Theatrical 3D Release Schedule - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 38 Old 10-10-2013, 05:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
d james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Have you guys heard of any upcoming movies besides predator to be converted to 3D. I remember reading some time ago where Fox said they were going to convert different movies, but haven't heard anything since except predator. Seems to me if they can convert some classics, there is some untapped money to be made, assuming they can do it well while not spending huge amounts of money. I suppose they could save money on movies that have already been scanned and restored like blade runner. 3d has been out for a while now, so the process has got to be getting cheaper and quicker to do.
d james is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,864
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 54
The only other one I've heard of is Jumper and of course the recently released The Wizard of Oz.

While I thought I, Robot was a title that benefitted from conversion, I really can't say the same for Predator or Jumper. The former's photography just doesn't seem to me to lend itself to 3D and the latter is a mediocre movie that came, went and was quickly forgotten. Pretty sad given how many classic catalog titles there are that would probably look good in 3D.
TonyDP is offline  
post #33 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 05:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
d james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Huh, that's disappointing, I could understand if they were converting a bunch of mediocre movies quickly without care just to make a quick buck, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll probably buy predator 3d to fulfill my 3d need, but I do agree, it doesn't strike me as being something that would make a great conversion because of how it was filmed. Hopefully its great, but neither one are the kind of movie that would compel people in the masses to run out and upgrade to 3d.
d james is offline  
post #34 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 10:17 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
This thread is geared to movies released theatrically, but while we're OT, I remember reading Independence Day was also going to get a 3D conversion.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #35 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 10:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

The only other one I've heard of is Jumper and of course the recently released The Wizard of Oz.

While I thought I, Robot was a title that benefitted from conversion, I really can't say the same for Predator or Jumper. The former's photography just doesn't seem to me to lend itself to 3D and the latter is a mediocre movie that came, went and was quickly forgotten. Pretty sad given how many classic catalog titles there are that would probably look good in 3D.
I finally got around to seeing I Robot, and stopped it after 10 minutes. Virtually everything looks flat except for the one or two characters populating each shot. And even then, the artists were too lazy to paint in the backgrounds, so edges of foreground objects look like they warp into the background.

I remember people saying, "Oh give it a chance, it's not bad!"

The only reason I checked this one out was for research, to confirm I was right to trust my gut, basically.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #36 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 04:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I finally got around to seeing I Robot, and stopped it after 10 minutes. Virtually everything looks flat except for the one or two characters populating each shot. And even then, the artists were too lazy to paint in the backgrounds, so edges of foreground objects look like they warp into the background.

I remember people saying, "Oh give it a chance, it's not bad!"

The only reason I checked this one out was for research, to confirm I was right to trust my gut, basically.

I'm fairly certain there where no artists and it was all done by an auto converter of sorts. So yeah, the results are no doubt beyond horrible. Such conversions along with unneeded 3d conversions like the new Star Trek, Wolverine or Iron Man really need to end.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #37 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 05:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,864
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

I'm fairly certain there where no artists and it was all done by an auto converter of sorts. So yeah, the results are no doubt beyond horrible. Such conversions along with unneeded 3d conversions like the new Star Trek, Wolverine or Iron Man really need to end.

I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the conversion process for I, Robot involved human labor for the first frame in a given scene and the computer extrapolated from there for the rest of the scene. I own I, Robot and while it's hardly a reference quality title, I do think some of the scenes were improved by the 3D, especially the destruction of the house, the shots in the robot warehouse and the final action sequence. Depth oscillated quite a bit and the 3D did have that pop-up book effect but to my eyes (and different people have different tolerances for this stuff) I still don't think it was worthless.

Also while Wolverine and Iron Man (and Man of Steel while we're at it) were worthless conversions, Star Trek had some nice sequences to it, the space jump from the Enterprise to the Vengeance probably being the best. The general depth was on the conservative side (a problem with far too many 3D films, native and converted) but it still had its moments.
TonyDP is offline  
post #38 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 05:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the conversion process for I, Robot involved human labor for the first frame in a given scene and the computer extrapolated from there for the rest of the scene. I own I, Robot and while it's hardly a reference quality title, I do think some of the scenes were improved by the 3D, especially the destruction of the house, the shots in the robot warehouse and the final action sequence. Depth oscillated quite a bit and the 3D did have that pop-up book effect but to my eyes (and different people have different tolerances for this stuff) I still don't think it was worthless.

Also while Wolverine and Iron Man (and Man of Steel while we're at it) were worthless conversions, Star Trek had some nice sequences to it, the space jump from the Enterprise to the Vengeance probably being the best. The general depth was on the conservative side (a problem with far too many 3D films, native and converted) but it still had its moments.

You are probably correct about Irobot, the main issue of course is that it isn't very good. If a computer could get Titanic like results we wouldn't be having this conversation afterall. smile.gif

As for Star Trek, my main issue is that the film maker had no interest in 3d. There are some nice shoots, but it is a 2d film through and through with a slapped on (albeit a rather well done) 3d conversion. I want the use of 3d to come from the film makers and not just be something added after the fact (unless of course it is the film maker wanting it added after the fact such as with James Cameron and Titanic).


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
FilmReverie is offline  
Reply 3D Content

User Tag List

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