There was a time, not too long ago when studios released movies with awesome amusement park quality 3-D. The last ones I
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 3D Films
thedarkknight-08504 — 10 years ago(June 22, 2015 10:57 AM)
There was a time, not too long ago when studios released movies with awesome amusement park quality 3-D. The last ones I recall are Drive Angry and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Then, instead of shooting a movie in 3-D, the studios shot it in 2D and used computers to fudge pathetic 3-D conversions. Instead of images leaping off the screen into the audience, right up to your nose, we pay a premium for a window box effect where the supposed depth goes into the screen away from the audience. Okay, so I've learned not to pay the 3D premium for Marvel superhero movies, but the studios are still duping us by touting movies that were "shot in 3D". Case in pointJurassic World. I was excited when I read it was being shot in 3D , eagerly paid the premium for the Real D presentation, but found myself watching the same window box effect as with 2D conversions. How can this be? It was shot with two cameras! The dinosaurs should have lept into the audience, making us duck out of the way. Shame on Universal and Steven Spielberg. Toss your computers away, guys and give us some genuine old fashioned 3-D!
-
ironjade — 10 years ago(June 22, 2015 01:27 PM)
I direct your attention to "3D Rarities", a collection of shorts, trailers and cartoons from the 30s to the 50s, newly restored by 3D Archive and available on Blu-ray from Flicker Alley.
The perfect antidote to the insipid 2.5D efforts so frequently on offer today.
"Say it with flowers . . . give her a Triffid." -
ironjade — 10 years ago(July 02, 2015 01:12 PM)
The Chrysler stop motion animation is particularly good, with great use of music.
The trailers for "The Maze" and "it Came from Outer Space" make me wish Universal would get its act together and either re-release them or licence them to someone else.
"Say it with flowers . . . give her a Triffid." -
thedarkknight-08504 — 10 years ago(November 24, 2015 08:45 PM)
Hi,
Glad you enjoyed Mad Max it was a good movie. No matter how good technology gets, however, you can't beat biology for real 3-d on the screen. Your eyes are set a specific number of degrees apart. Filming in real Native 3-d uses two cameras to duplicate that angle. Otherwise you are only recording one eye's view on the screen and fudging what the other eye might see with a computer. In converted 3-d movies, Mad Max included, the depth goes into the screen away from the audience (the opposite of what real 3-d should look like). You get a windowbox effect where the depth comes from behind the screen and stops at the screen instead of going right up to your nose. Dust and hurling bodies give an illusion of depth because they are coming from inside the screen toward you, but they stop at the screen. You never feel like you have to duck as you did in Native 3-d movies. Go to an amusement park and check out some 3-d exhibits (Like Terminator at Universal). You'll see what I mean. Creating 3-d with one camera is like trying to record true stereo with one microphone can't be done. -
mmcgee282 — 10 years ago(February 14, 2016 09:13 PM)
To avoid eye strain they did not show tha gimmick of throwing things at the Camera.The film maker showed depth instead.Having thing pop put of the screen can bring more strain to the brain.It was shot the same way as a flat movie,so that the flat version would be just as fun too .One of the marvel comic film ant man was shot in 3.d .There was the making of it on Blu- ray .The fake 3D is done for the same reason that in the past produces blew up 35mm Panavision films to 70 mm to save money on using real 65mm film.You could not tell the differences.it's about cutting corners.This is bad.This is not working for the interest of film consumers.
-
mmcgee282 — 10 years ago(February 14, 2016 10:10 PM)
I want to apologize sincerely.I looked up in the I.m.d.b and ant man and Jurassic world was only rendered in 3D.It was not shot in 3D.Non of the cameras mention about dual d cameras.My brother wasted money when i told him to give me x mas present and it was that.I wasted money on Jurassic World .It did look artificial.This is a way to kill 3D .Those tight wads.Digital dual 3d is a lot cheaper than dual 35mm film.This is typical of studio self interest.If we had regulation again .They would of have to shoot them in real 3D or stay flat!Let me recommend Hotel Transylvania 2.It was hot in actual 3D.
-
ironjade — 10 years ago(February 15, 2016 02:54 AM)
It's always amazed me that, considering the army of people it takes to do it, conversion is economically viable. Clearly it is or no one would do it.
In CGI-heavy productions it can't really be avoided.
Anyone hankering after old-school 3D should seek out Thomas Jane's "Dark Country".
It was shot in native 3D but, much to his disappointment, not widely screened in 3D. Although shooting under some restrictions from his producers, TJ gets the most out of every scene, all the more impressive as much of the movie takes place inside a car.
On its initial release it was lost in the stampede of cartoon animals and superheroes but it's well worth a look.
"Say it with flowers . . . give her a Triffid." -
mmcgee282 — 10 years ago(February 15, 2016 02:25 PM)
Real 3d or non at all.Conversion is expensive not cheap.the studios just want to hurry the production.Wide screen 3d can be achieve to .Fake 3D is going to kill real 3D.the studio with fake 3D are just exploiting consumers for their own self interest.I'm glad i did not see star war it was not shot in3D.I bought that Transylvania part 2 .It was shot in 3d