or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Titanic 3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Titanic 3D - Page 2

post #31 of 314
Me, I'm sick of these big-shot directors always after another money grab. First the sequels, then the special editions, now 3D (grumble, grumble)... Personally I'm not gonna fall for shelling out more...

(grumble, grumble)

of my hard-earned...

(grudgingly reaches into wallet)

...oh, FINE!

(huff)
post #32 of 314
I'll watch it just to see the scene where the water rushes through the hallways. That much water in 3d will be awesome.
post #33 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Perhaps you think adding 3D with its more immersive "you are there" element to "disaster" type of movies is a bad idea? That's kinda silly.

I think you're a Titanic hater and letting that feeling cloud your judgment. I would argue that 3D fans in general would like to see Titanic in 3D be hugely successful.

Well you thought wrong..I like Titanic. I own both the double VHS version and the DVD version..I think it is a great movie (only a little too long). As far as the disaster scenes go, this is not a roller coaster type of movie. There are only a few scenes that would benefit from the added dimension.. And those scenes are in the last 30 minutes of a 3 hour movie.
post #34 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigplay View Post
Now that would be cool.
I Did this on the Teranex Rig last night using the superior Japanese transfer, very good effect overall.

This is the same rig I had a 5 minute argument with JC and a month later he sent his guys from Lightstorm to stop by the booth at NAB.


LL
post #35 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robert View Post

Does your dislike include SD movies "modernized" as Bluray releases?

What exactly is an "SD movie," pray tell? Aside from stuff made for TV, old movies were not shot on standard-def video. They were shot on 35mm film which contains vastly more detail than SD video, with the intention of being projected on 50-foot theater screens.

Transferring an old movie to high definition and Blu-ray is not "modernizing" it. That's simply presenting it closer to the quality of the original source. Colorizing a black & white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D is a change to the movie. That's a different matter entirely.
post #36 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

What exactly is an "SD movie," pray tell? Aside from stuff made for TV, old movies were not shot on standard-def video. They were shot on 35mm film which contains vastly more detail than SD video, with the intention of being projected on 50-foot theater screens.

Transferring an old movie to high definition and Blu-ray is not "modernizing" it. That's simply presenting it closer to the quality of the original source. Colorizing a black & white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D is a change to the movie. That's a different matter entirely.

So is remixing a mono movie to surround sound. You have any issues with that practice?
post #37 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

What exactly is an "SD movie," pray tell? Aside from stuff made for TV, old movies were not shot on standard-def video. They were shot on 35mm film which contains vastly more detail than SD video, with the intention of being projected on 50-foot theater screens.

Transferring an old movie to high definition and Blu-ray is not "modernizing" it. That's simply presenting it closer to the quality of the original source. Colorizing a black & white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D is a change to the movie. That's a different matter entirely.

Exactly right.

It's a common misunderstanding Josh.

I get emails every week that basically ask "How can be any better on Blu-ray? It was out long before HD existed".

HD is new so a lot of people think that higher resolution simply wasn't possible before HD was 'invented'.

Back on topic: I also have no issues with directors going back and editing older films any way they like as long as we still have access to the originals. While it doesn't mean I'll like the results, they're their movies and they may do as they please.

How does converting a film negative (or positive) to 3D actually work anyway on a technical level? I'm assuming that the digital master (scanned) is put through some software where the director pics and choose exactly how he wants foreground/background information to appear and the software tries to 'follow' the item through multiple frames to save work? Anyone have technical links on the subject? I would imagine it's extremely labour intensive when done right.

Computer generated (CGI) films on the other hand can almost get 3D for "free" when you consider that the scenes are all basically modelled in 3D space. The director only has to run through the whole thing with 2 cameras set slighly off from each other to render the 3D version of the film. I'm sure there's a lot of tweaking still but it has to be 1000x easier than trying to turn a 100% celluloid film based movie 3D.

Kal
post #38 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by kal View Post

Back on topic: I also have no issues with directors going back and editing older films any way they like as long as we still have access to the originals. While it doesn't mean I'll like the results, they're their movies and they may do as they please.

How does converting a film negative (or positive) to 3D actually work anyway on a technical level? I'm assuming that the digital master (scanned) is put through some software where the director pics and choose exactly how he wants foreground/background information to appear and the software tries to 'follow' the item through multiple frames to save work? Anyone have technical links on the subject? I would imagine it's extremely labour intensive when done right.

Kal

This is one way - an explaination of the process, though each conversion house has it's secret methods. But it will give you an idea how it's done.

http://www.hdlogix.com/modules/text-...verview001.pdf

It is done frame by frame and yes, it is very labor intensive and expensive. Lucas and Cameron will be spending approx $15 to $20 million per picture. Which of course is much less compared to their original production budgets.
post #39 of 314
Thanks for the link Lee. I gave it a quick skim and yup, the automated systems do exactly what I'd expect.

Kal
post #40 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So is remixing a mono movie to surround sound. You have any issues with that practice?

Yes, frankly.

Try listening to The Terminator's 5.1 remix and tell me that's better than the original mono.
post #41 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Yes, frankly.

Try listening to The Terminator's 5.1 remix and tell me that's better than the original mono.

LOL - that is the movie I had in mind when I asked the question
post #42 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
LOL - that is the movie I had in mind when I asked the question
Then I bet you love the scene where Arnold pulls out his gun to kill the first Sarah Connor, and instead of the echoing BOOM BOOM BOOM that used to accompany the scene, you now hear a PFFT PFFT PFFT as if the gun had a silencer (which it clearly does not). Or how the sound of Michael Biehn pumping his shotgun after waking up from his nightmare of the future is almost completely buried by background noise. Or how the entire front soundstage regularly goes completely silent when sound effects are steered to the surround channels.
post #43 of 314
I'm sure Cameron will be fiddling with The Terminator and T2's soundtracks as they're being restored right now. I don't know if that means IMHO unnecessary 2D to 3D conversions, however.

If it was shot in 2D... leave as 2D... it will only look like a popup book (the CGI effects can be re-rendered with a convincing stereoscopic look and that's pretty easy as far as conversions go, but live action stuff that was shot with a one lens camera will look bad) and it adds nothing to the story.

It's just a money grab so he can have more financing for his new 3D sci-fi movie.
post #44 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
I'm sure Cameron will be fiddling with The Terminator and T2's soundtracks as they're being restored right now. I don't know if that means IMHO unnecessary 2D to 3D conversions, however.

If it was shot in 2D... leave as 2D... it will only look like a popup book (the CGI effects can be re-rendered with a convincing stereoscopic look and that's pretty easy as far as conversions go, but live action stuff that was shot with a one lens camera will look bad) and it adds nothing to the story.

It's just a money grab so he can have more financing for his new 3D sci-fi movie.
Have you ever seen a 2D movie converted to 3D? Try THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE XMAS. And that was done years ago.
post #45 of 314
I don't think 2d-3d can be directly correlated to the colorization process.

There are certain movies where you can tell that the director was envisioning a 3d presentation. I always get the impression that Spielberg was filming Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom as if it would/could be 3D. I can't shake that impression. Done correctly I think Temple of Doom would come out as must see 3D.

I also had the impression that Cameron envisioned certain scenes in Titanic as 3D. I haven't seen the movie for years, but if I recall the sequence introducing the grand Titanic, painting of the staircase from the old wreck to the Fresh from Dock Titanic was screaming for all the impression of depth possible.

I'm interested in some of these 3D remasters including Titanic and esp Star Wars and will make up my mind after I see the finished product.
post #46 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmasterdude View Post

I don't think 2d-3d can be directly correlated to the colorization process.

There are certain movies where you can tell that the director was envisioning a 3d presentation. I always get the impression that Spielberg was filming Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom as if it would/could be 3D. I can't shake that impression. Done correctly I think Temple of Doom would come out as must see 3D.

This is no different than saying, "I bet Frank Capra would have made It's a Wonderful Life in color if he could have." Well, you can speculate all you want, but the fact is that he didn't. He made the movie in black & white, knowing the limitations he faced, and photographed the movie for the best black & white presentation that he could.

Likewise, Spielberg made Temple of Doom in 2D. In that case, he even could have shot it in 3D if he'd wanted to (there was a mini 3D boom around that time). But he didn't. He made it in 2D. That's what the movie is.
post #47 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmasterdude View Post

I don't think 2d-3d can be directly correlated to the colorization process.

There are certain movies where you can tell that the director was envisioning a 3d presentation. I always get the impression that Spielberg was filming Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom as if it would/could be 3D. I can't shake that impression. Done correctly I think Temple of Doom would come out as must see 3D.

I also had the impression that Cameron envisioned certain scenes in Titanic as 3D. I haven't seen the movie for years, but if I recall the sequence introducing the grand Titanic, painting of the staircase from the old wreck to the Fresh from Dock Titanic was screaming for all the impression of depth possible.

I'm interested in some of these 3D remasters including Titanic and esp Star Wars and will make up my mind after I see the finished product.

Well...I think it's a safe bet to say that if the technology was in place when Titanic was filming back in the day...Cameron would have done it in 3D and I don't think it's a terrible stretch of the imagination to conclude that Lucas would have done the same. They are simply years ahead of everyone else when it comes to technical presentations and what audiences want imo.
post #48 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Well...I think it's a safe bet to say that if the technology was in place when Titanic was filming back in the day...Cameron would have done it in 3D and I don't think it's a terrible stretch of the imagination to conclude that Lucas would have done the same. They are simply years ahead of everyone else when it comes to technical presentations and what audiences want imo.

The technology was in place but it was an inferior technology. They stopped using twin cameras and twin projectors by the time Star Wars and Titanic were shot. 3D in the 60's through the 80's was shot and shown using a single camera with a beam splitter that recorded the two frames within a single 35mm frame and was presented using a single 35mm projector.
post #49 of 314
If Cameron's involved you can be sure it will be well done. And as he has said, Titanic came out in 1997, so there is a whole generation of new viewers now ready to see that fine film.

And haven't we all been screaming for more 3D content?? So I say "Bring it out, James. Bring it out!"
post #50 of 314
This is funny. I just got the LG 55LW6500 and titanic just happened to be on one of the cable tv channels. I was then thinking, too bad this isnt in 3D.
post #51 of 314
While I am excited about all 3D, this movie is just SO played out to me. Saw it a bajillion times. The only way I will run to get it is if they extend the nude scenes with Kate

post #52 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wired1 View Post

While I am excited about all 3D, this movie is just SO played out to me. Saw it a bajillion times. The only way I will run to get it is if they extend the nude scenes with Kate

There's no shortage of nudity in Kate Winslet's career. Even to this day, she'll take her clothes off in any movie if the director asks her nicely.
post #53 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

There's no shortage of nudity in Kate Winslet's career. Even to this day, she'll take her clothes off in any movie if the director asks her nicely.

God bless her
post #54 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
AFAIK, both TITANIC and the STAR WARS re-releases in 3D will only be in 3D. No 2D re-releases.

Guess we will have to wait to see if the public embraces these conversions. One thing we do know is that both will get the very best conversion money can buy.
Can't wait!
post #55 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddster25 View Post

Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.

To be honest, nothing beats a book for story. Film innovations are more about immersion than anything else. Having said as much, I'm interested to see what 3D can bring to a drama.
post #56 of 314
I am most interested to see Titanic herself in 3D. The sense of depth 3D could convey on those long desks would be awesome. 882 feet of rivetted iron in 3D! yes please?

As for the "should it" or "shouldn't it" be done arguments, its James Camerons movie, not ours and if he want to convert it to 3D he has every right to do so. I have a feeling it will be done very well anyway.
post #57 of 314
there is nothing that could ever make me sit through this movie again.
post #58 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDaniel View Post

there is nothing that could ever make me sit through this movie again.

....and the point in clicking on a Titanic 3D thread and posting is......
post #59 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

....and the point in clicking on a Titanic 3D thread and posting is......

to smash my head into the desk and scream why.
post #60 of 314
20th Century Fox showed 10mins from Titanic 3D at ComicCon.

It made quite an impression apparently:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=81022
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Titanic 3D