Originally Posted by CAVX
I watched TANGLED in 2D the night which was created as a 3D film. The 2D version of the film was stunning and I do wonder if this 'improvement' is because they now have to really carefully compose each shot to make the 3D actually work.
TRON LEGACY was another that I saw in 3D in the cinema, but found the 2D version on BD to be almost a better experience possibly because it was so dark. Yet I found AVATAR to be the other way where I prefer the 3D version of the film.
Well there's a lot of ironing out in the stereoscopic process still going on and the methodology isn't yet standardized. For all the marketing hype surrounding 3D, the physical production process is still taking baby steps, everyone is kinda learning as they go. For example, lots of blacks do not always work as well in stereo as they do in 2D primarily because it hides edges, so its hard to establish separation between objects to denote depth, especially people and objects converged deep in the background. CAVX is right that darker movies can
be more challenging for 3D though Tron Legacy
is weird because it exists in kinda a wireframe world.
Objects converged forward can also suffer.In 2D for example we recognize someone is wearing a black shirt against a dark background, but if you converge that same person forward in stereo and aren't careful you can end up with what appears to just be a floating head because the black object in the foreground may not be that distinguishable from the background especially if the face and arms are pulled several pixels towards the audience. This gets further compounded if the character or object is a room of mostly negative space or white limbo. How do you know what forward or backward (stereoscopic depth) is without a point of reference?
Many movies today that are stereoscopic presentations are conversions from 2D for a myriad of reasons - actually shooting in 3D can cause more problems than it solves. Add to that, no director making a movie with the kinda budget where it will be shown as 3D will want to compromise their vision for technical restrictions unless you're Michael Bay or James Cameron and have whatever you want at your disposal to make up the difference (and Bay was not all that thrilled with either 3D or having to shoot part of his movie digitally). Additionally, some stereographers play it safe to coolrda's point and rely on gags as opposed to trying to create really 'deep,' aggressive 3D scenes. Thor
comes to mind as a movie where the 3D didn't really jump out at you. Avatar
had the advantage of being both almost completely digital and shot with a 3D rig so the stereo supervisor had the best of both worlds to create the best possible experience (they also had a lot of money and time which never hurts).