Originally Posted by wonka702
You sound a little bitter? Are you a cinematographer who applied but lost out on the job to Seamus?
If I wake up in the morning with a positive attitude I can have a positive day.
If I wake up all pissed off and decide im gonna be pissed I usually am all day long.
My point? You already don't want to even enjoy the 3d experience that is there and have decided, without seeing it, to make pre-determined conclusions.
Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
The only thing I am bitter about is being consistently dissapointed with converted 2D movies! I am excited and thrilled to watch movies like Avatar, Hugo, Sanctum etc because the 3D is just so good but conversions never fail to dissapoint.
I am not a cinematographer. I am just a keen 3D enthusiast who simply dislikes conversions with a passion because, they just don't work
In my opinion as nothing more than a fan of 3D, this is what is needed for a really good 3D experience:-
1. Depth in the scene with foreground, middleground and background elements in the shot. (It helps reinforce the sense of space)
2. In focus backrounds for the vast majority of shots with very sparce use of narrow depth of field reserved for close-ups only. (People like to look around)
3. All objects and characters in 3D. Actors in the shot must have shape and look real, like they do if they are stood in front of you. (Difficult with conversions)
4. 3D Consistency throughout the movie, no sudden loss of 3D between shots. (Difficult with copnversions)
A natively shot 3D movie meets every one of these requirements but not one conversion to date has ever been able to.
I was hopefull that Avengers would be different but reading the realvision article demonstrates that the same old issues continue to plague conversions, even this one.