are allowed to make movies. You have to frame them differently; color them differently; edit them differently. You cannot just take any old film and add 3-D to it, just like you can’t take any old Black & White film and colorize it. But that’s exactly what they did here.

[Timstuff]

That's scary. It's a shame that the 3D effect ruined Clash, but maybe it will be enough to discourage studios from adding 3D in post as an afterthought in the future. It's possible to do it well, but it costs a lot more money, and I wish studios would focus on maintaining a film's integrity rather than trying to cash in on the 3D craze without forking out the dough.

[FlawlessVictory]

^COTT needs to bomb and have the general audience really complain about how shoddy the 3D is for WB to even consider rethinking their ways. All COTT needs to be is a moderate hit and WB will continue their misguided use of 3D. WB needs to take the hit to the wallet. That's the only language they will understand and that comes from your average movie going customer. Reviews from sites such as AICN won't be enough.

[El Payaso]

Wait, James Cameron is re-releasing Titanic in 3D besides re-releasing Avatar with 10 more minutes?

Boy, the guy really didn't take losing the Oscar well.

[dark_b]

^COTT needs to bomb and have the general audience really complain about how shoddy the 3D is for WB to even consider rethinking their ways. All COTT needs to be is a moderate hit and WB will continue their misguided use of 3D. WB needs to take the hit to the wallet. That's the only language they will understand and that comes from your average movie going customer. Reviews from sites such as AICN won't be enough.i agree. it doesnt matter if every critic will complain about the 3D. if the public will not speak then its over.

i am writting over because batman 3 ,GL,superman,flash ,... will all be in 3D.


or maybe they wont be in 3D in 2 years since hollywood will throw out bad 3D movies :hehe:

[Webhead2006]

yea like i said hopefully the whole shooting in 3d tech and doing it in post will become better and easier to work with tech in the next few yrs. I agree if you want the film to be in 3d. Either shoot the dam thing in 3d and all that. Or have the film markers on hand to make sure conversion looks good and it doesnt wrech the film if like above posters said it was done way after and can ruin how the film looks.

[FlawlessVictory]

"Titans" director underwhelmed by 3D conversion (Reuters)
Source: Reuters Mon Apr 05, 2010, 2:37 am EDT

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Louis Leterrier, the French director behind the Ed Norton version of "The Incredible Hulk" and "Transporter 2," conquered the worldwide box office during the weekend with "Clash of the Titans."

Speaking at the movie's Los Angeles premiere on Wednesday, he explained why he chose to remake "Clash" and expressed reservations about Warner Bros.' (financially sound) decision to retrofit the movie to 3D in postproduction.

Q. WHY REMAKE "CLASH"?

A. That is a question I asked myself. After "Hulk," I wanted to do other things, but they came to me and said, "There's this movie we've been trying to do for 12 years. Sam Raimi tried to do it; it's 'Clash of the Titans.'" And I said, "Guys, you cannot remake 'Clash of the Titans.' I am the biggest fan of 'Clash of the Titans,' you are idiots if you remake 'Clash of the Titans.' But then I thought about it and said, "If the Greek mythology door isn't opened now, it will be closed for another 20 years." "Clash" was an anomaly when it came out. And I love Greek mythology: the monsters, the gods.

And I went back to Warners and said, "Let me see if I can find a way into this that will change the movie enough to stay close to the original but make it more personal." I am a huge comic book fan. When I see a Spider-Man movie, an Iron Man movie, I don't want to see an exact copy of the comic book. I want to see a new interpretation. And that is the same with myth.

I found a way in, which was this: In the original, he (Perseus, played by Harry Hamlin) falls in love with the princess. Here, he (Perseus, played by Sam Worthington) deals with the death of his parents, and he has this thing that is unleashed inside him. It was something I could relate to. Because when I was 8, falling in love with a princess and going to fight the Kraken for love didn't make sense for me. So here, an 8-year-old can relate to a parent dying before their eyes. You would go do anything to make up for that.

Q. SO YOU MADE THIS FOR YOUR INNER 8-YEAR-OLD.

A. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And I am happy that people are not saying it's better or it's worse than the original one. It's exactly what I wanted. I didn't want to draw any comparisons to the original. I didn't want to make something exactly the same -- sure, Medusa and the Kraken are the same, but in the original, scorpions were almost nothing, Calibos was a big thing but here he is not. I met Harry Hamlin tonight, and I was starstruck.

And yes, it's for my inner 8-year-old, but it's for my inner 36-year-old. And my wife ... She said, "Of all your movies, this is the one I relate the most to."

Q. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE 3D CONVERSION? THERE'S BEEN A

LOT OF TALK THAT IT'S NOT UP TO SNUFF.

A. Well, what did you think? Be honest.

Q. WELL, TO ME, IT WAS LIKE WATCHING A VIEW-MASTER.

A. (laughs) It's funny, that is one of the things I was saying to them. Don't make it so much like a ViewMaster -- so ... so puffied up. Listen, it was not my intention to do it in 3D; it was not my decision to convert it in 3D. Now, people love 3D. People will go see it in 3D, and it will play in 3D; it's like a ride.

If you love 3D and the studio is giving you the opportunity to see it in 3D, go see it in 3D. If you don't like 3D, don't go see it in 3D.

Conversions, they all look like this. "Alice in Wonderland" looks like this. Remember the technology was not ready, so it's Warner Bros saying we are giving you the best of what we can do.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/titans-director-underwhelmed-3d-conversion-reuters

[FlawlessVictory]

^Judging by COTT's BO performance, it looks like WB's misguided use of 3D will continue. :csad: I really do believe they could care less about the quality of it.

[Webhead2006]

yea probably will flawless. Though hopefully now with the studios all a craze for 3d. They will either take the time to shoot a film in 3d. OR if it is going to be done in post. To let the film markers be apart of it and make sure it can be the best it can be.

[Captain America]

I'm not a huge fan of 3D at all, But it just sounds so perfect for supes, So I say Yay

[Jordacar]

Yay, go ahead. Supes 3D makes way more sense than Bats 3D.

[Nightwing1983]

As long as the audience has the option of seeing it in 3D or 2D, which is what Superman Returns did.

[Webhead2006]

yea if there the option for theaters to have both there isnt much problem there. Though as others have stated there is some theaters/cities they dont have the option its either one or the other. so it sucks for them.

[ghostrider92]

3d hurts my eyes so nay .

[DorkyFresh]

i'm glad Nolan is sticking to his guns by making the 3rd Batfilm 2d only...


...however, i'd LOVE to see Superman in 3D. there's a lot of potential for visually striking moments utilizing 3D. i'm okay with Batman not being 3D because he's all about the gritty/darkness of everything, but Superman could have some really beautiful shots that would work great with 3D if done properly.

[matrix_ghost]

With this being the last superman movie in a while ( with the whole lawsuit thing going on) , WB should make it a 3d movie. And Nolan won't have a say in this . If WB is going 3d with Green Lantern and Potter , then 3d on Supes is pretty much guaranteed.

But again i'd like them to shoot this movie in 3d if possible. Not convert it.
With the exception of Alice in WOnderland ( and the Potter IMAX 3d scenes) , conversions haven't impressed. Maybe the 3d conversion of the last potter movies will be good but again i'd rather them just shoot the movie in 3d. Seeing the shots of Supes flying in the city rendered in stereo will look great

[dark_b]

Snyder is the director. Legend of the Guardians was in 3D. but since it was an animated movie it was not hard to make it 3D. but with Sucker Punch they decided to not do a 3D conversion .

so the question now is will Snyder use 3D digital cameras and make it in native 3D or will he do it in 2D and then do a bad 3D conversion( ohhhh yeah i went there) ?

lets not forget the last Harry Potter news where WB didnt want to realese the movie in bad 3D.


the answer is obvious. if you will realese the movie in 3D then use 3d cameras (http://www.pacehd.com/). FACT is that manually adding 3D to a moving cape with motion blur would be very hard. again making a moving cape with motion blur in 3D is hard.

[matrix_ghost]

Snyder and his d.o.p. has designed a special rig to film the slo-mo scenes in 300. If i'm not mistaken they had two wide-screen cameras side-by-side and another regular camera right beneath the two cameras.

I'm sure they can find a way to work with the bulky 3d cameras. Snyder is open to all kinds of tech. and he wants to make a 3d movie .
As for WB they'll be looking at GL to see just how to a 3d superman movie. With Potter they greenlit was given late aug. to go 3d and when they were given the final print in sept. , it was decided that they just didn't have enough time to convert the movie.

I doubt they'll be doing the same thing with Supes because time is limited. They will have to shoot in 3d from the start and design the CGI in stereo. The latter isn't so much of a problem , the former is.

[Excelsior.]

I am sure the 3D will be visionary. Because visionary Snyder will use his visionary DP to make sure that happens.

[HighFivingMF]

If they film it in 3D wouldn't it still have a 2D theatrical release? I wouldn't know, I never had interest in seeing Avatar or Resident Evil and Jackass 3D was the only 3D movie I've ever seen. So I'm not sure if there's a 2D version of those movies.

[matrix_ghost]

If they film it in 3D wouldn't it still have a 2D theatrical release? I wouldn't know, I never had interest in seeing Avatar or Resident Evil and Jackass 3D was the only 3D movie I've ever seen. So I'm not sure if there's a 2D version of those movies.

Of course there will be 2d versions of the movie in theaters though you'll have to search for a theater playing the movie in 2d.

[Maze]

Exclusive: Snyders 'uncertain about 3D Superman'
Monday, October 18 2010, 09:15 BST
By Simon Reynolds, Movies Editor

Tweet thisDigg thisSend to friendMore options
Zack SnyderMoviesComics

WENN
Zack Snyder has admitted that he doesn't know if his Superman movie will be shot in 3D.

Speaking to Digital Spy to promote his latest film, 3D owl animation Legend Of The Guardians, the director suggested that he would use the format as long as it wasn't just "a gimmick".

He said: "I don't know for sure, I can't say for sure but I will say that the experience of the 3D in Guardians was so successful for what I wanted it to do. I think that 3D is pretty awesome if it's done as part of the cinematic language as opposed to being a gimmick."

Snyder's wife and co-producer Deborah Snyder said that it was "really just too early to tell" if the superhero blockbuster would be in 3D, although she admitted that she was looking forward to teaming up with producers Christopher Nolan and Emma Thomas.


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a282642/snyders-uncertain-about-3d-superman.html

[TruerToTheCore]

I am absolutely for the Man of Steel in 3D and I don't see any good reason why it shouldn't be so.

[hatebox]

Nay. 3D does nothing except take more money from gullible fools.

[alexdunn]

Why is there no poll for this thread?

[Excelsior.]

Superman should be 3D. Snyder can pull it off like no other. It shall be Snyder's 3D vs Whedon's 3d. Battle of the titans. Who shall come out on top?