Attack of the Clones 3D footage shown at Star Wars convention - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 Old 08-26-2012, 12:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
UPDATE: STAR WARS 3D Re-Release Update: ATTACK OF THE CLONES on September 20, 2013 Followed by REVENGE OF THE SITH on October 11, 2013

Impressions say it's looking significantly better than Episode 1: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/26/star-wars-attack-of-the-clones-3d-preview-footage-impresses
cakefoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 Old 08-26-2012, 07:01 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Interesting review. It sounds like they learnt quite a lot from converting the first movie and have been able to make a rather better of job of this one.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #3 of 16 Old 08-26-2012, 04:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,915
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Phantom Menace was possibly the worst conversion I've ever seen (and I've seen all of them except Last Airbender). I know there is only so much you can do with a 12 year old movie that wasn't meant to be in 3D to begin with, but the image was so flat and so many obvious opportunities to tweak parallax and convergence missed that the whole thing seemed pointless. Other than two or three scenes it felt to me like I was watching a 2D movie with glasses on (I also don't think it was the fault of the projectionist as the 3D previews that played before the movie looked great).

I'm glad to read that Attack of the Clones looks better but also off-put by the admission from ILM that Phantom Menace was problematic and even internally something of a disappointment. Based on the article it sounds like the original trilogy may not get a 3D conversion unless conversion technology advances dramatically in the next year or so.

My experience with Phantom Menace has made me very wary of conversions from Lucasfilm.. Some reviewers gave Phantom Menace a positive 3D writeup and in hindsight I wonder what they were looking at (or, perhaps more appropriately, what they were paid). I definitely won't blind buy a ticket for Attack of the Clones until there is a much larger pool of feedback.
TonyDP is offline  
post #4 of 16 Old 08-27-2012, 01:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Updated the OP with news that the next two episodes will release next year, just 3 weeks apart. Which means that there's a chance Episode IV is closer than expected.
cakefoo is offline  
post #5 of 16 Old 08-27-2012, 07:17 AM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Updated the OP with news that the next two episodes will release next year, just 3 weeks apart. Which means that there's a chance Episode IV is closer than expected.

And that's really what everyone is waiting for. Glad to hear that they were a bit more aggressive and creative with the 3D in the Ep. II and III conversion clips.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #6 of 16 Old 08-28-2012, 04:27 PM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

Phantom Menace was possibly the worst conversion I've ever seen (and I've seen all of them except Last Airbender).

Believe me, Last Airbender was the worst ever. It made Clash of the Titans look great. I remember one artical where Lucasfilm said they were trying to go real "natural" with the 3D on Phantom Menace. I think they learned that you can go to natural. I'm looking forward to the new conversions.

Look at most of Spiderman. they shot in 3D but wanted to go "natural" for dramatic scenes making them look like bad conversions. Less natural please. I thought they got it right in Captian America and The Avengers.
SFMike is offline  
post #7 of 16 Old 08-28-2012, 05:10 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFMike View Post

Look at most of Spiderman. they shot in 3D but wanted to go "natural" for dramatic scenes making them look like bad conversions. Less natural please. I thought they got it right in Captian America and The Avengers.
I believe they were going more for subtle and non-distracting in Spider-man's dialogue 3D.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #8 of 16 Old 08-28-2012, 09:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFMike View Post

Believe me, Last Airbender was the worst ever. It made Clash of the Titans look great. I remember one artical where Lucasfilm said they were trying to go real "natural" with the 3D on Phantom Menace. I think they learned that you can go to natural. I'm looking forward to the new conversions.
Look at most of Spiderman. they shot in 3D but wanted to go "natural" for dramatic scenes making them look like bad conversions. Less natural please. I thought they got it right in Captian America and The Avengers.
A lot of people seem to think that subtle = artistic and natural. That's a common flaw in Hollywood thinking. Eventually subtle becomes too flat to notice, and I'm never more distracted from the story than I am when I'm criticizing how bad or subtle the 3D looks. Look at Hugo- definitely not subtle 3D, yet the story was completely understandable.

If elements are a distraction in 3D then you should re-compose the shot, not dial down the 3D to next to nothing. 3D is not a tool to vary from meaningful to meaninglessly subtle throughout a movie unless it serves the story, ala the jumping in and out of the world of Tron in Tron Legacy. "Artistic choice" is more often than not a copout for lack of artistic vision, seriously.
cakefoo is offline  
post #9 of 16 Old 08-28-2012, 09:51 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I watched an interview with John Knoll where he stated that Ep. I's 3D was natural in the sense that they were not varying depth with amount of emotion in each scene but rather deciding depth based on the actual scene elements and their distances from the camera. That's my preferred philosophy for creating a depth budget as well. Whether they succeeded at actually making the 3D look "natural" is a different story. A little less "smush face" and a little more creativity and negative parallax go a long way in making audiences happy.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #10 of 16 Old 08-28-2012, 10:24 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Yeah, subtle 3D that looks flat is distracting for me as well. That philosophy probably backfires with most viewers. Avatar and Hugo are the two most-celebrated 3D films in recent history. You'd think that more people would be trying to copycat their depth styles (wider parallax, rounded objects, higher convergence for more negative parallax, etc.). It sounds like that might be what they are going for in the Ep. II and III conversions. If so, I'm glad they changed their style.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #11 of 16 Old 08-29-2012, 01:41 PM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

A lot of people seem to think that subtle = artistic and natural. That's a common flaw in Hollywood thinking. Eventually subtle becomes too flat to notice, and I'm never more distracted from the story than I am when I'm criticizing how bad or subtle the 3D looks. Look at Hugo- definitely not subtle 3D, yet the story was completely understandable.
If elements are a distraction in 3D then you should re-compose the shot, not dial down the 3D to next to nothing. 3D is not a tool to vary from meaningful to meaninglessly subtle throughout a movie unless it serves the story, ala the jumping in and out of the world of Tron in Tron Legacy. "Artistic choice" is more often than not a copout for lack of artistic vision, seriously.

I couldn't agree more.

I had quite a long discussion with a good friend of mine over the weekend about this very subject. I tried explaining to him that I find the shift in 3D depth from dialogue scenes to action scenes completely unnatural and very distracting but it was clear that his opinion was quite different and nothing I said could convince him otherwise. As far as he was concerned if that was the Directors choice then so be it.

He even said that in his opinion he was better off with the less, shall we say "rigid" attitude to 3D because it gave him greater scope to enjoy movies where the 3D is less than ideal. To me though that's a bit like arguing that somebody with a poorer sense of smell is better off because they are less offended by bad smells.

The fact is we are conditioned to see 3D in specific ways and whatever a persons view is on what is artistic or not, these scene by scene shifts in 3D are not natural and I thinks its likely that the more real stereoscopic 3D looks to a person the less tolerant they will be to them. My friend doesn't think stereoscopic 3D ever looks real so that may explain why he is able to overlook things that I find incredibly off putting.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #12 of 16 Old 08-29-2012, 02:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

My friend doesn't think stereoscopic 3D ever looks real so that may explain why he is able to overlook things that I find incredibly off putting.

Anybody who hasn't seen Hugo in 3D likely has never seen it done "right" (by my definition, "right" = natural and consistent 3D). Whether a scene is in a room or it's a super wide outdoor shot, the 3D depth always feels right in that one. If 3D movies don't start using more TLC in dialing in each scene like that, 3D may be doomed.
Steve Tack is offline  
post #13 of 16 Old 08-29-2012, 05:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I think that Titanic's conversion is by far the best case for conversions reaching native quality, but while it looked native it wasn't as meaningful a 3D experience as it would have been if they composed each shot specifically for 3D. Even native 3D movies are not immune to this- you still have to not only compose for 3D, you also have to get at least the interaxial right in camera, lest you have to postconvert some shots. Which is why it's not surprising that the occasional postconverted shot in a largely native 3D film like Hugo or Avatar blends seamlessly- because the shots are composed from the outset to take full advantage of 3D, whether you postconvert or shoot native.
cakefoo is offline  
post #14 of 16 Old 08-30-2012, 10:06 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Very true. One or two of the opening shots around the wreck worked very well in 3D, particularly shots down through the hole where the forward grand staircase used to be but a lot of other scenes didn't really work that well. A very good effort though nonetheless.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #15 of 16 Old 08-31-2012, 12:38 AM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

A lot of people seem to think that subtle = artistic and natural. That's a common flaw in Hollywood thinking. Eventually subtle becomes too flat to notice, and I'm never more distracted from the story than I am when I'm criticizing how bad or subtle the 3D looks. Look at Hugo- definitely not subtle 3D, yet the story was completely understandable.
If elements are a distraction in 3D then you should re-compose the shot, not dial down the 3D to next to nothing. 3D is not a tool to vary from meaningful to meaninglessly subtle throughout a movie unless it serves the story, ala the jumping in and out of the world of Tron in Tron Legacy. "Artistic choice" is more often than not a copout for lack of artistic vision, seriously.

Nice Cakefoo....I could'nt have said it better. When you go to a 3D movie the whole film should be in 3D.
SFMike is offline  
post #16 of 16 Old 08-31-2012, 12:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Dialing up and down can be a valid choice. just make sure things that should have depth have depth and then ramp up the intensity of other content appropriately.

What follows is my personal rough expectations for a movie's depth script. FWIW: When I say 100% I don't mean immediate eye-strain, but rather the max intensity that you'd find in a typical theatrical experience- like some IMAX documentary shots can get up to.

Aerial shots 10%
Dialog shots 50%
Slow-paced spectacle (floating cam thru a lush forest) 70%
High impact action (fight or chase, potentially lots of nauseating camera movement) 70%
First person or close up activity (main character interacting directly with environment) 80%
Jarring moments (getting knocked out, hallucinating) 100%
cakefoo is offline  
Reply 3D Content

Tags
Blu Ray Movies

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off