3D STAR WARS for the masses...has ARRIVED! — Page 12

Can someone write a book about how Lucas has destroyed star wars, or make a documentary called George Lucas Sucks, or Luca$ the hack strikes again.

That's your calling in life, so get off your ass and make it.

Ha!  I've seen the 1983 and 2005 one a bunch of times, but nice to see it updated.

The folks at Rifftrax were right.

George has gone pants-crapping insane.

Anchorhead said:

Do yourself a favor and let it go, man.

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. 

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.

I love that you quoted the song too. ;-)

Hey, it's me!

On a related note, I found the vinyl soundtrack to Neverending Story in a second hand store the other day. Amazingly, the sounds of Limahl attracted my housemates, much like the sounds of Barry White attracts snakes.

Don't kill the snakes, baby.

:-)

But my issue is still exactly the same as mono-to-fake-stereo conversions.

In 3D filming, you use two lenses to record two images, and the perspective is different in each image, thus creating the stereoscopic 3D effect.

In 2D-to-3D conversion, you have to create the second image, as only one was ever recorded.  Therefore, you're creating something that was never there to begin with, much like fake stereo, or 120/240Hz TVs.

So, if I go to see a movie that was shot in 3D, in 3D, then I'm seeing a left-eye and right-eye image that were both recorded on set as separate images.

But when I go to see a movie that was converted from 2D into 3D, only one of my eyes is seeing something that was actually recorded that way.  My other eye is seeing a computer-created version of the image that attempts to juggle everything in the frame around to give the illusion that it was recorded from a different perspective than it was.

You can't get real depth that way - you can't see a little bit more of the cheek behind Han's nose, or a little bit more of his ear, thus making his head look like it truly has depth.  No matter how good it is, it's still going to be unnatural.

It's always going to look unnatural because in reality we can focus on any object in our field of vision and make that the centre of our 3D panorama.

In 3D cinema you are stuck with focusing on what the camera lenses were focused on.

Unless you can get into the brain and directly stimulate the vision centres it will never look convincing.

That's not really important as all art is by some degree abstraction.

3D cinema has the potential to add qualities to the cinematic art form, just as colour and sound developed cinematic languages for incorporation into the experience of movie watching when those elements took off and became inexpensive enough to become the norm.

At the moment the better 3D films are bordering on (though not quite there yet) the use of colour in films like A Matter Of Life And Death or The Wizard Of Oz where it's a startling add on to the language of cinema as it already exists, employed to lift or recess an area of the film for story purposes.

The lesser 3D films just use it as a gimmick ('Filmed In Color' used to be a selling point for films that didn't really need the colour in the same way that 3D is at the moment).

It could become the standard for multiplex viewing as separate from the smaller art-house market (there will always be 2D cinema films just as silent films and monochrome films are still being made for art-house patrons)

If it really does become the norm (which depends on the process of making and viewing the films becoming less expensive) it could push directors into doing something new stylistically with the language of 3D cinema. It they do not the 3D element with become obsolete through redundancy (which could still happen anyway).

This retrofitting process if refined could be the means of making 3D standard because it doesn't require special camera equipment to film it.

Potentially you or I could make a 2D film and have it processed into 3D.

If more and more people want it the software could become cheap enough for domestic use.

This could push the technology at the highest end to the point where it has the potential to become something really visually interesting but I think people will become jaded very, very quickly.

Remember when morphing was WOW (possibly not so many people on here are shockingly young)?

It did take long before it was in every TV show and in every advert and finally given away as free-ware with computer magazines.

Now when it's used it's barely noticeable, the WOW has left the room.

Well, in 2012, the WOW will leave the room....

....IN 3D!!!

Unfortunately.

Gee wiz, I didn't see this one coming.

Now, the Indiana Jones films are going to be coming in 3D:

http://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-3d-benm-84590/

Just when I thought my evening couldn't be more awful.

Lucasfilm already confirmed it as untrue.

Don't belief half the stuff you read concerning Lucasfilm.

If you have a link to this "confirmation", please post it.

http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Rumor_Alert_Indy_Headed_To_3D_Too_134648.asp