Originally Posted by 8traxrule
This was much better than I expected it to be, but still think conversions are a waste as long as there are REAL 3D movies out there that haven't been released on disc yet.
To each his own. I think some 3D conversions are really good and breathe new life into an old 2D story. Titanic is the best in 3D. The technology used in these big budget conversions is quite good. Admittedly, Titanic had many CGI shots that looked crude and by today's standards like a CGI 3D animation. This was true for the 2D release and conversion did nothing to fix this. The reason is that in the days of Titanic original, Inverse kinematic motion equations and rotoscoping was the only technology in use. Today, these have been replaced with a variety of better tools like multi camera motion tracking , texture & bump mapping, and digital vector keying all of which when used in combination create a more realistic life like scene.
I've looked at the software they use and it is quite tedious, time consuming, and costly. The advantage is that it works and is hardly different than had they shot it with 3D cameras.
Not all 3D conversion is the same, just as not all 3D natively shot productions are the same.
Too many believe that 3D conversion is just a process like they have on their 2D to 3D function on their TV. In big budget movies the conversion process is more like a bunch of conversion artists sit and paint each scene with added left and right image depth parallax to the various objects in the scene. Once the parallax has been added to all the key objects, the scene is rendered as a high resolution clip, then added back into the movie. As objects move about the frame tracking is also done so that tracking keyframes are also added in addition to the perspective of depth keyframes. The computer aids the conversion artist in that the computer can track and paint each frame as the objects change position. This works because stereoscopic 3D while not linear, does follow a precise set of mathematical equations and all the artist needs to do is set the keyframe points of change. Then the computer can calculate and draw the in between positions and shapes of each object in each left and right frame. It's quite a task and is why it takes lots of time to do. The result is a near perfect looking stereoscopic 3D scene.
Likewise too many believe that if the director just shot the movie in 3D it will automatically be superior to a great conversion. This is not always true. Many budget limitations will restrict the 3D cameras to one system with maybe fixed I.A. and fixed convergence point design. In fact most movies have a variety of scenes that dictate different interaxial distances as well as different convergence angles of the cameras. Unless the director has this freedom to use the right tool for each shot, his 3D native project could be a compromise in 3D quality.
I think its time for us critics to be more objective about new techniques such as 2D to 3D conversion and not simply rule out this as inferior.