Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ViolentAmbassador t1_j9ttxob wrote

In my life, there have been two movies where I thought the 3D was actually worth something, and they're both Avatar movies. In every other situation I think 3D is a worse experience all around.

59

tranquil45 t1_j9tw106 wrote

I thought the same, but then I saw titanic on this rerelease. It’s fantastic. Cameron really gets it.

27

Outrageous-Event785 t1_j9u4gw4 wrote

Titanic 3D 4K was great. I've watched that film thousand times but when I watch it in IMAX in 3D 4K, I saw some small details that I've never seen in previous watch.

8

katycake t1_j9uu3yr wrote

How did James Cameron turn Titanic 3D, and have it be good? I thought digital 3D sucked because true perspective has to be done with two cameras.

I wouldn't make the odds zero that he actually didn't go out of his way and film Titanic with two cameras. Just to flex.

3

MrFoxManBoy t1_j9v1ujf wrote

We converted Titanic to 3D. My first gig was 3D conversion and the first two films I worked on were some of the hardest— Jurassic Park and Titanic.

None of it was native like the comment below suggests. We 100% converted it by using a mixture of stereo-painting and compositing. From there I worked on all of Phase 2 of Marvel, Star Wars, Pacific Rim, and my personal favorite, Mad Max: Fury Road. If you care I can explain what we did. If you want the short answer, a lot of fuckin work.

5

punished_snake15 t1_j9v3gqq wrote

So we have confirmation, the CGI in Pacific rim is native 3d whilst the live action is converted? Because the work on that movie was incredible, in part inspired by the work on Titanic 3d as well

1

MrFoxManBoy t1_j9v3smn wrote

No. Pacific Rim was also 100% converted. We converted it using 2D plates. We didn’t even have access to the VFX assets back then like we do now.

2

punished_snake15 t1_ja10ouj wrote

Your entire resume could just hang on pacific rim, I have a 3d tv still, and whilst 3d is regarded as a gimmick usually, it's almost like a revelation to the viewers when I put pacific rim 3d on, quite literally they don't want to watch other 3d movies I own, just that one because it's so grand

2

MrFoxManBoy t1_ja12fkg wrote

No lie. That was one of the hardest movies we ever did. All that rain and dynamic camera movement. But I am definitely proud of that one. Glad you dig it too!

1

katycake t1_j9xj3wz wrote

Oh. That's cool. Didn't know it could be done.

1

MrFoxManBoy t1_j9xm6pj wrote

Little trade secret too. Even most movies that claim they were shot in 3D, a lot of the time have to get converted anyways because something as simple as difference in light entering the two lenses unequally. Meaning if you watched the playback in 3D, it would look like a weird shimmer that only hurts your eyes. So we would have to choose one of the outputs from one of the cameras and convert that plate to 3D.

1

CorneliusCardew t1_j9uxyjk wrote

I can't find it now but I remember some interview where he said all it takes is time, money, and attention to detail to get post-conversion to like 80% of native 3D quality it's just that no one wants to do that.

1

sadlibra OP t1_j9twj3k wrote

This post was actually sparked by seeing Titanic 3D. I really really wish it was an option to see it in its original format. I was so distracted.

5

tranquil45 t1_j9ty67u wrote

Oh interesting! I loved it in 3d, I hope you get to see it on the big screen in 2d in the future :)

8

ViolentAmbassador t1_j9u4zxv wrote

Yeah that doesn't surprise me, I just haven't seen the re-release. I'd trust Cameron to be worth seeing in 3D but he's basically the only one.

1

Illustrious-Chair350 t1_j9twppy wrote

I thought gravity was pretty good in 3d, but for the most part its white objects on a black background, so I think it would have sold just as well in 2d. If I'm not in a group I will always choose regular because of the glasses over glasses thing.

6

LEJ5512 t1_j9umw12 wrote

I thought Gravity was great in 3D because the takes are soooo long that my brain didn't have to spend time reorienting itself. Action movies with quick cuts force me to spend a split-second to understand where everything is each time the camera cuts to a new view. But Gravity allowed me enough time to figure out the scene and where all the objects were.

3

ViolentAmbassador t1_j9u5b3c wrote

I didn't see Gravity in theaters at all, but I can see it being something that would be cool. I don't mean to imply that there aren't any others than what I listed, but they're pretty rare.

Same on the glasses over glasses issue

2

Illustrious-Chair350 t1_j9ulx7n wrote

Couldn't agree more! Crazy rare, I just checked my local theater out of curiosity and they don't have any 3D showtimes listed, last one I can remember is Avatar 2. I wonder if that is a nationwide phenomena or if my area is just particularly 3d averse lol.

2

IAmDotorg t1_j9u3x8b wrote

Titanic's conversion is equally as good. Of course, James Cameron spent the better part of a year individually reviewing every frame of it, which is a little nutty. But the results were spectacular.

5

moofunk t1_j9vouf5 wrote

I can imagine that every frame had the converter's name in the corner, and he would phone them up at 3 AM to ask them to change something right now.

Edit: Scratch that. He'd fly to their house in a helicopter at 3 AM.

1

cosmoboy t1_j9txddu wrote

I agree with this. I really enjoy when 3d is used to create depth a lot more than when it's trying to throw things into my face.

4

withWhomatethepizza t1_j9tzcdt wrote

I would agree and add Prometheus and Coraline (which came out in 3D before Avatar).

I think post-conversion 3D is often gimmicky. Avatar 2 in HFR 3D was pretty awesome imo.

3

IAmDotorg t1_j9u4a4t wrote

Post-conversion 3D where there weren't lidar maps made during filming is gimmicky.

Even Avatar 2 wasn't shot in real 3D, for the most part. (Of course, given it was mocaped and rendered.)

Live-shot 3D kind of sucks because you don't end up with enough data to do compositing correctly, and you can easily shoot things that end up with uncomfortable artifacts for the viewer that you can't fix after the fact.

2

CorneliusCardew t1_j9uyf02 wrote

Ignoring the movie's quality, The Polar Express came out in 2004 and blew me away when I saw it in IMAX 3D. Maybe it wouldn't hold up post Avatar but when the layered snowflakes came down over the WB logo I was pretty gobsmacked.

3

JonnyCarlisle t1_j9u9ulc wrote

In the age of CG animated films with 3D releases, your comment is blithering nonsense.

Know one of the best 3D movies? It was Into the Spiderverse.

Spray painting the screen? Marvelous.

Also, Gravity.

Also, most of Dreamworks, starting with those beards on How to Train Your Dragon.

News: When we have comfortable devices to enjoy 3D movies, you might find yourself enjoying 3D movies.

(MCU 3D still sucks)

2

wakejedi t1_j9twpcb wrote

Lego Movie was good, Ant Man 3, not so much

1