Originally Posted by dfa973
Initially, post-conversion WAS expensive - but now is less expensive than shooting native 3D, and not many directors and DOPs want or know what to do with a stereoscopic camera. Hence, the post-conversion craze. Easy, painless (LIDAR and/or depth info captured at the shooting), mostly automatic, and cheap. What's not to like?
And yes, they're lazy.
Cheaper post-conversion every year was a boon for studios!
And yes, it's greed.
There is no post-conversion craze
. Nearly every movie now is post-converted as well as the vast majority of 3D films over the past 10 years are mostly post-converted. There's literally like two directors left (Ang Lee and James Cameron) shooting S3D. Everything else is post-converted. The studio puts up the cost for post conversion in the production budget and it's always in the realm of 10m or more and it does not cost less now than it used to. If anything, like everything else, the costs go up.
They have a large team working hands on for months making sure the 3D is correct. In some respects post conversion is better than native 3D because the 3D image is not baked in, you can derive the 3D image from a 2D source digitally. As I've said for years now, with Hollywood movies, I find converted movies equal to native movies. If you take away converted films you only have 1 or 2 films releasing a year. The only one last year was Gemini Man. Post-conversion allows directors to work with what they know and let those that know 3D, do what they do best.
Let's face it. Most directors prefer to shoot in 2D and that has not changed since Avatar. There was a bubble for awhile. Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Michael Bay, Ridley Scott. All of them are out on 3D. The only one that might still shoot 3D would be Bay, since he's a real 3D guy but nothing since The Last Knight.
The only cash-in effect that ever existed was the first couple years after Avatar but that hasn't been the case since at least 2013 when Gravity was released. Avatar was the example to follow in how 3D should look. But converted films shortly after didn't have that same aesthetic appeal. Take Clash of the Titans for example. The 3D depth is very minimal. That's because conversion methods then with software was not as good as it is today.
Other post-conversion technology like the JVC software used to convert I, Robot. Watching that movie now, there's almost no wow factor for 3D. And that JVC software was supposed to be the go-to method for converting old movies into 3D. That will never work. 3D is more than just a click of a button. Conversion requires hands on, frame by frame work with rotoscoping and painting. It's much more work post-converting than shooting native 3D which is why it takes a large team and many months of work. This is not a lazy endeavor.
I love the time-honored tradition of native 3D, I shoot S3D with many 3D cameras but I also welcome new methods and ideas of achieving the same result.