Sluggo said:
Ah-aah-ah-ah-aah-aaah. Ah-aah-ah-ah-aah-aaaaah.
005 said:
Some of these movies aren't being composed for 3D though. There are things directors should be doing to take advantage of the format that they aren't because they don't even know about the conversion till the movie is in post. THAT'S my problem. Movies shot in 3D don't use the camera focus tricks you use in 2D. You're going to compose scenes differently. The problem is that they're not able to because they don't even know the 3D version is coming, especially with movies that were released 30 years ago.
I think zombie is rubbing off on me. This is of course only some of the movies. The poor execution of a quickly assembled 3D movie from a 2D movie shouldn't be a total indictment of all 3D movies.
I'm of the belief that you don't need to compose for 3D, you just compose for what looks good.
Look at Avatar--what about it was "composed for 3D"? In 2D films there is always stuff flying at the camera and giving us POVs to create a virtual illusion of space. Avatar has a bit of that, but if you had seen it in 2D you would never know it was filmed with a 3D camera in my opinion.
But when you see it in 3D, there is this amazing feeling of depth to the image. To me, thats what 3D cinema is. It's just another element to the picture. You can have it jump out at you from time to time, just like you have music stings and popular soundtrack use, but mostly its just there in the film. Its like people say Godfather would never benefit from 3D. I disagree. It's like saying Godfather would never benefit from being made in colour. But if 3D catches on and Godfather were made in 20 years, it would definitely be made in 3D and no one would question it, just like how because it was made in 1972 it was therefore filmed in colour. I'm not suggesting Godfather be converted, but if it was and it was done well and it had Coppola's blessing it would be interesting to see. 3D conversions are a bit different from dubbing sound to silent films and adding colour to black and white--the structure and style of the narrative and the performance (as with sound) isn't changed, and unlike black and white the composition and cinematography isn't altered, because one needn't shoot "for 3D" anymore than one shoots "for 2D."
Much like Avatar, in uses like this, you aren't really aware of the 3D, it's just another element to the image. After the first 15 minutes, you get used to it and just accept it, and you only really become conscious of it again when there is an effect that draws attention to the technique, much the same as when done with sound, music or cinematography. Sadly, there are no other live-action examples I have seen other than Avatar that use 3D is such a casual way. And I think that is the problem--everyone thinks 3D=must draw attention to it. But Cameron just wanted his film to have an extra illusion of depth, which is what all cinematographer's have been struggling to achieve with optical tricks from the birth of cinema. I hope eventually others start following his lead. I am hoping, given what has been said, that the Titanic and Star Wars releases lead by example.