or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › I, Robot 3D in October
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I, Robot 3D in October - Page 2

post #31 of 78
I thought that too until i saw Titanic and Avengers.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

Whatever, I'm not wasting my time and money on conversions.

Conversions are getting better. Avengers, Men In Black III and Wrath of the Titans are three recent movies that all had very good depth and popout. While I'm still not sold on this JVC method, the technology overall has improved significantly in a relatively short time and for better or worse it seems most filmmakers still prefer to shoot in 2D and post-convert so I don't think conversions will be going away any time soon
post #33 of 78
Conversion is fine in some circumstances and indeed necessary where CGI is concerned.

Where conversion falls down and probably always will is when it comes to converting live 2D shots of real people. It just cannot exstrapolate depth for skin pores, hair and the like because this data is not present in the 2D shot to begin with.

Conversion will always require a certain amount of guesswork and because as a species we are programmed from birth to recognise faces, the slightest error in a 3D face will stand out like a sore thumb.

Film makers need to realise that compromise and a reduction in the quality of the finished product is an absolute certainty where conversion of live actors is concerned, should they continue to shy away from using proper 3D rigs.

As a side note, I am not sure why an artist would choose to settle for lower quality when all that is required is time and the will to learn how to compose 3D shots using new 3D rigs. It seems like an odd choice to me from people who normally strive to make their art as good as it can be.

The only explanation I can come up with is pressure from studios forcing artists to adopt to 3D when they don't want to. Wouldn't it be easier to simply hire people that want to shoot in 3D to begin with?
post #34 of 78
My Walmart had this on the shelf yesterday. I picked it up but the back cover list the 3D/2D disc at 1.78 but the seperate dvd is at it's original oar of 2.35. I want to open it but if it's not a typo I have no interest in it.

Tom
post #35 of 78
I'll tell you what happened, you have an empty display case biggrin.gif. The movie doesnt come out for another week. Hope you kept the reciept biggrin.gif.

Its an old movie, but I'd actually be interested if it was 1.85 aspect because they're so freakin RARE! Avengers and Wrath of the Titans added an extra layer of awesomeness by being a fullscreen epic.
post #36 of 78
Can't wait to have Sonny's head staring at me! biggrin.gif

We are have an I, Robot 3D party!!! smile.gif
post #37 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

Can't wait to have Sonny's head staring at me! biggrin.gif
We are have an I, Robot 3D party!!! smile.gif

All kidding aside, if converted well, there are a few scenes that could really benefit from added depth. Particularly when Sonny is hiding amidst the lineup of recently assembled robots and peaks his head way in the back.
post #38 of 78
I think the best scenes would be at the assembly line and the car chase scene.
We'll find out soon. Just recently bought 3D hardware and I like it because it adds another element in some movies.
post #39 of 78
So all the ones in the rack at Walmart are for display? My Walmart has a row of them in the rack priced at 29.95. ?
post #40 of 78
Maybe Walmart does not know the offical street date or since it is an older title it does not matter? eek.gif
post #41 of 78
Walmart does seem to ignore dates. I am amazed no one here has gone there and bought one yet, including me, lol.
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teisco View Post

Walmart does seem to ignore dates. I am amazed no one here has gone there and bought one yet, including me, lol.

I would but I have a copy coming with my Sonny head! biggrin.gif
post #43 of 78
Walmart does indeed have this out early. I thought it was a pretty good conversion. Looked great on my 1080p projector.

It was pretty hard to find at store, and the clerk remarked he was looking for it yesterday & couldn't locate it. I didn't mention anything about the street date, because street dates have long passed their point of usefulness. Especially for catalog titles. Best Buy still attempts to adhere to them.
post #44 of 78
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/10/18/3d-filmschool-101-just-how-and-why-fox-have-converted-i-robot-from-2d-to-3d/

Finally, an article that goes into detail about the conversion process.

It's not "automated" in the same way that realtime converters are automated. They aren't just bending and distorting a 2D surface resulting in some lame topographical map-looking junk. The automation performs repetitive tasks like cutting out a moving foreground element as it moves from frame to frame, but is also referring to human edits that kind of serve as the key frames. There's actual cutting out of layers and painting in the gaps left in the background. The process makes it easier to do these tasks in bulk, but ultimately the humans are apparently making most of the creative decisions. It will still probably only be as good as 2010 or 2011's rushed postconversions, but at least it should be good enough for people who are starving for 3D content for their new equipment.
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/10/18/3d-filmschool-101-just-how-and-why-fox-have-converted-i-robot-from-2d-to-3d/
Finally, an article that goes into detail about the conversion process.
It's not "automated" in the same way that realtime converters are automated. They aren't just bending and distorting a 2D surface resulting in some lame topographical map-looking junk. The automation performs repetitive tasks like cutting out a moving foreground element as it moves from frame to frame, but is also referring to human edits that kind of serve as the key frames. There's actual cutting out of layers and painting in the gaps left in the background. The process makes it easier to do these tasks in bulk, but ultimately the humans are apparently making most of the creative decisions. It will still probably only be as good as 2010 or 2011's rushed postconversions, but at least it should be good enough for people who are starving for 3D content for their new equipment.

I read that article too. Very interesting, very informing. Technology has come a long way, and it's only fitting that the first big movie converted to 3D using this tech was IRobot. The machines lead the way now doing the bulk of the work while a few select peopole (3 on this film?) oversee the process
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamermwm View Post

I read that article too. Very interesting, very informing. Technology has come a long way, and it's only fitting that the first big movie converted to 3D using this tech was IRobot. The machines lead the way now doing the bulk of the work while a few select peopole (3 on this film?) oversee the process
Mind blowing observation :O
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teisco View Post

So all the ones in the rack at Walmart are for display? My Walma
rt has a row of them in the rack priced at 29.95. ?
The Walmart near me had the tags the shelves but not the discs. I asked the salesperson and she said it was not out yet. I replied, why do you have the shelf tags out?
post #48 of 78
They were on sale at the Walmart in Danvers, Massachusetts. As I did not own the movie on BluRay anyway, I decided to pick it up. Mine was not an empty box; it definitely contained both a 2D/3D BluRay and a standard def DVD in the case.

I was able to watch the first half hour of the 3D version of the movie before needing to leave to run some errands and to my eyes the 3D effect was definitely visible a lot of the time, especially in scenes of Spooner standing in front of hallways, entranceways to garages and similar spaces. Views of tunnels going into the distance, buildings rising up to the sky or views from on high looking down to the ground below (such as when Spooner surveys the broken window where James Cromwell fell to his death) also yield a nice sense of depth. There were also a lot of scenes - mainly closeups - where the "glasses off" test showed an image that looked for all the world like a regular 2D image. There seemed to be no pop out of the screen as even images of Spooner holding his gun out never seemed to break the plane of the screen. Assuming the rest of the movie plays out this way, I'd say its comparable to a 2nd generation post-conversion; definitely better than early stuff like Clash of the Titans but not as good as modern conversions like Avengers, Titanic or even Wrath of the Titans; with slow moving scenes faring best but fast action flattening out the image.

Even though the movie was released 2004, the cinematography and visuals do lend themselves to a 3D treatment and I can understand why Fox would have used this movie as their first subject.
post #49 of 78
Well the review of the 3D on Highdefdigest suggests this conversion is intermittent at best and in many instances doesn't work, lacking any sense of natural looking seperation between foreground and backround detail, often appearing flat too. If true, it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever. Only talented people who rotoscope every single object in a frame, frame by frame can turn 2D into convincing 3D and even then its not perfect. I won't be wasting my money on this one any time soon if at all.
Edited by cbcdesign - 10/20/12 at 1:41pm
post #50 of 78
The Highdefdigest review seemed to echo some of my experiences from watching the first 30 minutes; however I disagree that the 3D present adds nothing to the film. As I mentioned before, the production design and some of the photography do benefit from the added depth in my opinion as the environments are that much more interesting to look at. I found the movie gave a better sense of scale and space in 3D.

I also find it odd that the technical reviewer, M. Enois Duarte, complains there are no popouts in I, Robot yet in other reviews (notably Tin Tin) he praises the overall lack of "gimmick shots". Sounds to me like someone looking for something to complain about as opposed to simply presenting a balanced review.

EDIT: Having now watched the rest of the movie, I'd say that overall I'm pleased with the 3D. The setpieces such as the scene where the demolition robot destroys Lanning's home or the battle with the robots and trucks in the tunnel are definitely enhanced by the use of 3D (there was even some limited pop with the glass shards and sparks) and the final battle with VIKI at the top of the tower also made good use of depth and height. There's no mistaking this for a native 3D film or even a high end conversion like Avengers or Titanic but it did enhance my enjoyment of the movie.
Edited by TonyDP - 10/20/12 at 5:08pm
post #51 of 78
Quote:
There's no mistaking this for a native 3D film or even a high end conversion like Avengers or Titanic but it did enhance my enjoyment of the movie
Was it about as bad as Clash of the Titans?
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Was it about as bad as Clash of the Titans?

This stuff is all subjective of course but I thought it was much much better than Clash of the Titans; I don't know if you ever saw Immortals but I'd say its comparable to that, maybe a tick inferior. I would also say it is easily superior to Conan, Thor, Priest John Carter and The Phantom Menace but not as good as Alice In Wonderland, Wrath of the Titans, Captain America or The Avengers.

BTW, I think its worth mentioning that the aspect ratio for the 3D movie is 1.78:1; I'm pretty sure the theatrical cut was around 2.35:1. Aspect ratio purists may be upset by this but honestly I think opening the mattes and using the full screen definitely makes for a more immersive home experience for people with hi-def TVs.
Edited by TonyDP - 10/20/12 at 6:02pm
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Was it about as bad as Clash of the Titans?

I don't believe anything could be as bad as CotT. Watched one time I can still see those elongated, pancake flat in the back heads with their hair swirling in another dimension.
post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

I don't believe anything could be as bad as CotT. .
Last Airbender was worst.
post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Conversion is fine in some circumstances and indeed necessary where CGI is concerned.
Where conversion falls down and probably always will is when it comes to converting live 2D shots of real people. It just cannot exstrapolate depth for skin pores, hair and the like because this data is not present in the 2D shot to begin with.
Conversion will always require a certain amount of guesswork and because as a species we are programmed from birth to recognise faces, the slightest error in a 3D face will stand out like a sore thumb.
Film makers need to realise that compromise and a reduction in the quality of the finished product is an absolute certainty where conversion of live actors is concerned, should they continue to shy away from using proper 3D rigs.
As a side note, I am not sure why an artist would choose to settle for lower quality when all that is required is time and the will to learn how to compose 3D shots using new 3D rigs. It seems like an odd choice to me from people who normally strive to make their art as good as it can be.
The only explanation I can come up with is pressure from studios forcing artists to adopt to 3D when they don't want to. Wouldn't it be easier to simply hire people that want to shoot in 3D to begin with?
time is the main reason film makers chose to shoot 2d then convert it later. With 3d you have to monitor and calibrate the cameras for every shot. The rigs are big and clunky alto improving with the red cameras you just can't shoot the way you would in 2d. It just slows everything down and is a pain for a lot of directors. I do think 3d is kind of forced onto some movies by big dogs. If a director doesn't give a dam about 3d doesn't care to add depth to his shots, the conversion will always look bad. There are some movies shot in 2d but were planed to be converted from the start that come out looking great in 3d, Alice in wonderland and the immortals are some examples.
post #56 of 78
While some conversions these days are passable, they'll never be able to exactly replicate natively-filmed 3D. I'm hopeful that more people will start shooting in native 3D. Pre-planning a 2D shoot is fine, but that really only covers shot composition, and doesn't really do anything for the effect itself. The Avengers was enjoyable, but seemed a bit... artificial in its 3D execution. It almost felt forced at times. The clip I saw from I, Robot felt the same way. It wasn't jarring, but it didn't really feel natural, either.

Part of the problem now is that they're still having to use rigs do capture 3D. Two cameras strapped and wired together like something out of Clive Barker. Seat-of-the-pants 3D. I'm surprised they haven't just made a single camera that can capture it as one contiguous file. The rig might be a little bulkier to account for two sets of opticals, but it wouldn't be nearly as bulky as today's 3D rigs, and with a hell of a lot less wiring. That would cut down the on-set clutter a lot, and maybe you'd see more directors choosing to shoot in 3D natively.
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

While some conversions these days are passable, they'll never be able to exactly replicate natively-filmed 3D. I'm hopeful that more people will start shooting in native 3D. Pre-planning a 2D shoot is fine, but that really only covers shot composition, and doesn't really do anything for the effect itself. The Avengers was enjoyable, but seemed a bit... artificial in its 3D execution. It almost felt forced at times. The clip I saw from I, Robot felt the same way. It wasn't jarring, but it didn't really feel natural, either.
Part of the problem now is that they're still having to use rigs do capture 3D. Two cameras strapped and wired together like something out of Clive Barker. Seat-of-the-pants 3D. I'm surprised they haven't just made a single camera that can capture it as one contiguous file. The rig might be a little bulkier to account for two sets of opticals, but it wouldn't be nearly as bulky as today's 3D rigs, and with a hell of a lot less wiring. That would cut down the on-set clutter a lot, and maybe you'd see more directors choosing to shoot in 3D natively.
true converted 3d will never be as good as native 3d, but on a few native 3d movies the 3d effect can fall flat too. Prometheus and Sanctuary are natively shot in 3d but the effect is non existent at times. I ausme that's by choice not to burn the audiences eyes out, for me if I'm paying extra for 3d I want to see the 3d effect. Just watched avatar for the fist time in 3d, it's sad that a movie over two years old is the best 3d movie I've ever seen. I've got 2 3d tvs, have 40+ 3d movies so I've seen my share of 3d movies. I've notice a trend and that's to tone down the 3d effect.,I've found some natively shot 3d to be dissatisfying while conversions giving a greater 3d effect, it may have a unnatural effect but its better then not seeing the 3d effect.
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post

My Walmart had this on the shelf yesterday. I picked it up but the back cover list the 3D/2D disc at 1.78 but the seperate dvd is at it's original oar of 2.35. I want to open it but if it's not a typo I have no interest in it.
Tom

Ive noticed on several blurays the 3D version is open-matte or cropped 16:9 (Avatar is open matte 16:9 as well as Titanic) - to help the 3d effect have a little more impact.
post #59 of 78
I absolutely HATE the trend of open matte just for the 3d version on films that have always been scope OAR. mad.gif Keep it OAR for crying out loud. Why should this be ANY different than 2d releases? What if all 2.35/2.40 OAR films in 2d were suddenly open matte? eek.gif NO SALE for me on this one unless we get the OAR version which this is not.
post #60 of 78
Here is the first review I have seen of this 3D conversion from High Def Digest.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6955/i_robot_3d.html
Not the greatest review but I'll wait and make my own opinion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › I, Robot 3D in October