John Carter reviews! - Page 2

Originally Posted by tory40

I'm asking which converted movie or scene you know of looks as good as a genuine 3D movie? Or scene.

I totally disagree btw, if Avatar had been done using 3D conversion, it would have looked like ass, or i'll compromise, one ass cheek!

Even Avatar required tiny amounts of stereo conversion, for example the opening macro eyeball shot was far too close for a stereo camera rig to film, and this first shot of the film was converted stereo from 2D.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/art-...sion-2d-to-3d/

2D-to-3D conversion was even used in that pinnacle of 3D cinema, Avatar. Prime Focus did several shots for the movie, a fact not widely known. “A couple times the best way to incorporate the composite was to convert part of the image,” Hummel reveals. “On an occasion or two with the original photography, there was a problem, like one lens was closer than the other, so rather than resizing the image, it was easier to convert one of the images to match the stereoscopic imagery. However, it was always done in service of the visual effects and under the guidance of the Avatar creative team.”

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjourn...7f7c73775e76bb

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I believe I answered this in my previous post.


This isn't an issue to 'agree' or 'disagree' over. Avatar had converted sequences. They were so well done that you couldn't tell the difference.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Avatar has converted scenes though I'm not sure which ones.

The majority of Transformers: Dark of the Moon's converted sequences, which is about 50% of the movie.

Hugo has some nice converted sequences of old films.

The car chase scene in Underworld: Awakening was converted.

The opening rainy street scene with all the umbrellas in John Carter.

The horse and carriage chase scene and some underwater scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

The trailer for James Cameron's conversion of Titanic.

I hear Shrek, Shrek 2, and Shrek the Third are excellent conversions.

Then, of course, most of the above could have looked even better if they were planned and framed by someone with an eye for depth like Martin Scorsese before shooting.

Originally Posted by burnpod

Avatar doesn't have one converted shot. Not one. I worked on it.

2D-to-3D conversion was even used in that pinnacle of 3D cinema, Avatar. Prime Focus did several shots for the movie, a fact not widely known. A couple times the best way to incorporate the composite was to convert part of the image, Hummel reveals. On an occasion or two with the original photography, there was a problem, like one lens was closer than the other, so rather than resizing the image, it was easier to convert one of the images to match the stereoscopic imagery. However, it was always done in service of the visual effects and under the guidance of the Avatar creative team.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjourn...7f7c73775e76bb

For most, the jury is still out on whether or not 3-D conversion can live up to actual 3-D filming.

Proving that it might in fact be possible is Avatar, in which 40 shots were actually Prime Focus 3-D conversions of what originally had to be shot in 2-D, according to Hummel.

No one noticed because they fit in seamlessly, Hummel says.

Though a firm believer that his technology is the real future of 3-D filmmaking, Pace says to not rule out the process of conversion.

Given the right attention from the artist and the right amount of time to do it right, I believe the resulting product will certainly validate the process, Pace says.

Backing that sentiment is Cameron, who recently told USA Today, in a Q&A sit down, that he is not against the conversion process if done properly. In that same Q&A, Cameron mentioned how he plans to convert Titanic into 3-D, but is giving himself two years for the task by aiming for a spring 2012 re-release date.

Whether the recent frenzy for 3-D movies fades, as it has in the past, or permanently cements itself into the entertainment industry, Pace feels that modern 3-D technology is a key ingredient to Hollywood's success.

I often feel like if we compared entertainment to cooking, the ingredient I believe Cameron and I have brought to the recipe is salt, Pace says. When used properly, it enhances the flavor in such a way it is hardly noticeable as an ingredient. When used improperly, no matter how good the main ingredient is: filet mignon, lobster, etc., the customer walks away with a bad experience.

http://www.unrinsight.com/the-two-dimensions-of-3-d/

An intelligently shot conversion can look just as nice as an intelligently shot native film if the artists do a good job.

Originally Posted by burnpod

Avatar doesn't have one converted shot. Not one. I worked on it.

Originally Posted by AndreHD

Who's he? Why's he doing that? What, where, how? I give it a 2.9 for the effects, but you'll be lost the entire time!

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Of course none of those conversions are on par with carefully shot native 3D (although The Avengers was really really close, and I'd like to see it again). That's not quite what I meant by "wonderful." They are all pretty darn good for conversions. You might just be surprised if you go in with low expectations. You can find the John Carter, MIB III, and Wrath of the Titans 3D trailers in SBS on YouTube.

Originally Posted by Vampyro

Finally saw John Carter. Decent movie, I give it three stars. I had recently read the book and I must say the movie was way different from the more simple yet more entertaining chain of events that occur in the book. I feel If they stuck to the book more then the movie would've been much better. A lot was changed from the book and I'm surprised ERB fans didn't make this more of an issue. I wonder sometimes how these directors get away with changing what was originally so great and getting financial support despite these drastic changes.

Originally Posted by tory40

which i thought was horrible 3D wise on my 46".

Originally Posted by SFMike 


I totally agree with you. I could not have said it better. Give those of us who like a good conversion the 3D option. No one is forcing anyone to watch it.

Originally Posted by TonyDP 

I picked up the BluRay 3D version today and watched it earlier this afternoon. Not nearly as immersive as a native 3D release but for a film that supposedly wasn't even conceived or photographed with 3D in mind, I thought the post-conversion was actually pretty good. There was a moderate amount of depth almost for the entire running time. No real pop out of the screen to speak of but I'd rather see this as a post-converted 3D than just 2D.
In terms of the movie itself, I liked it. It really tried to evoke the sci-fi films of the 50s and 60s and despite all the flawed science and Taylor Kitsch's somewhat stilted performance it was still an entertaining adventure.

Originally Posted by TonyDP 

I picked up the BluRay 3D version today and watched it earlier this afternoon. Not nearly as immersive as a native 3D release but for a film that supposedly wasn't even conceived or photographed with 3D in mind, I thought the post-conversion was actually pretty good. There was a moderate amount of depth almost for the entire running time. No real pop out of the screen to speak of but I'd rather see this as a post-converted 3D than just 2D.
In terms of the movie itself, I liked it. It really tried to evoke the sci-fi films of the 50s and 60s and despite all the flawed science and Taylor Kitsch's somewhat stilted performance it was still an entertaining adventure.