[cakefoo]

Gravity was shot with Bot & Dolly's awesome new robotic rig, the Iris.

Demo footage:

"The majority" of Gravity was shot on this rig!


Gravity will have many 6-10 minute long takes but the one to look out for will be its opening shot, which will last 17 minutes.


Insane...


And while this was shot in 2D and will be postconverted, it should be obvious why this will most likely be the very first conversion to rival the best native 3D.

 

[BleedOrange11]

Wow! Very cool rigs. Has Cuaron said why he chose post-conversion for Gravity?

 

[cakefoo]

I can't find an official reply from Cuaron but we can rule out a preference for the film look, as this was shot digital anyway.


Maybe the robot rig couldn't hold a beamsplitter? Maybe budget/time constraints? Or he just wanted fewer constraints and less on-set chaos.


A ton of directors of postconversions have claimed they shot for 3D, but I have yet to see one that feels like that was true.


Cuaron is the first director aside from Cameron who I'm trusting to do it right. This Iris rig makes me all the more hopeful.


As for the film itself, it has the potential to be very polarizing. It's been compared to Tree of Life (which flew over my head) in cinematographic ambition, but also its divisiveness.

 

[BleedOrange11]

Maybe it's just easier and cheaper to convert since they are going to be compositing the live actors into animated green-screened backgrounds for a large portion of the film--like John Carter. If the conversion artists do a nice job, it might not make much of a difference when everything is CGI except for Sandra Bullock's face inside a helmet anyway.

 

[cbcdesign]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange11  /t/1420911/aside-from-cuaron-direct...-cinematography-will-be-awesome#post_22233182


Maybe it's just easier and cheaper to convert since they are going to be compositing the live actors into animated green-screened backgrounds for a large portion of the film--like John Carter. If the conversion artists do a nice job, it might not make much of a difference when everything is CGI except for Sandra Bullock's face inside a helmet anyway.

No, I don't buy it.


The CGI characters and environments are actually created as 3D characters and objects in the computer so its easy to create decent 3D as the animators have all the depth cues they need. Converting live actors shot in 2D on the other hand is nothing like as easy. They have nothing like as many depth cues in a 2D shoot so short of scanning every actor and re-creating virtual 3D versions of them to get back all those missing depth cues, I don't see how it can possibly be easier to convert live shot actors.

 

[BleedOrange11]

With 2D live-action images, the 3D CGI artists have more freedom to create shots how they want. With two stereo pairs, they are forced to line up the CGI to match the bits of live-action exactly. If a large majority of the film is CGI, it could be easier with conversion to achieve the look they want. It just depends on how they are planning the film and how much allowance they need for tweaking the stereo after shooting.