Superman in 3D

[Timstuff]

I was wondering... What's the possibility that Snyder would shoot Superman as a 3D film? He already does all his stuff in digital so it wouldn't be that big of a leap for him, and his last film, Legend of the Guardians, was done in 3D. Given the recent "meh" response to a lot of 3D conversions I kind of doubt Warner Bros. would bother to do a post-production conversion if the movie is shot in 2D, however if the shoot it as a 3D film the results could be pretty spectacular. Seeing Superman fly and preform his heroics in 3D could be a very spectacular experience, as long as they don't overdo it and make the movie feel cheesy when you see it in 2D (aka, shooting it for 3D instead of shooting in 3D).

Warner Bros. canceled the 3D version of Harry Potter and the Dealthy Hallows, and Green Lantern is only being released in 3D for select theaters. I think this is good since these films are only conversions anyway, and post-production 3D conversions, at best are "OK," but never seem to reach what movies like Avatar or animated features manage to pull off. If they're going to do Superman in 3D, I want them to do it the right way, and I don't want it to detract from the experience of seeing it in 2D.

[Rust]

Didnt Snyder already say that they might do 3D here? I think he did, but I'm linkless.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Weeeell, thing is WB only canceled the 3D post-conversion on Deathly Hallows - Part I. They noticeably didn't breath a word about the final Potter movie hitting this July.

But yeah, I'd imagine Superman will be in 3D.

[Mr. Thing]

If done the right way, a 3D Superman film is a no-brainer.

[dark_b]

since Nolan likes film and 2D i woldnt be suprised if they make Superman without 3D like Batman.

i hope that Snyder is not forced. if he wants 2D let him.

[Micah12345]

WB has said all of their blockbusters from now on will be in 3D. Nolan is the exception.

If they film it in 3D instead of converting it though, it should be much better.

It still gives me a headache and messes with my eyes though. Not something I like to feel during a midnight showing.

[Dark Knight]

I hope so.

It's makes sense that the next Superman film be completely filmed using 3D cameras or even 3D IMAX cameras? Absolutely. It really is a no brainer.

The time is NOW! :supes:

[Project862006]

snyder chose not to post convert sucker punch because he said he did'nt want to ruin his own film so atleast he unlike other Hollywood directors has some sense

[Dark Knight]

Weeeell, thing is WB only canceled the 3D post-conversion on Deathly Hallows - Part I. They noticeably didn't breath a word about the final Potter movie hitting this July.

But yeah, I'd imagine Superman will be in 3D.


Filmed with 3D cameras or converted?

With Zack directing, they should just shoot the film using the 3D cameras.

[Rust]

Some scenes, like all the flying around, obviously have HUGE potential here, but other than that I dont see the necessity for it.
Still just a gimmick IMO unless it's actually something conceptual within the story itself which I doubt this will be.

[Astrodust]

This movie will make more money if it is released in 3D as well as 2D. And we are talking possibly hundreds of millions. Is there any doubt?

[Astrodust]

And don't forget that extra money that 3D films make when released on Blu-ray. With 3D broadcasts, and digital downloads there is just too much money for WB to ignore. The 3D haters won't stop Superman from being released in 3D. Besides there is always the 2D version for them.

[The Shield]

Now a days they have those battery operated 3D glasses here and most of the time they're worthless. Blinking or one side goes dark. I constantly have to go back and get a replacement pair... Just pisses me off to no end. Those tickets shoot the price up considerably. Only one time has it worked like it was supposed to and that was a great experience. It had better been because that would have been the last time. As much as I would Love to see a Snyder directed Superman in 3D... I don't know if I'd want to risk a bad experience with those Stupid glasses.
Unless, I could buy my own ... (mmh not a bad idea)

[Slugster]

one word "YES"

[DorkyFresh]

i can't imagine them NOT filming this in 3D. Superman is possibly WB's most recognizable name. his shield is more popular than Mickey Mouse's silhouette...and this is Superman's last chance at redemption. they've GOT to go all out!!!

snyder chose not to post convert sucker punch because he said he did'nt want to ruin his own film so atleast he unlike other Hollywood directors has some sense
this gives me hope for Snyder. very smart move and it shows that he has enough pull to make some key decisions.....meaning that he's not just a puppet.

[Cousin Itt]

I hate hate hate 3D. I hope this flick isn't in 3D but it probably will be.

[DorkyFresh]

why you hate 3D? you blind in one eye or somn? just wondering...

[Parker Wayne]

Yeah, I'll never understand why people would hate 3D so much, even good 3D.

[Cousin Itt]

why you hate 3D? you blind in one eye or somn? just wondering...

Actually I kinda am.

My left eye is very bad I can't read with both eyes and 3D makes it very difficult for me to enjoy movies.

[DorkyFresh]

well i was just speaking to one of my buddies a lil' while ago and i can understand why he hates 3D. he's 90% blind in his left eye so he has no depth perception and isn't able to enjoy movies when the rest of our crew goes to see 3D movies...but that's pretty understandable.

if it's just a "3D is a gimmick" mentality then i'm just like "get over it"...

Actually I kinda am.

My left eye is very bad I can't read with both eyes and 3D makes it very difficult for me to enjoy movies.
aw man, i'm sorry to hear that. i genuinely feel bad that you can't enjoy 3D. good news is that the gods saw fit to grace you with a spare ;)

[Cousin Itt]

aw man, i'm sorry to hear that. i genuinely feel bad that you can't enjoy 3D. good news is that the gods saw fit to grace you with a spare ;)

heh, don't worry about it. I just want to be able to see a kick ass Superman film in the theater without being uncomfortable. It annoys me to no end that I may have to pay extra to see a movie that I can't fully enjoy.

[DorkyFresh]

well undoubtedly they'll release it 2D regardless of if they film in 3D.

[KRIM]

I'd much rather they opt for native IMAX shooting like TDKR. 3D may add some visual glamour for the spectacle, but IMAX is a much larger jump to the extraordinary. The mammoth canvas it provides on the screen would suit the epic turn this film likely will take.

[DorkyFresh]

i'm not too crazy about IMAX. i like liemax (the smaller IMAX screens) but IMAX is overwhelming sometimes. plus, i'd rather be able to watch this movie at home in 3D than for it to take up my ENTIRE screen.....but that's just me.

[Timstuff]

The problem with Imax is that there aren't enough real Imax screens out there to truly appreciate the quality of it. Liemax screens don't really cut it, and even if you enjoy them there's not really enough of an advantage to shooting in Imax if you're just going to watch it in Liemax anyway. A regular sized print that's been upscaled won't really look that much different from a film shot on actual Imax cameras if it's in a Liemax theater.

Also, there's no way that they'd shoot all of MOS in Imax anyway, since Christopher Nolan already said that TDKR will only be partially Imax, like TDK. Nolan is THE expert on Imax, and if he says now is not the time for an all-Imax movie, why would a man who has never even used Imax before try to shoot a whole movie in it!?

Snyder has worked with 3D, and he is huge into shooting with digital. It makes sense that he'd do Superman as his first live action movie shot in 3D, and I'm sure that Warner Bros. would be happy to front the cash necessary to shoot on 3D cameras.

[Kal-El.9859]

as a guy who already wears glasses 3D is a burden for me...but I loved Avatar in 3D...and the DVD is just as good in 2D...so I'm torn

[BH/HHH]

I'm not a fan of 3D so I'd rather it wasn't shot in 3D

[Kal-El.9859]

I'm not a fan of 3D so I'd rather it wasn't shot in 3D

that would be fine with me too

[Timstuff]

I'm not a fan of 3D so I'd rather it wasn't shot in 3D

Why, if the 2D version ends up looking exactly the same? :huh:

Which would be a worse scenario-- they shoot the film in 3D, and you buy tickets for the 2D version, or they shoot it in 2D, it ends up looking exactly the same, and then the movie ends up having to carry the stigma of having an underwhelming 3D conversion?

[Astrodust]

Ya they need to shoot it in 3D cause if they don't, somewhere down the road it's going to get converted anyways. I'm pretty sure I'll see the film in 2D first to get all the rich colors. Then I'll see it in 3D just for kicks and to trip to f out.

[BH/HHH]

Why, if the 2D version ends up looking exactly the same? :huh:

Which would be a worse scenario-- they shoot the film in 3D, and you buy tickets for the 2D version, or they shoot it in 2D, it ends up looking exactly the same, and then the movie ends up having to carry the stigma of having an underwhelming 3D conversion?

If it doesn't effect it then fine by me

[Lencho01]

I don't really care. The only 3D films I bothered to watch was Toy Story 1 and 2 when they were re-released.

I'm just happy I'm one of those people can choose between 2D and 3D.

[hatebox]

3D as it stands is bloody awful (I wasn't impressed with it with Avatar at all), but one would have thought if there was one brand that would suit it, it'd be Superman. I'll still be diappointed if the film's in 3D though, and will see it in 2D unless the 3D format gets raves.

[Two-Face]

I'm not a fan of 3D so I'd rather it wasn't shot in 3D

Same here.

[BH/HHH]

Aswell wouldn't making it 3D increase the budget, I'd rather it was spent on something else personally.

[DorkyFresh]

man....you anti-3D guys have no VISION...








...get it?? VISION??? :hehe:

[Kal-El.9859]

man....you anti-3D guys have no VISION...








...get it?? VISION??? :hehe:

I got plenty of vision...I have Superman glasses. I like 3D but it's a hassle for me since I wear glasses

[DorkyFresh]

that's understandable. most 3D glasses aren't glasses friendly. luckily for me, i started wearing contacts a year before 3D started becoming popular.

[Kal-El.9859]

that's understandable. most 3D glasses aren't glasses friendly. luckily for me, i started wearing contacts a year before 3D started becoming popular.

I wish I could, then I'd be all for 3D...I can imagine Superman flying towards the screen, or a blast of heat vision, or even throwing someone towards the screen

[DorkyFresh]

is there anything preventing you from getting contacts? i lov'em...not only because i can watch 3D movies no problem but i can also use my peripheral vision........to scope out chicks......

[Kal-El.9859]

is there anything preventing you from getting contacts? i lov'em...not only because i can watch 3D movies no problem but i can also use my peripheral vision........to scope out chicks......

I think I can wear them it's just being a broke college kid, when you spend over $500 on books and several $1,000 on tuition...it can be stressful and you have to prioritize

[DorkyFresh]

ah...another understandable circumstance. g'luck with college!

[Kal-El.9859]

maybe one of these days...

[The Shield]

Literally had a dream that they were filming the movie in 2D last night... My gf's right, I am waaay too into this lol

[Kal-El.9859]

g'luck with college!

thanks...I need it

[Timstuff]

I think I can wear them it's just being a broke college kid, when you spend over $500 on books and several $1,000 on tuition...it can be stressful and you have to prioritize

And then they suck you dry with crap courses that have NOTHING to do with your major and you can't for the life of you pass and end up taking over multiple times until... Bah! :cmad:

[BooJay]

Hopefully they decide against 3D, and even if they did, I would go out of my way to watch it in 2D. The 3D craze is nothing but a gimmick and adds nothing to the movie, except the ticket prices. 3D actually detracts from the movie not only because of the uncomfortable glasses, but because the poorly rendered 3D graphics are ineffective most of the time, causing the viewer to constantly adjust his vision. There's a reason why Nolan decided against it.

[Parker Wayne]

Actually I kinda am.

My left eye is very bad I can't read with both eyes and 3D makes it very difficult for me to enjoy movies.

I'm sorry to hear that too. Makes feel like a dick for the 3D comment.


But let's be honest here. The 3D technology itself isn't the problem. The problem are the studios:

1) Shoving 3D in theaters without 2D options
2) Post-converting 3D trying to replicate real 3D

If both of these problems can be solved I see the 3D hate going down.

[matrix_ghost]

Snyder has said that he isn't opposed to 3d but would rather opt to shoot something in 3d then convert it.

And while WB had initially said that they were going to release all their blockbusters in 3d , that doesn't work anymore. Nolan declining to convert Inception , Snyder declining to convert Sucker Punch and them not releasing eathly Hallows in half assed 3d tells me at least that they are starting to realise that if you want to release something in 3d , do it right.
I still don't know what the approach will be with Green Lantern.
Will they go the route of Potter and convert the movie once the movie is done...in which you can pretty much bet you're money that there won't be a 3d movie out in time.
Or are they going the route of Alice in Wonderland which was shot in 2d but because th vast majority of the footage was shot against a green screen , only a small portion of the footafg was converted. The greenscreen stuff was rendered in stereo from the start.


And considering that many directors are opting to shoot with the red one camera ( it's being used for Hobbit , SPider-man 4 ,POTC 4 , Alien prequel) , i wouldn't be surprised if Snyder decided to use that camera as well. WB will demand that Superman be shot and released in 3d. They won't get that chance with Batman but they aren't letting Superman go.

[Kal-El.9859]

And then they suck you dry with crap courses that have NOTHING to do with your major and you can't for the life of you pass and end up taking over multiple times until... Bah! :cmad:

tell me about it

[mclay18]

And considering that many directors are opting to shoot with the red one camera ( it's being used for Hobbit , SPider-man 4 ,POTC 4 , Alien prequel) , i wouldn't be surprised if Snyder decided to use that camera as well. WB will demand that Superman be shot and released in 3d. They won't get that chance with Batman but they aren't letting Superman go.

I don't think WB will do Superman in 3D. For one, if it wasn't for Nolan and Goyer coming up with a brand-new story, WB would spend the least amount of money possible on making it. Shooting in 3D would add a couple dozen million to the production tag, post-converting it would be cheaper but inferior, and just releasing it in 2D would be more cost-effective.

Since Nolan vetted 3D from Inception and TDKR, and Snyder not liking the 3D conversion on Sucker Punch -- I have a strong feeling Snyder's Superman will be 2D. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was shot digitally either way.

[Astrodust]

A blockbuster film like this tends to make a lot more money when released in 3D. I'm guessing by at least a couple of hundred millions. Not to mention the 3D blu-rays. This film will be in 3D for sure.

[BH/HHH]

A blockbuster film like this tends to make a lot more money when released in 3D. I'm guessing by at least a couple of hundred millions. Not to mention the 3D blu-rays. This film will be in 3D for sure.

Its possible but if Snyder doesn't want it and has Nolan's backing WB's won't force it.

[Astrodust]

Its possible but if Snyder doesn't want it and has Nolan's backing WB's won't force it.

I don't think Nolan or Snyder have the final call on this film. If they want it or don't want it they probably have to convince WB chief Jeff Robinov. It's not like Snyder can just decide to shoot in 3D and add 20 million to the budget. And if the film can make 250 million more dollars being in 3D cause ticket prices would be 1.5 times more, then the film will be in 3D.

[BH/HHH]

I don't think Nolan or Snyder have the final call on this film. If they want it or don't want it they probably have to convince WB chief Jeff Robinov. It's not like Snyder can just decide to shoot in 3D and add 20 million to the budget. And if the film can make 250 million more dollars being in 3D cause ticket prices would be 1.5 times more, then the film will be in 3D.

Nolan didn't want to do Inception and the Dark Knight Rises in 3D and he won. If Snyder doesnt want Superman in 3D with Nolan's backing he will win.

[Mako]

I'd rather see a some beautiful Anamorphic rather than 3D.

[Micah12345]

well WB wanted TDKR shot in 3D, but nolan managed to convince them to keep the look of the trilogy consistent. and snyder didn't want to do post-production conversion, but neither of them may be against filming superman in 3D. nolan enjoyed avatar in 3D.

[Kalonthar]

As long as it doesn't delay the film I'm all for 3D. I never found 3D bothersome myself, and since, as has been said, it can help the box office... Of course, Snyder should do what he feels is right.

[BH/HHH]

Wouldn't it increase the budget quite abit?

[Kalonthar]

Heh, well, that's up to their math department lol.

[dark_b]

i think Nolan had a big argument for Batman 3. the first 2 were in 2D and he could say that since its hes last batman movie he wants to make them all in 2D so that it feels complete. and he made a lot of money with the batman franchise.
with Superman its different IMO. i think WB ill listen to him . but to make it 2D only because of Nolan? i think this is a little to much.

[Astrodust]

Wouldn't it increase the budget quite abit?

Only by about 10 million or so. Considering ticket prices for 3D are 1.5 times normal, the math more than makes up for it.

[Astrodust]

Heck I'd wager the money made on the 3D blu-rays alone would be at least 10 times the cost to film in 3D.

[Astrodust]

double post.

[Lightning54SC]

3D is played out and is and has lost its welcome with me already.... im not paying 40 bucks for me and my g/f to watch a movie in 3d.... no thanks

[Astrodust]

3D is played out and is and has lost its welcome with me already.... im not paying 40 bucks for me and my g/f to watch a movie in 3d.... no thanks

There is always a 2D version for films like this. The majority of the general audience still likes 3D. It would be hard to convince WB to not take the extra cash. I'm talking 200+ million more at the box office and 100+ million more on blue-ray.

[Dark Knight]

Zack should film The Man Of Steel with 3D cameras if it makes sense.

They will still be able to show the film in 2D for those who whine and complain about 3D technology.

I just do NOT want to see the next Supes film be shot in 2D and then converted to 3D!

That would be the unwise move.

[Timstuff]

Zack should film The Man Of Steel with 3D cameras if it makes sense.

They will still be able to show the film in 2D for those who whine and complain about 3D technology.

I just do NOT want to see the next Supes film be shot in 2D and then converted to 3D!

That would be the unwise move.

That's what I've been saying. It's not going to hurt anything if it's shot in 3D, and you'll still be able to see it in 2D. If it's shot in 2D though, then what is gained? If it gets a crap post-production 3D transfer, no-one wins.

[Kal-El.9859]

there's a high probability it will be filmed in 3D...I'd be shocked if it's not

[dark_b]

if they agree to realese it in 3D and NOT use 3D cameras..... then its over.

with GL i disagree that they couldnt in 3 weeks jump from 2D to 3D cameras. there was some info that they didnt have enough time. i disagre. but ok at least it was less then a month. with this movie they have all the time.

and f..... Roger Deakins is now using digital cameras so they can not be that bad. Fincher is showing every 2 years that when you know how to use them it looks fantastic.
http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-deakins-digital-35mm-im-ill-film/

[Night Owl]

Please please no 3D. It sucks!!!

[Dark Knight]

:up:That's what I've been saying. It's not going to hurt anything if it's shot in 3D, and you'll still be able to see it in 2D. If it's shot in 2D though, then what is gained? If it gets a crap post-production 3D transfer, no-one wins.


EXACTLY! :up:

[Dark Knight]

Please please no 3D. It sucks!!!


Hello?

Are you paying attention? They can use 3D cameras to shoot, and they can still release the film in 2D format for you.

If they shoot in 2D and then convert it to 3D to show in 3D format also.....then that will be no good.

I hope conversion process for GL in 3D that is probably going on right now, ends up being good and not crap, like Clash Of Titans was.

[dark_b]

with every new 3D conversion there is someone who writtes '' i hope its better''. and its never better. just how long will some here be naive and belive that it can be good in such small production time and 3D budget?

you need tons of money and tons of time for a good 3D conversion. studios are not paying a lot of money for 3D. because the whole point of 3D conversions is to save money and get bigger profit.

[Astrodust]

There is a chance that The Hobbit which is in 3D comes out in the same month as Superman. Who knows, maybe another film or two might be 3D that month as everyone is moving that direction these days. Something tells me if a family had the choice they would choose a 3D Hobbit over a 2D Superman. You need to give this film every edge it can. Mind you some people will see both cause it might be a couple weeks between releases. Or they might move The Hobbit later or Superman earlier.

[Parker Wayne]

Please please no 3D. It sucks!!!

Another example of a guy hating 3D because its a popular thing to do.

[Astrodust]

Another example of a guy hating 3D because its a popular thing to do.

I'll play devil's advocate and say it's popular to like 3D as well. I don't hate 3D though. It's just a lot of 3D is done poorly. The Green Hornet was supposedly done with 3D cameras and looked terrible. The best 3D I've seen so far was in Tron and most of that was in the digital world of bluish tones so I don't know if that had anything to do with it. 3D is best when you don't notice it and can get lost in the movie and there are too many times I start noticing the 3D.

[Parker Wayne]

I have yet to really find legions of people who have the same passion for liking 3D than people who have passion for hating for the sake of hating it. Sure there are legit reason to hate it (as several cinematographer have mentioned it limits the look of movies), but few people actually know that.

I say don't hate 3D, hate the studios for irresponsibly pushing 3D for profit.

[Astrodust]

I have yet to really find legions of people who have the same passion for liking 3D than people who have passion for hating for the sake of hating it. Sure there are legit reason to hate it (as several cinematographer have mentioned it limits the look of movies), but few people actually know that.

I say don't hate 3D, hate the studios for irresponsibly pushing 3D for profit.

Well if people stopped buying 3D tickets studios wouldn't be profiting. Studios are essentially giving people more of what they want.

[Parker Wayne]

The funny thing is that less people are buying pictures for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

[Astrodust]

The funny thing is that less people are buying pictures for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

I don't mean to be the grammer police but I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first sentence. Are you saying referring to 3D movies? 3D theaters are always more full compared to their 2D counterpart.

[Parker Wayne]

The funny thing is that less people are buying tickets for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

Sorry. Fixed.

[Puckenstein]

The thing I don't like about 3D is that, once you get the DVD or blu-ray, you often notice the shots & angles they used to exploit the use of the technology, but you don't get the benefit of it. I know a lot of people hated Clash of the Titans, but I'd just like to use it as an example: I didn't see it until it was out on blu-ray, and there are a few shots that were put in for blatant use of 3D. It took away from the viewing experience. If you do it right, like in Avatar, then I could accept it. But, if they're going to put in shots & angles for the purpose of playing up the 3D, then I'd rather they just shot it in 2D.

[Astrodust]

The funny thing is that less people are buying pictures for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

Still don't know what you are trying to say. Avatar is considered a 2009 film so do you mean before Avatar (2008) people were buying less tickets? Or are you saying that attendance for films has gone down since 2009? I think you are saying two things but they don't really relate to each other. 2010 was just as good as 2009 financially. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
I guess you are saying before Avatar and after Avatar people bought less tickets?

[Astrodust]

The thing I don't like about 3D is that, once you get the DVD or blu-ray, you often notice the shots & angles they used to exploit the use of the technology, but you don't get the benefit of it. I know a lot of people hated Clash of the Titans, but I'd just like to use it as an example: I didn't see it until it was out on blu-ray, and there are a few shots that were put in for blatant use of 3D. It took away from the viewing experience. If you do it right, like in Avatar, then I could accept it. But, if they're going to put in shots & angles for the purpose of playing up the 3D, then I'd rather they just shot it in 2D.

Clash is a bad example for your theory as it was never meant to be in 3D. It was added after the fact based on Avatar's popularity. I do know what you mean though. Final Destination and Piranha 3D are big offenders of this. The way I see 3D is that it adds to the immersion. In Tron you almost forget that it's in 3D cause it's done quite well.

[M.O.Steel]

every movie and their mothers are getting the IMAX 3D route. no reason to think this wont

i don't' get the hate either. every movie as a 2D version. which is cheaper. if you dont' like it, or it gives you a headache or hurts your eyes, then watch the 2D. i appreciated the visual effects and the atmosphere more when i watched AVATAR in 2D, but i can't deny that the 3D was fun to watch.

[KRIM]

i don't' get the hate either. every movie as a 2D version. which is cheaper. if you dont' like it, or it gives you a headache or hurts your eyes, then watch the 2D.
Except IMAX.

Besides, if there's 3D then the theaters are simply going to hold more 3D screenings as that returns far higher grosses. I've even seen some theaters hold nothing but the 3D version. It limits the choices people have, that is the issue.

[Parker Wayne]

Still don't know what you are trying to say. Avatar is considered a 2009 film so do you mean before Avatar (2008) people were buying less tickets? Or are you saying that attendance for films has gone down since 2009? I think you are saying two things but they don't really relate to each other. 2010 was just as good as 2009 financially. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
I guess you are saying before Avatar and after Avatar people bought less tickets?

Ah, but there was also this article from the same site.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3038

Financially, but that was because of the increased 3D prices and increased movie prices in general.

Before Avatar there wasn't any many 3D films being released nor were people really seeing many 3D films. After Avatar a domino effect occured in which nearly every huge film had to have 3D. It may or may not be the main reason, but it's probably turning people away, given the technology or the price.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

Count me in as someone who would actually WANT to see Superman in 3D. I absolutely love the technology behind it. I own a 3D TV (which BTW, you can get a 60" for around $1,000 now) and the 3D movies look great on it. Plus it adds a whole new dimension (pun intended) to gaming. If you see it as a gimmick, OK that's fine, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, the technology will continue to evolve and will get better over time. Granted there are movies that look absolutely terrible in 3D. Clash of the Titans being the main one that comes to mind. It was a last minute conversion and just looked terrible. They planned on converting Alice in Wonderland all along, so they had the proper amount of time to actually do the conversion the right way. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can replace actually filming in 3D, using 3D cameras, but there are some good, albeit a few, good conversions out there.

[Parker Wayne]

^ This. Given that a lot of SFX in superman is gonna be green screen and CGI, I dont mind it as it's easier to create that depth you want in a film.

[Kal-El.9859]

I don't want them to do 3D just because it's the popular thing to do. It has to work with the story/film they are making. It can be a real pain sometimes...

[WarriorDreamer]

I don't understand the HATE for 3D, I mean if it's a choice out of 2D or 3D, of course I'm gonna choose 3D. People complain about wearing glasses but it's just like; God's sake it's just wearing a pair of glasses to make the visual experience more spectacular!

I understand using 3D just to draw in more people is kinda pointless, but if it really works for the story, why not? Zack Snyder said he doesn't believe in using 3D for the sake of it and he used it in Legend of the Guardians because it was right for the story.

Plus, there IS always the option for 2D, I can't see why anyone needs to complain.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I don't understand the HATE for 3D, I mean if it's a choice out of 2D or 3D, of course I'm gonna choose 3D. People complain about wearing glasses but it's just like; God's sake it's just wearing a pair of glasses to make the visual experience more spectacular!

I understand using 3D just to draw in more people is kinda pointless, but if it really works for the story, why not? Zack Snyder said he doesn't believe in using 3D for the sake of it and he used it in Legend of the Guardians because it was right for the story.

Plus, there IS always the option for 2D, I can't see why anyone needs to complain.

Why nobody else can understand that is beyond me. Great post!

[mclay18]

Still don't know what you are trying to say. Avatar is considered a 2009 film so do you mean before Avatar (2008) people were buying less tickets? Or are you saying that attendance for films has gone down since 2009? I think you are saying two things but they don't really relate to each other. 2010 was just as good as 2009 financially. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
I guess you are saying before Avatar and after Avatar people bought less tickets?

Yes, Avatar was a phenomenal success. However, it earned most of its money in 2010 domestically ($466M) -- it grossed around $283M in its first two weeks. The carryover into 2010, plus the carryover goodwill for Alice in Wonderland three months later softened the blow from ticket sales for other films.

[kyleman]

Well, usually I only post on this forum with a manip or a little comment here or there. I usually never have news because you guys are too quick to find out first! BUT (and you can believe me or not, doesn't matter much to me) I am visiting a friend who currently works for the visual effects company that did Avatar and is now working on Superman. They are indeed filming this movie in 3D.

There is also some interesting news regarding the filming process. They are filming many scenes similar to that of Avatar. Much like Cameron had a special screen camera where he could view a virtual environment realtime, sounds like Snyder will be going the same route.

Anyways, I will try to get more info. I hope I don't get in too much trouble passing this info along. Keep it on the down low :word:. I'll be back with more soon...

[matrix_ghost]

Well, usually I only post on this forum with a manip or a little comment here or there. I usually never have news because you guys are too quick to find out first! BUT (and you can believe me or not, doesn't matter much to me) I am visiting a friend who currently works for the visual effects company that did Avatar and is now working on Superman. They are indeed filming this movie in 3D.

There is also some interesting news regarding the filming process. They are filming many scenes similar to that of Avatar. Much like Cameron had a special screen camera where he could view a virtual environment realtime, sounds like Snyder will be going the same route.

Anyways, I will try to get more info. I hope I don't get in too much trouble passing this info along. Keep it on the down low :word:. I'll be back with more soon...

I'll bite.

The tech that Cameron used for Avatar spread quickly to other movies. For example , Henry Cavill next movie will be Immortals. There are conflicting reports as to whether that movie was shot in 3d or not but what i do know from the making-of videos , is that similar tech was used where the director could see in real time how scenes ( shot against blue screens) would look on screen.

I am curious though as to which studio is working on the VFX for Superman.
http://www.cinefex.com/upcomingfilms/upcoming.php?id=19
These are the studios that worked on Avatar.
Although WETA and ILM are top choices, i dunno if WETA will be available because of their work on Hobbit.

ILM might be available. As for other studios like Hydraulx , Framestore , they could certainly work on Supes but they don't have the experience when it comes to Superhero flicks.

[Dark Knight]

Well, usually I only post on this forum with a manip or a little comment here or there. I usually never have news because you guys are too quick to find out first! BUT (and you can believe me or not, doesn't matter much to me) I am visiting a friend who currently works for the visual effects company that did Avatar and is now working on Superman. They are indeed filming this movie in 3D.

There is also some interesting news regarding the filming process. They are filming many scenes similar to that of Avatar. Much like Cameron had a special screen camera where he could view a virtual environment realtime, sounds like Snyder will be going the same route.

Anyways, I will try to get more info. I hope I don't get in too much trouble passing this info along. Keep it on the down low :word:. I'll be back with more soon...



Niiiiiiiice!

Thanks for checkin in with that buddy. Same visual effects company that did Avatar is going to work on Superman and Snyder and company will be shooting in 3D? Great to hear if true and it makes sense! :supes:

Wasn't WETA and ILM the SFX company that worked on Avatar anyway?

If WETA or ILM wind up working on Man Of Steel, than I will be stoked!

[dark_b]

this is it. superman will be post converted hehehhehehehehe ;)

http://www.slashfilm.com/clash-titans-sequel-postconverted-3d-time-embrace-decision/

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'd be surprised if Superman wasn't in 3D.

If you're gonna do the ****ing gimmick, at least shoot it with the ****ing cameras instead of that post-conversion crap.

[Dark Knight]

I'd be surprised if Superman wasn't in 3D.

If you're gonna do the ****ing gimmick, at least shoot it with the ****ing cameras instead of that post-conversion crap.



Agreed!

[NotFadeAway]

Count me among the people who hate 3D.

It's a gimmick, a smoke and mirrors gimmick. Quite simply, it takes away from the story and character progression. The Filmmakers become more interested in making the the 3D look super duper cool above anything else and the film as a whole suffers.

And Avatar, from a story perspective, was an intergalactic pochahantas.

[Parker Wayne]

Count me among the people who hate 3D.

It's a gimmick, a smoke and mirrors gimmick. Quite simply, it takes away from the story and character progression. The Filmmakers become more interested in making the the 3D look super duper cool above anything else and the film as a whole suffers.

And Avatar, from a story perspective, was an intergalactic pochahantas.

But the problem with Avatar wasn't story and character progression, it was the substance itself. It was simply a story we had seen before. I don't think the technology itself takes away from story and character progression (blame that on the studios). Toy Story 3 is a good example. Yes, it was animated, but the character progression was there and the 3D use was still great. Cameron proved that 3D can look great in live action film.

What it's going to take is a director to come and use 3D both responsibly, and for a more "high concept" film. Still, people will still probably b***h about it.

The problem has also been the movies: Avatar (I liked it but the story at it heart is one that has little interest among many people), Alice in Wonderland, and Green Hornet isn't helping the case. If Inception was in 3D that would've been a big push toward people liking 3D because it was much better than the aforementioned 3 movies.

For 3D, that perfect storm of live action, great script, high concept, great director, and great 3D still has yet to come

[NotFadeAway]

But the problem with Avatar wasn't story and character progression, it was the substance itself. It was simply a story we had seen before. I don't think the technology itself takes away from story and character progression (blame that on the studios). Toy Story 3 is a good example. Yes, it was animated, but the character progression was there and the 3D use was still great. Cameron proved that 3D can look great in live action film.

What it's going to take is a director to come and use 3D both responsibly, and for a more "high concept" film. Still, people will still probably b***h about it.

The problem has also been the movies: Avatar (I liked it but the story at it heart is one that has little interest among many people), Alice in Wonderland, and Green Hornet isn't helping the case. If Inception was in 3D that would've been a big push toward people liking 3D because it was much better than the aforementioned 3 movies.

For 3D, that perfect storm of live action, great script, high concept, great director, and great 3D still has yet to come

I agree with you that the studio's are too blame. Whole heartedly. The studio's, and therefor the Producers, push sizzle and gimmicks down the throats of the cast and crew and magically, crappy movies appear.

If you can get a real director with a great script for a high concept film to come in and create that perfect storm of a movie, I wouldn't *****. Most people would still do so more than likely, but I'd be more than open.

[Hurm...]

I just am not a fan of 3D. I prefer filmmakers looking for ways to immerse the audience into a film without having them wear plastic glasses and have fun images pop in front of their face. What Nolan did with IMAX (having extensive detail be displayed on a large screen) is what I approve of, not this gimmick. I just don't see what it is trying to accomplish.

[Night Owl]

ugh count me in on the people who hate 3d too. I have to say it SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! I really hope they dont make it 3d but im sure they will

[Astrodust]

Superman will be in 3D. If they don't do it now they will do it down the road through post conversion. Basically it's about money and they will made hundreds of millions more if it is in 3D.

[Slugster]

I dont mind 3 d but if you dont want to watch it in 3d then go to the not 3d shows LOL!
if its good Ill see 3d and non 3d prolly a few times and then I will own it just like all my other Superman stuff

[Parker Wayne]

And if Nolan went a complete 180 and announced his love for 3D, tomorrow (hypothetically of course), fewer people would b***h about it, no doubt if he used 3D for a film after TDKRises.

[Hurm...]

And if Nolan went a complete 180 and announced his love for 3D, tomorrow (hypothetically of course), fewer people would b***h about it, no doubt if he used 3D for a film after TDKRises.I still wouldn't be on the 3D bandwagon.

[dark_b]

maybe not you. but a lot of SHH members would start to support it.

there are a lot of people on SHH that dont like 3D because they dont like 3D. and thats good.

[RoughNTumble]

I don't like 3D because it gives me a massive headache and messes with my eyes.

[Deathlok]

I'm happy to see Superman in 3D. If done properly with 3D cameras and not converted in post.

I don't want 3D gimmicky shots, just a good film, that happens to be 3D. Obviously for those who don't want or can't watch in 3D, have a 2D alternative available at the same cinema.

Everybody wins. What's the problem?

I can't imagine why no one would want to see a shot of Superman flying up, up and away right at you in full 3D. Gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.

If I had a wish, I'd want to see a (as good as can be made) 3D conversion of the first Christopher Reeve Superman film.

[Supermanila]

In an interview with The Press Association, Snyder spoke on his views on the technology:

"3D has got its place - 3D has energised the market a little bit and that's cool. I know a lot about 3D. I've made a 3D movie. I took all their classes and I talked to everybody and I've kind of made it my business to understand 3D. But if I ever make a 3D movie from scratch that's live action, I'm not going to do that.

"I accept 3D as an enhanced visual and photographic experience. The problem also is that technicians right now are sort of telling the filmmakers how to make a movie and that's not good. And when someone starts to try and say: 'No, it's another way of telling a story.' I'm not sure I'm into that."

Asked if all of this means that 'Superman: Man of Steel' won't be in 3D, Snyder replied:

"No, I didn't say that"

latino review (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/-superman-man-of-steel-3d-still-up-in-the-air-13097)

[Sgt.Pepper]

I hope this film isn't in 3D. If it's in 3D then I hope it's not post-converted 3D.

While we're on the same subject, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole was absolutely stunning in 3D. :up:

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I hope that the movie is actually shot in 3D. I would settle for a post conversion IF they have that idea in mind from the beginning. If done correctly, this could be an amazing 3D adventure. For those who don't like 3D, just go and see the 2D version.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Way, way, WAAAAYY back when Superman and Flash were announced (February 2010) they said all superhero movies would be released in 3d, except for Batman 3 which would be IMAX. Dunno if it will be filmed in 3d though.

[sf2]

3D a must.

[LeMartien]

somtimes, people forget that Superman Returns released in IMAX 3D :) it was a good experience :)

[Kryptonian Warrior]

somtimes, people forget that Superman Returns released in IMAX 3D :) it was a good experience :)

I know, and I never got to see it in IMAX 3D. :csad:

[Naite22]

For both superman and spiderman, the adding of 3D COULD be one badass edition to the movie experience, IF done right. Like Avatar right. Yes! That was definitely badass 3D! Everything else has been crap in comparisson.

[KalMart]

somtimes, people forget that Superman Returns released in IMAX 3D :) it was a good experience :)

I think that a lot of people would like to forget the experience of Superman Returns in any D...if they haven't already. :O

[Rodrigo90]

I dont mind 3D. But the thing that really annoys me is when you get a 2D disc,and you can see the scenes that were created for 3D. They are really off-putting.

[KaptainKrypton]

I'd be all for 3D if they use the Epic system from Red that is being used for Spider-Man and also The Hobbit. The resolution on those babies is incredible. I'd want the film actually filmed that way, otherwise I've never been all that impressed by the conversion-style 3D that I've seen (Superman Returns, Clash of the Titans, etc.). If they aren't going to film it in 3D, then I'd be beyond stoked to see it done with select scenes in IMAX. I'm about even on true 3D and full IMAX from a spectacle standpoint. The IMAX scenes in Dark Knight were every bit as impressive (in a full IMAX theater) as the 3D stuff for Avatar. If it just comes out in 2D, I'll probably be impressed, either way. Snyder doesn't make movies that are boring visually. At least it'll look pretty.

[Dark Knight]

I hope that the movie is actually shot in 3D. I would settle for a post conversion IF they have that idea in mind from the beginning. If done correctly, this could be an amazing 3D adventure. For those who don't like 3D, just go and see the 2D version.


Exactly.

This film may actually have a chance at being shot with 3D IMAX cameras...Hmm?

Who knows though. Regardless, if they can shoot the film using 3D cameras, I would prefer that far more than seeing it post converted to 3D.

[JAK®]

I still wouldn't be on the 3D bandwagon.
No, you're just on the 'I hate 3D' bandwagon instead.

[KalMart]

Exactly.

This film may actually have a chance at being shot with 3D IMAX cameras...Hmm?

Who knows though. Regardless, if they can shoot the film using 3D cameras, I would prefer that far more than seeing it post converted to 3D.

It's not quite as simple as using a 3D camera the same way you would a regular camera, though. While you're shooting, you have to think about convergences, and certain wide-angle lenses won't work stereoscopically...stuff like that. It can set up limitations that aren't there when shooting with a regular single camera, and some filmmakers don't want that, understandably. It can also affect editing if you're changing convergence ratios and all sorts of things with faster cuts that are invariably going to hurt the eyes of the viewers in 3D.

So to shoot 3D or not should probably still be left to the sole decision of the filmmaker until those issues can be worked around or eliminated. As for post-conversions...there are some very good ones out there if the studio wants to take the time and money to utilize it, instead of just rushing it out there to charge higher ticket prices.

[daywalker2007]

I don't know if filming Superman using Digital 3D is going to give us the best quality.

A lot of the digital cameras being used still have that ghosting feel when you see people move on the screen. I think even Green Lantern is using Digital and not film. The Green lantern footage looks a bit too glossy for my taste.

Digital quality is stunning, but it still isn't perfect enough like 35mm film. The reason digital video is used for 3D is because they don't have to wait to process any film, they can see results straight away.

A prime example of awful digital video is the Star Wars Attack of the Clones prequel, that digital filming was awful, you could tell it was all green screen, and it had zero warmth in its quality.

Even Superman Returns didn't have the warmth of 35mm film with the Genesis camera. Then again, maybe Synder can suprise us all.

Its one of the reasons why Nolan only uses 35mm film or 70mm IMAX film for his movies. He doesn't accept digital video as good enough to match film.

[Hurm...]

No, you're just on the 'I hate 3D' bandwagon instead.
No, I just prefer watching films without it.

How's that?

[RoughNTumble]

I get quadruple vision and headaches about 15 minutes into any 3D movie. I loathe the format, I loathe it's popularity, and if it was up to me, I would be able to see every big blockbuster in imax without having to suffer from such a poor gimmick.

I would much rather hollywood focus on developing the technology to film everything in imax.

[BH/HHH]

No, I just prefer watching films without it.

I'm the same mate, I find 3D to be pretty annoying and should only be used on special short projects. For me it takes me out of the movie.

[matrix_ghost]

I'd be all for 3D if they use the Epic system from Red that is being used for Spider-Man and also The Hobbit. The resolution on those babies is incredible. I'd want the film actually filmed that way, otherwise I've never been all that impressed by the conversion-style 3D that I've seen (Superman Returns, Clash of the Titans, etc.). If they aren't going to film it in 3D, then I'd be beyond stoked to see it done with select scenes in IMAX. I'm about even on true 3D and full IMAX from a spectacle standpoint. The IMAX scenes in Dark Knight were every bit as impressive (in a full IMAX theater) as the 3D stuff for Avatar. If it just comes out in 2D, I'll probably be impressed, either way. Snyder doesn't make movies that are boring visually. At least it'll look pretty.


Shooting the movie in 3d means that they'll have to use digital cameras , be it the Red ONe currently being used for Hobbit, Spider-man and the Alien Prequel or the Pace-Fusion system ( Avatar , Tron Legacy , Resident Evil ).
ANd while the cameras are getitng better , the problem lies with the framerate. I've bought the most recent issue of CINEFEX which has an article on Sucker Punch. Snyder explained that while he had considered using digital cameras , he also wanted to shoot superslomo shots and he couldn't do that with digital cameras. There are certain scenes in Sucker Punch that were filmed with 600 FPS.



IMAX , while visually impressive , presents a MAJOR challenge. Rendering images at that resolution is simply impossible right now. If i'm not mistaken IMAX has a resolution of 18K whereas the maximum resolution at which CG images can be redendered is 8-10 K.
Nolan has the advantage that he shoots alot of stuff practicaly meaning that there is very little CG work to be done and therefore "large portions of the ,movie can beshot in that format ".. It's a different beast when you have to create complex CG images at that resolution. Just ask the guys at ILM. The forest fight between Optimus and the decepticons as well the devastator sequence really pushed that tech. to the limit.

[matrix_ghost]

Exactly.

This film may actually have a chance at being shot with 3D IMAX cameras...Hmm?

Who knows though. Regardless, if they can shoot the film using 3D cameras, I would prefer that far more than seeing it post converted to 3D.

3d IMAX cemras don't even exist.
IMAX cameras require film and whereas 3d cameras are digital cameras.

[KalMart]

I don't know if filming Superman using Digital 3D is going to give us the best quality.

A lot of the digital cameras being used still have that ghosting feel when you see people move on the screen. I think even Green Lantern is using Digital and not film. The Green lantern footage looks a bit too glossy for my taste.
Ghosting could be the result of a lot of different things...but isn't inherent to digital cinema cameras shooting in their proprietary formats. You can get it from DSLR's shooting AVC/H.264 compressed codecs, as well as some HDV/DCCProHD camcorders. Or it could be something with the projector.

What can also happen is you get 'motion artifacts' if you start messing with a digital camera's 'shutter angle'. In some cameras, it's not as intuitive as it is with a physical film camera...so if you're going for a narrow-shutter-angle, 'choppy' look like in Saving Private Ryan...or if you're doing speed processing...digital can sting you. And a large screen can amplify that.

But if shot well, chances are that most people would have a hard time distinguishing digital from 35 these days if they didn't already know which was which.

Digital quality is stunning, but it still isn't perfect enough like 35mm film. The reason digital video is used for 3D is because they don't have to wait to process any film, they can see results straight away.

A prime example of awful digital video is the Star Wars Attack of the Clones prequel, that digital filming was awful, you could tell it was all green screen, and it had zero warmth in its quality.

Even Superman Returns didn't have the warmth of 35mm film with the Genesis camera. Then again, maybe Synder can suprise us all.
Star Wars was shot on the earliest CineAltas...I'm not sure what kinds of lenses they were able to use, but I assume they had PL-mount adapters. Most high-end digital cinema cameras now come with standard PL-mounts so that you can use the full range of 35mmm camera lenses with the right focal-lengths. And lenses are a huge part of giving 35mm it's 'look'.

Superman Returns' look was more a result of the final color timing than the camera itself. That Genesis is capable of shooting things just as bright and clear as any system...the Red, the Arri Alexa. That dark, muddled look was what they went for...why, it still boggles the mind.


Its one of the reasons why Nolan only uses 35mm film or 70mm IMAX film for his movies. He doesn't accept digital video as good enough to match film.
Some of it depends on taste, but I'll agree that film still has a certain 'texture' to it...and often when I'm working with digital, I find it too clinical in its base/raw form and feel the desire to add some 'grain' when doing color-timing. I liken 35 to painting on a 'canvas', as opposed to airbrushing a smooth surface, or even photoshopping.

But it does keep advancing, and even today, it's capable of getting a '35mm-quality' image if you put the work into it....and especially if you light well. There's still stuff that happens in the blue channel that's inherent to the process and is pretty technical, especially in low lighting conditions, but it's improving. 3D almost has to be shot in digital because it's the only way to keep the dual-camera or dual lens rigs controllable....and not spend twice as much on film stock. Plus, you can at least preview the footage on-set, so you have specific 3D technicians checking convergence and stuff right there. Can't really do that with 35.

[JAK®]

No, I just prefer watching films without it.

How's that?
Okay, then accept that maybe, just maybe, people like 3D because they enjoy it and are excited about the technology, and are not just on a bandwagon.

[matrix_ghost]

I don't know if filming Superman using Digital 3D is going to give us the best quality.

True.



A lot of the digital cameras being used still have that ghosting feel when you see people move on the screen. I think even Green Lantern is using Digital and not film. The Green lantern footage looks a bit too glossy for my taste.

It depends on the camera as well as how as well as who is using it.
GL is shot on film , not digital cameras.
I still don't know if it's being going the route of Clash of the Titans /Potter , which is to create the movie in 2d and once that's finished , convert it to 3d , or the route of Alice in Wonderland , which to shoot live-action plates in 2d and convert them whereas the CG footage is created in 3d from the start.
Plus the RED ONE camera has made huge advances. Why else would it be used on projects like Spider-man or Hobbit or Prometheus. Guys like Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott know their **** and they aren't going to use half assed cameras on their projects.
As for the GL footage looking to glossy , i think that the images need to have some grain to sell that realism. Snyder often does just that.



Digital quality is stunning, but it still isn't perfect enough like 35mm film. The reason digital video is used for 3D is because they don't have to wait to process any film, they can see results straight away.

Again , depending on the camera. Plus if you have a Oscar winning cinematographer like Roger Deakins raving about digital , i do think digital cameras are coming very close to what you can achieve with 35 mm .


A prime example of awful digital video is the Star Wars Attack of the Clones prequel, that digital filming was awful, you could tell it was all green screen, and it had zero warmth in its quality.

I blame that on Lucas

[dark_b]

I don't know if filming Superman using Digital 3D is going to give us the best quality.

A lot of the digital cameras being used still have that ghosting feel when you see people move on the screen. I think even Green Lantern is using Digital and not film. The Green lantern footage looks a bit too glossy for my taste.

Digital quality is stunning, but it still isn't perfect enough like 35mm film. The reason digital video is used for 3D is because they don't have to wait to process any film, they can see results straight away.

A prime example of awful digital video is the Star Wars Attack of the Clones prequel, that digital filming was awful, you could tell it was all green screen, and it had zero warmth in its quality.

Even Superman Returns didn't have the warmth of 35mm film with the Genesis camera. Then again, maybe Synder can suprise us all.

Its one of the reasons why Nolan only uses 35mm film or 70mm IMAX film for his movies. He doesn't accept digital video as good enough to match film.i think you should tell this to Roger Deakins because it looks like he didnt do hes homework.

http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-deakins-digital-35mm-im-ill-film/

[KalMart]

Shooting the movie in 3d means that they'll have to use digital cameras , be it the Red ONe currently being used for Hobbit, Spider-man and the Alien Prequel or the Pace-Fusion system ( Avatar , Tron Legacy , Resident Evil ).
ANd while the cameras are getitng better , the problem lies with the framerate. I've bought the most recent issue of CINEFEX which has an article on Sucker Punch. Snyder explained that while he had considered using digital cameras , he also wanted to shoot superslomo shots and he couldn't do that with digital cameras. There are certain scenes in Sucker Punch that were filmed with 600 FPS.
The Phantom is pretty-much specifically designed for high-speed shooting and is in pretty wide use. Especially nature programs. It can get up to 1000 fps. the only thing is that it has a max resolution of 1920x1080 for 1000fps....only 1280x720 @ 1500 fps. Fine for broadcast/hdtv if you're just transferring the shot over. But for heavy keying/greenscreening..you'd like to start with more. Although even Star Wars and SR were shot @ 1920x1080, and they did okay with greenscreen...albeit not at those frame rates. You can also get some 'pulsing' as you start shooting really high framerates in digital, because of the heat buildup on the sensor, so that may be another reason why it didn't lend itself to effects work...since the brightness of the image would seem to oscillate. the Red is still kinda' f'd up in the way it handles high-speed stuff.

Plus the RED ONE camera has made huge advances. Why else would it be used on projects like Spider-man or Hobbit or Prometheus. Guys like Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott know their **** and they aren't going to use half assed cameras on their projects.
As for the GL footage looking to glossy , i think that the images need to have some grain to sell that realism. Snyder often does just that.
The newer Mysterium sensor on the Red has really helped that camera's image. With the older one, you got more noise in the blue channel and some other artifacts. The first Red Epics are out there ow (Spiderman, I think), so I look forward to seeing how those turn out.

[dark_b]

i find it funny how everyone who is complaining about digital cameras is always ignoring the last Fincher movies. of course its hard to be a fan of Fincher and complain about digital right? i guess the best way is to just ignore hes digital movies.

[KalMart]

i find it funny how everyone who is complaining about digital cameras is always ignoring the last Fincher movies. of course its hard to be a fan of Fincher and complain about digital right? i guess the best way is to just ignore hes digital movies.
It really comes down to the comfort/taste of the filmmaker, and what he and his DP are more comfortable using. If a filmmaker wants to use 35 over digital, it's not because he's behind the times or what have you. He may have a look in mind that's inherent to celluloid without having to add it in post.

Heck, even looking at that Planet Earth series....there's nothing in there that was shot on HD that makes you say "it would have looked so much better if shot on film".

Given the choice, and budget nothwithstanding...I'd still choose film over digital for some projects. But I wouldn't feel handicapped in any way if I had to shoot on Red or the Arri, either. 35mm and above is starting to become a sort of 'badge of honor' for some filmmakers...and that's a bit dubious with how far things have developed, and will continue to.

[JAK®]

The point is, with every new technology, everyone points out when it fails and ignores when it succeeds.

You can make an ugly film with 35mm as well.

[KalMart]

The point is, with every new technology, everyone points out when it fails and ignores when it succeeds.

You can make an ugly film with 35mm as well.

Like with CGI.

[JAK®]

Like with CGI.Yes, bad CGI still exists today. The point is you shouldn't blame the CGI itself.

[KalMart]

The best was when Superman Returns came out, and people were blaming the camera....or Singer's decision to use the Genesis...for it looking so bad. When there's films like Apocalypto that were shot on the same camera...and with DP's like Spinotti and Tattersall. They wouldn't use an inferior tool.

[dark_b]

but there is a difference betwen the design and the camera. was someoene complaining that Superman Returns looked digital?


i am now realizing that Superman will be post converted. i am now 95% sure.

[Timstuff]

Superman returns was ugly because Bryan Singer decided to go with a soft lens throughout the entire movie and gave the entire thing that über-desaturated look that made the whole movie look like foggy mud.

[Timstuff]

Shooting the movie in 3d means that they'll have to use digital cameras , be it the Red ONe currently being used for Hobbit, Spider-man and the Alien Prequel or the Pace-Fusion system ( Avatar , Tron Legacy , Resident Evil ).
ANd while the cameras are getitng better , the problem lies with the framerate. I've bought the most recent issue of CINEFEX which has an article on Sucker Punch. Snyder explained that while he had considered using digital cameras , he also wanted to shoot superslomo shots and he couldn't do that with digital cameras. There are certain scenes in Sucker Punch that were filmed with 600 FPS.

Didn't Snyder imply that Superman would have less slo-mo than his other movies though?

Also, even though I hate to cite the Resident Evil movies as an example, the 3D cameras certainly did not stop Paul WS Anderson from filming 3/4 of Resident Evil Afterlife in slow-motion.

[KalMart]

Superman returns was ugly because Bryan Singer decided to go with a soft lens throughout the entire movie and gave the entire thing that über-desaturated look that made the whole movie look like foggy mud.

It wasn't the lens...and it wasn't a fog/mist filter. It was how it was color-timed and image-adjusted for final. You don't shoot foggy/muddy images if you're going to combine them with special effects later on in post.

[KalMart]

but there is a difference betwen the design and the camera. was someoene complaining that Superman Returns looked digital?


i am now realizing that Superman will be post converted. i am now 95% sure.

It's was more like people blaming digital for it looking bad.

Snyder may change his mind by the time he starts filming...but from the sounds of it, he's not a fan of shooting 3D, so it'll have to be post-converted.

Also, even though I hate to cite the Resident Evil movies as an example, the 3D cameras certainly did not stop Paul WS Anderson from filming 3/4 of Resident Evil Afterlife in slow-motion.
It depends on just how slow you want to go. In a lot of films, just going 1/2x speed is very noticeably slow-motion....and that's only 48 fps. Even going up to 1/3x speed, most digital cinema cameras can handle that okay, although some have to do it at a lower resolution. But when you're talking about 300 fps +, you need some specialized digital cameras to do that....and it starts to effect the image. 600 fps is 1/25x speed! We're talking being able to see a fly's wings beating. By that point, the digital super-high-speed camera starts to introduce some weird image artifacts that causes the image to look different than your regular-speed stuff. A super-high-speed film camera doesn't suffer from those kinds of artifacts because it's not using an electronic sensor to capture the image.

So even if other movies have shot digital and done some slo-mo, it may not be the super-slo-mo that someone else needs to capture.

[dark_b]

no news on 3D cameras means that they will film with normal cameras. and this means that it will be post-converted. and since i found out that i will only get Thor in 3D i am now f... up for Superman.

[Sabaoth]

no news on 3D cameras means that they will film with normal cameras. and this means that it will be post-converted. and since i found out that i will only get Thor in 3D i am now f... up for Superman.

I saw Thor last night in 3D.
I was blown away.
Even with a predictable and just average story, the movie was amazing.

They have to do Superman in 3D!
They just have to!
Even the classic costume will look awesome in 3D!

[GreenKToo]

I dont care if its 2, 3, 6, or 8D as long as its a good film. Thats the main thing.

[Dark Knight]

no news on 3D cameras means that they will film with normal cameras. and this means that it will be post-converted. and since i found out that i will only get Thor in 3D i am now f... up for Superman.



They might still film plenty of scenes using IMAX cameras possibly yeah? If they post convert Superman, then I'm sure WB's will make sure it looks fine.

[dark_b]

aha WB will make it look fine? WB made every postconversion before superman bad. but with superman it will be different. why? because you hope so?

[Deathlok]

If Superman is going to have a 3D release, I hope for two things;
1) That it is filmed in 3D and not converted during post
2) A 2D version is available at the cinemas so that we have a choice of how to view

That way there is no problem, and we all get what we want.

BTW, I love (real) 3D movies.
Recently bought a 42" 3D Panasonic plasma TV and 3D Blu-Ray player and was blown away with the 3D quality on my Avatar 3D Blu-Ray disc.

But people should always have the choice at the cinema as it is not for everybody. Whether it is because of a choice or physical issue, makes no difference, you should not have to pay extra to either get a splitting headache or not see the effect.

[jthom19802]

I have zero issues with 3D. Not my preference, and therefore will see Superman in 2D regardless. If they can make an awesome 3D flick, more power to them. One thing I will say though is that I want it in no way to affect the story or the cinematography. I know that sounds silly but basically as some have mentioned, there are times when you are watching a movie in 2D and you can tell that a particular scene or a particular shot were done so SPECIFICALLY AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN the 3D. I want no part of that.

[JAK®]

I have not seen a single 3D movie that has done such a thing. Not a modern 3D movie, anyway.

[GreenKToo]

I have nothing against 3D but I like the option of 2D or 3D.
Don't force it on me.

[SuperAl]

i hope its imax format instead of 3D

[Timstuff]

i hope its imax format instead of 3D

It will probably be availablein Imax and 3D. It's not like Snyder will film with Imax cameras anyway, though, because they are huge, loud, expensive, and the film reels are huge and don't have much time on them. Nolan is pretty much the only guy who could hypothetically make a fully Imax movie work, but he just sticks to filming select scenes in Imax. Snyder has never even touched an Imax camera, so I don't know why he'd start now.

[Mako]

i hope its imax format instead of 3D

Same Here.

[dark_b]

the only way to watch Thor was in 3D here. so i watched it in fake 3D. edges were blury. sometimes they didnt have proper 3D on the face. of course its impossible to make a complex cape with folds in 3D look good. so it failed.

i am defeated. last year i was a huge 3D fan. and right now it looks like the only was to watch SUperman in the theater will be in bad quality. so it looks like i will not watch a f.... superman movie on a big screen.

[Dark Knight]

I dont care if its 2, 3, 6, or 8D as long as its a good film. Thats the main thing.


:up:

[KRIM]

i am defeated. last year i was a huge 3D fan. and right now it looks like the only was to watch SUperman in the theater will be in bad quality. so it looks like i will not watch a f.... superman movie on a big screen.
A bit early for this doom and gloom nonsense. There have been no news on how the film will be shot, only that Snyder is experimenting with a new 3D method that uses film instead of digital.

Regardless, fat chance you'll skip out on this movie. See you opening day.