The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[KalMart]

Nolan simply said they didn't have time to do the post-conversion right on Inception, so they didn't do it in the end. I imagine he might be considering it, but he's a smart guy - it'd be on a case by case basis.

And I think he's aware that a Batman film in 3-D would hurt the film more than help it, because it's Batman and thus a good chunk of the movie has to take place at night. 3-D dims the image, there's no getting around it. So would they want the film to look even darker than it already does? I don't think so....

A lot can be done in color-correction to compensate for it. The other thing is projection systems trying to handle two picture streams at once, and really the quality of the 3D projection system....which is, unfortunately, not a quality-controlled standard across the world, neither is the conversion process. Ideally, the light/luminance/mood level of the piece should have no effect on the 3D quality if the system is properly set up and calibrated, and the film/conversion itself is done properly for 3D.

The big problem with 3D...and I think a lot of filmmakers allude to it without really getting into it...is the lack of standardized quality-control and system processing across all theaters. It's a flashy new thing, so the emphasis is on jumping on the bandwagon quickly...because technically, it's really not that hard to project two separate screens polarized for each eye. But there's a whole lot more to it than that for getting it to work as well as it can. Not every theater out there is going to spend the time and money to get it right either...for many of them, just slapping the 3D tag on the marquis is enough to get people in the seats.

It's like when THX certifies certain theaters or systems for sound...it's because they meet a stringent quality standard and calibration that gives the most faithful reproduction of what the filmmakers and technicians intended. Obviously, not every theater out there has it or even has any interest in approaching it....and a lot of times you get crappy sound in a theater. Same goes for 3D....and unfortunately, the same can go for the studio-sanctioned 3D conversion of a film as well....especially when they 'rush' to get it out as 3D, like they did with Clash Of The Titans.

So the movie being dark or bright isn't really a factor in terms of its potential for 3D conversion or quality. If it's an overall dark look, but still shot clearly and sharply, it should technically work in 3D just as well as a brightly-lit movie....IF the conversion, color-timing, and projection is meticulously controlled for optimum performance. It's when a quick, shoddy job is done in any one of those areas that something like a darker picture can exacerbate the shortcomings of such a half-assed effort. It's also why some 'quick-fix' conversions look, at best, like overlapped layers of 2D animation, and others that are more involved actually work better.

Also, in even converting a movie that's shot 2D...it's not like an overall offset setting will work for the entire film. If done 'right', it takes time and effort to adjust for every separate shot, because not every shot in a movie has the same depth-of-field, focal distance, perspective, etc. The right kind of attention and conversion work can take just as long as nearly the entire regular post production. So again, we're talking about the emphasis on 'getting it out quick' that's the real culprit behind badly-done 3D.

This is the main focus behind Cameron's issues with the wave of 3D movies (especially post-converted ones) after Avatar. He knows that many of them aren't taking the kind of care and time to maintain quality all the way through. Even with today's technology....it's still hard enough just ensuring a high-quality regular 2D projection and print maintenance....how are these monkeys supposed to insure high-quality 3D?

 

[Anita18]

A lot can be done in color-correction to compensate for it. The other thing is projection systems trying to handle two picture streams at once, and really the quality of the 3D projection system....which is, unfortunately, not a quality-controlled standard across the world, neither is the conversion process. Ideally, the light/luminance/mood level of the piece should have no effect on the 3D quality if the system is properly set up and calibrated, and the film/conversion itself is done properly for 3D.

I'm not completely clear on this, but IIRC aren't most 3-D projections are digital? So at least you wouldn't need knowledgeable projectionists handling the reels.

Also, in even converting a movie that's shot 2D...it's not like an overall offset setting will work for the entire film. If done 'right', it takes time and effort to adjust for every separate shot, because not every shot in a movie has the same depth-of-field, focal distance, perspective, etc. The right kind of attention and conversion work can take just as long as nearly the entire regular post production. So again, we're talking about the emphasis on 'getting it out quick' that's the real culprit behind badly-done 3D.

Exactly, and Pfister did point out that Avatar was shot with the idea of 3-D all along. Not just shooting with 3-D cameras, but keeping the focal point consistent throughout so the 3-D translated as calming depth instead of eye shockers. TDK did not have that, and I think that Nolan and Pfister would have to change from that style of shooting to accommodate 3-D.

 

[KalMart]

I'm not completely clear on this, but IIRC aren't most 3-D projections are digital? So at least you wouldn't need knowledgeable projectionists handling the reels.

that's not the point, as I described further. Just because your projector is digital doesn't mean it's been properly calibrated for the size of screen and ambient conditions of where it's placed...and it doesn't mean you can just get two of them and simply project each 'eye'. Plus, when you have two streams of projected light that are polarized from eachother, you can get some phasing anomalies that can affect the overall final quality if you haven't really adjusted everything right specifically for that...just like multiple speaker placement can cause strange 'dead-spots' for sound if not placed/EQ'd correctly. It's also why someone can go out and get the best surround-sound home theater system/speakers/amps, etc...but it can still sound like crap in their room if they haven't put effort into room placement, sound treatment, etc.

Exactly, and Pfister did point out that Avatar was shot with the idea of 3-D all along. Not just shooting with 3-D cameras, but keeping the focal point consistent throughout so the 3-D translated as calming depth instead of eye shockers. TDK did not have that, and I think that Nolan and Pfister would have to change from that style of shooting to accommodate 3-D.

That's part of it, but it's also why a quality conversion process is so involved. They have to balance getting the right kind of dimension from shot-to-shot with not causing eye strain, etc. And when it comes down to it...creatively...it's doing something to the picture that wasn't the intent of the filmmakers in the first place.

Shooting 3D brings its own set of issues as well...it's not just a case of simply adding another camera and moving along like you normally would. But that's a whole other ball of wax.

 

[jmc]

Wait so to do a proper conversion into 3D needs almost as much time as the post production itself? Shooting begins mid next year, almost on par with the last film and post on TDK was only finished weeks before the press release. This is BS, our voices need to be heard by WB on this.

 

[KalMart]

Wait so to do a proper conversion into 3D needs almost as much time as the post production itself?

Maybe not everything completely...but certainly as much as any key process like the color-correction, effects, or sound, etc. When you think about analyzing each shot/cut, coming up with the right kind of morph/perspective adjustment/simulation, then the rendering and rechecking involved, it's a big job when it comes down to man-hours (and $$) like the aforementioned processes. Whereas some 'cheaper'/quicker versions could be more automated, if you will. That's why movies still take a lot of time and money to make, despite advanced technology....it's still skilled people making the decisions and putting in the work.

 

[brewme99]

obviously there is a large market in 3-D. but in the same sense as black and white vs. color, it should be used accordingly. the content/context of a film should be in consideration. i personally believe 3-D is distracting, and takes away from the movie rather than adding depth to the story; no pun intended. sitting down for a movie i'd much rather be able to enjoy it as a whole, then to constantly adjust my eyes frame after frame. but to each his own, i know a handful of people who are turned off by b/w films, where as i appreciate them, when in the proper context. but unlike b/w films i don't think 3-D truly adds anything to the film going experience, simply stated it's a gimmick. maybe it's a bad comparison, regardless it's understandable but sad to see 3-D forced upon directors. here's hoping nolans next bat film can be executed in the way he sees fit, and heres hoping that that way is filming entirely with IMAX.

 

[Avengers-Report]

I knew Warner Bros was going to address the 3D situation. It is just too much money to pass up.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

3D makes fast motion unfocused, it messes up the contrast and it can get kind of glitchy. All it does it make you realise more clearly that you are watching a movie - like in Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. The only film I could see 3D being beneficial would be Tron because it's in a computer world with high contrast and the glitchiness would only enhance the fact that you're in a computer world. Nolan wanted to try tackling this film in IMAX completely, so why the hell should the studio push him to do something he doesn't want unless it's post production 3D? This way the intelligent people looking for the best viewing experience can catch the movie in Imax, the gimmicky fans can watch it in their 3D, and regular fans can still catch it in regular cinemas. And in terms of money they'd be making money off of IMAX and 3D!!! Seriously, all Studio pressure will lead to is Spider-Man 3.

 

[CJ]

the movie will be in 3d. period.

Nolan may not like it, but WB are the ones in charge. Remember Clash of the Titans? Filmed in 2D, but after Avatar made enormous money in the box-office, WB hurried and added a layer of 3D to Clash of the Titans.

Not to mention, tickets prices for 3D movies are more expensive. Think about it: The Dark Knight was one of the highest grossing movies ever.
EVERYONE is waiting for the next installment, and WB knows that. TDK Sequel, whether it is good or bad will make buttloads of money. Add higher ticket prices to the equation and TDK sequel may just beat Avatar for highest grossing movie ever. (If they can get a villain that has people talking like The Joker, a tough task.)

Also, WB put a lot of money into Nolan's pet project, Inception, so they're gonna want Nolan to do things their way for TDK Sequel.

(Lastly, I recall reading an article months back that WB wants all their movies to be 3D now..)

Why does Nolan care about it being in 3D anyway? Yeah, I understand every movie these days is 3D, but he said he loves big blockbuster movies, wouldn't making it 3D make it more epic and visually stunning?

 

[Figs]

No because having a movie in 3D doesn't make it more epic and stunning really. It looked great in Avatar which was a movie that was primarily all CGI, basically a dream like world.

In a movie that is entirely live action/sets 3D isn't always all that necessary.

Nolan has also stated in the past that he doesn't like 3D because the glasses dim the screen. Either way, you could be right that WB will force him to use it.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

His issues with 3D are that the screen is too dim, it gets out of focus with fast motion, and that it makes the audience more aware throughout the film that they are just watching a movie. Think about it, when you're watching a 3D movie, you're always looking for different 3D parts to a scene. Nolan doesn't want these distractions.

 

[KalMart]

As I mentioned earlier, 3D doesn't have to be bright/contrasty to work right...or be light on motion/movement. It depends on how well and how carefully the conversion is done, or how meticulously it's worked out when filmed in 3D. The problem is that there's no high standard for conversion and projection quality, and trying to get it out quickly and cheaply is where a lot of the problems arise from. And although plenty of studios are more than willing to make the extra money from 3D, they're not all that willing to go the extra mile (and $$) to get it converted as well as possible or make sure the projection venues are set up optimally. They don't even do that kind of quality control with their regular theatrical 2D releases...it's not like they're only going to allow the 3D in a few certified venues...they want it out there in as many as possible, as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. Hence...the unfortunately common occurrence of shoddy 3D.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I have yet to see a 3D movie which isn't dark, out of focus in fast motion or that makes me forget I am watching a movie. It's just too jarring and a gimmick.

 

[Gianakin_]

the movie will be in 3d. period.

Nolan may not like it, but WB are the ones in charge. Remember Clash of the Titans? Filmed in 2D, but after Avatar made enormous money in the box-office, WB hurried and added a layer of 3D to Clash of the Titans.

Yes, because Nolan and Leterrier carry the same weight as directors. The one having revived a franchise and brought as a masterpiece and the other scavenging for action films to try and save his career. I'm sure WB will completely ignore Nolan.

Also, WB put a lot of money into Nolan's pet project, Inception, so they're gonna want Nolan to do things their way for TDK Sequel.

But Inception made them a great deal of money, and it wasn't in 3D. It's not like they trusted him and he let them down. Inception's still doing money. If anything, it should give them more confidence and he should have an even bigger say on the matter.

Why does Nolan care about it being in 3D anyway? Yeah, I understand every movie these days is 3D, but he said he loves big blockbuster movies, wouldn't making it 3D make it more epic and visually stunning?

See the explanation of other posters above my own post. There are problems. And since you mentioned Clash of the Titans as an example, let me refer to it again. Did you sse that film? It looked like an elongated Hercules/Xena episode. The image was absolutely crappy. You want that to happen with B3? 'Cause it may not have as much CG as Clash, but the image will be affected.

So no, B3 won't be in "3D, period". It might be in "3D, questionmark".

 

[scifiwolf]

Here's my take on it. If we (and WB) really want Nolan's uncompromised vision for B3, and that vision does not include 3D, then its merits or lack thereof don't matter. It doesn't really matter why he wants it or doesn't want it, or why he should do it or shouldn't.

 

[hatebox]

I've gone from being indifferent to 3D to outright against it. It adds NOTHING to the spectacle or the emotion of a film. Cameron has a lot to answer for, or perhaps that should be Tim Burton.

It's lucky Inception's on course to make $800m WW - people do still watch 2D films WB!

 

[jmc]

I don't think it's fair to place blame on Cameron, even though I don't care much for 3D he was at least trying to use it in the right way. It's the studio suits who saw the 2.5 Billion it made at the box office who are the culprits, if 3D wasn't a gimmick before it's sure as hell on its way to becoming one now.

 

[Gianakin_]

Agreed. Even though I thought Avatar was garbage, Cameron delivered a film that introduced certain technological advances in cinema. Just like Lucas with ANH and just like Cameron himself with T2 and later on Titanic. He gave the technology, it's up to the studios and the filmmakers to use it well.

 

[hatebox]

I was being slightly facetious with the Cameron remark, although I've little doubt he probably does get off on the fact that's he's responsible for this so-called revolution.

But one of the main offenders is actually WB themselves, who, in the wake of Avatar's success, went on record saying that all their future blockbusters would be in 3D. Whether Nolan will abide by that is still to be seen, but thankfully whatver happens it'll be up to him.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Wait so to do a proper conversion into 3D needs almost as much time as the post production itself? Shooting begins mid next year, almost on par with the last film and post on TDK was only finished weeks before the press release. This is BS, our voices need to be heard by WB on this.

It depends on the movie itself.
At least according to Cameron , it takes up to a year to fully convert a 2d movie into 3d.
However you can limit the amount of 2d shots that need to be converted to 3d by creating the VFX in stereoscopic 3d from the start.
Alice in Wonderland is one of those movie. THe movie was almost completely shot against a greenscreen and so the VFX studios could start to create the stereoshots in post. Plus to get an accurate estimation of depth , several HD cameras were also placed around the actors to get the right data.

Obviously a Nolan movie doesn't fall in that category because he's shooting many shots in-camera and there is very little use of CGI. So naturally it's going to a long time to convert all the shots to 3d.

I'm really looking forward to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It's the first BIG movie where there is alot of 2d live-action shots that need to be converted to 3d. I'm not that worried about the VFX because WB had announced during the shoot that they were going to go 3d so the VFX will be renderend in 3d. It's the live action footage i'm curious to see.
I saw Piranha 3d in the cinema and it was a converted movie. Although the 3d varies in quality the big finale where the piranhas attack the spring break crowd was VERY WELL done. There was depth to those scenes.


Edit :
And i don't think that Batman 3 will be in 3d unless Nolan gives his approval.
It's won't be forced because Nolan has WB by the balls. He's godfathering Superman , made them a billion dollars , made 2 batman movies that are being used as a template for several movies and gave them a original movie that made 700 million at the BO.
Hell if Snyder has publicely commented that he doesn't think that 3d would be right for Sucker Punch , why do people think that Nolan , who obviously has a bigger power then Snyder , will be forced by WB.
Inception made them alot of money in 2d and TDK made a billion in 2d. With a little bit of luck , Hobbit will be released in 3d in 2012 and WB doesn't need to release a 3d batman movie. I think a 2d movie could ever work in Batman 3 advantage because it doesn't have to compete for 3d screens

 

[Avengers-Report]

In the long run, if they do 3D for this Batman movie, it will be forced. Nolan obviously doesn't want to do it and would rather use the iMax scenes, which is a very smart move imo. However, if Batman is in 3D, it will be forced and it will not be right. Batman does not have crazy special effects, so why make it 3D?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

See, I was one of the people who thought Inception would have looked tight as hell in 3D, but you have to kind of play that thing by ear. Not every movie is made for that.

........and lose its vivid, vibrant, celluloid look?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Also, WB put a lot of money into Nolan's pet project, Inception, so they're gonna want Nolan to do things their way for TDK Sequel.

Uh, Inception didn't lose money for them so this is a silly point. In fact, it has made a crapload of money for them and it's going to make even more in the coming months from TV rights, home video, and even a video game adaptation.

 

[Octoberist]

When you're shooting in 3D, everything changes:

The way the cinematography is being used, longer edits (so you can absorb the 3D), using digital over film, and the list goes on.

To me, the ultimate test of filming in 3D is Pirates 4, and see how it looks like. I hate the look of digital (It IS getting better though) and David Fincher is one of the rare ones who can make it look beautiful. Pirates 1 has great cinematography so we'll see how Pirates 4 will look like.