Originally Posted by Don Landis
The 2D to 3D conversion process will always have a serious technical limitation, especially with many movies using special effects for the background, like Inception. The conversion process can position the actors in stereo but the background where all the maneuvering is done was a green screen and separating a chroma key in 3D space is not yet within our present day technology. 3D actors in front of a flat 2D background, especially with Inception where that is the main fascination somehow just doesn't do it for me. I hope they surprise me, however.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments.
That was the crux of the points I was trying to get across during my 5 minute argument with Cameron about the Teranex VC-100. Which apparently the points did get across from a certain visitors stopping subsequently to an NAB booth.
At one point he says:
Look take a camera and put it through your Teranex, then film it in stereo and compare..." I interrupted him.
I don't film anything, I just do screening rooms with bleeding edge kit.
However to add insult to injury I took your film,
and all of a sudden he is looking intently,
I put it trough the teranex and then I compared it to the Panasonic version of it.
It didn't work.
Then I pointed to his face and said:
But that is because of your CGI's!! Because if you take any movie shot in the sixties and seventies, even a recent movie,like .... What is the name of this recent Heady movie from Guadalcanal?.... The name escapes me...
"If you are going to come to confront me you better come prepared!!!"
A Thin red line, there where the navy armada is cutting water -right there and then is where I realized why you would want to convert Titanic, seeing those ships cutting water is some of the best 2d to 3d conversion I have ever seen.
The discussion went on for another 30 seconds or so and people from lightstrom did visit teranex at the subsequent nab. The rest I am keeping mum.