Criterion Press Release: It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World (Dual Format) (2 Viewers)

[ahollis]

To clarify for Moe Dickstein, the colorization I referred to was of the Ted Turner fake variety - not the actual advancement of color film.ahollis, the film and theater companies hear people like me, but it's like Microsoft and Windows 8. We'll probably never know whether they are in denial or are simply arrogant in their push to market and feel their ideas are superior to ours. I understand they have to at least try to convince us it's the greatest thing ever. It would be foolish of a company to telegraph failure before the introduction of a new product. Knowing that, I just see it as hype and a cycle of history.

That just does not make sense. Their not listening, due to the fact they continue to make 3D releases because they make money. As a member of the the theatre exhibition industry I can tell you 3D releases make money just as any movie does if the public wants to see it.

 

[Tino]

And Gravity has certainly reinvigorated 3D moviegoing. It's not going anywhere any time soon.

 

[FoxyMulder]

And Gravity has certainly reinvigorated 3D moviegoing. It's not going anywhere any time soon.

Yes and unfortunately it probably also means more conversions and less native 3D too.

Now sure they claim the difference is minimal between a great conversion and native shot 3D but if i had the choice i'd rather they shot native and maybe even shoot two versions, one optimised for 3D and another optimised for 2D, that would be interesting and seeing different takes being used would make both versions unique.

 

[ROclockCK]

Yes and unfortunately it probably also means more conversions and less native 3D too.

Now sure they claim the difference is minimal between a great conversion and native shot 3D but if i had the choice i'd rather they shot native and maybe even shoot two versions, one optimised for 3D and another optimised for 2D, that would be interesting and seeing different takes being used would make both versions unique.

...but at what cost Malcolm? Because that's what this 3D retrofit trend is really all about; justifying the enormous overhead that 3D* adds to production and distribution.

Personally, I wish studios would just make better movies that don't require this visual enhancement to distinguish themselves in the marketplace. Yet I do routinely support 3D theatrically when done well ('event style' like Gravity and Pacific Rim, or Avatar redux), just not at home...no interest.

* in either form.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

The key is no longer shooting with two cameras, but rather the framing and shot selection to make a conversion work well and create good 3D shots. If it's intelligently shot to be converted, it's just as good as native 3D

 

[ahollis]

...but at what cost Malcolm? Because that's what this 3D retrofit trend is really all about; justifying the enormous overhead that 3D* adds to production and distribution.Personally, I wish studios would just make better movies that don't require this visual enhancement to distinguish themselves in the marketplace. Yet I do routinely support 3D theatrically when done well ('event style' like Gravity and Pacific Rim, or Avatar redux), just not at home...no interest.* in either form.

Absolutely.

 

[JWPlatt]

How is a film shot when it is intended for a conversion? Is the 3D processing strictly interpolation? Or do you need to supply digital 3D set models, photos or camera pans to supplement the 2D? Do you need to supply those from empty sets from the exact position(s) of the camera(s) and so forth?

 

[FoxyMulder]

How is a film shot when it is intended for a conversion? Is the 3D processing strictly interpolation? Or do you need to supply digital 3D set models, photos or camera pans to supplement the 2D? Do you need to supply those from empty sets from the exact position(s) of the camera(s) and so forth?

A good read about the process below, be warned it's a lengthy article but interesting.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/art-of-stereo-conversion-2d-to-3d-2012/

...but at what cost Malcolm? Because that's what this 3D retrofit trend is really all about; justifying the enormous overhead that 3D* adds to production and distribution.

Personally, I wish studios would just make better movies that don't require this visual enhancement to distinguish themselves in the marketplace. Yet I do routinely support 3D theatrically when done well ('event style' like Gravity and Pacific Rim, or Avatar redux), just not at home...no interest.

* in either form.

Unfortunately this is true, i wonder though if shooting native and converting to 2D is cheaper than the other way around.

If it's intelligently shot to be converted, it's just as good as native 3D

I'm still not 100% convinced on that.

 

[ROclockCK]

Native 2D with 3D conversion has got to be easier (and cheaper) for the 1st and 2nd units, and FX teams. Otherwise, they'd still be shooting Gravity.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Consider how much of Gravity was natively 2D shot and how much was CG and really, conversion does not come into play.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Consider how much of Gravity was natively 2D shot and how much was CG and really, conversion does not come into play.

I still haven't seen it but do you mean they didn't actually go into space to shoot it, another illusion shattered.

 

[David Weicker]

I still haven't seen it but do you mean they didn't actually go into space to shoot it, another illusion shattered.

Actually, they did go up and film it in space. And it was shot with two cameras to really nail the whole 3-D thing. Unfortunately, they left one of the cameras up there, so they had to make do with just one angle and convert that.

 

[BarryR]

I agree with you Paul -- a 3D IMAX conversion certainly would not look out of place with this movie and would certainly make more money than any sequel or worse, a remake, ever would -- plus its G rated so all demographics are covered.

A 3D MAD would have to be resubmitted to the MPAA because it's of a new format--witness the recent OZ conversion, which was idiotically slapped with a PG rating, while the 2D remains a G. Just look at the box! I'm sure MAD would now rate a PG13 because of "incidental smoking," "mild action" and other ridiculous reasons to keep it out of the uncool G category.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Studios put things in movies to AVOID a G rating. A "G" is almost as much a kiss of death these days as NC-17

 

[mercyflight]

Sorry, i didn't mean to put this thread into a 3D rathole(!)I suppose its just that I would love to see some older films re-released (or Fathom Event-ed).Paul

 

[JWPlatt]

Sorry, i didn't mean to put this thread into a 3D rathole(!)I suppose its just that I would love to see some older films re-released (or Fathom Event-ed).Paul

It wasn't your fault. If you like 3D, that's great. A suggestion never made is one never fulfilled. I take full responsibility for picking up the 3D issue. Thank you for the opportunity.

 

[ahollis]

Sorry, i didn't mean to put this thread into a 3D rathole(!)I suppose its just that I would love to see some older films re-released (or Fathom Event-ed).Paul

I thought it was fun. We had just about said everything that could be said or posted (my picture of an Old Fashioned) that could be. 3D conversation energized the thread a bit.

 

[davidmatychuk]

Sorry, i didn't mean to put this thread into a 3D rathole(!)I suppose its just that I would love to see some older films re-released (or Fathom Event-ed).Paul

"Rathole 3D" was terrible.

 

[BarryR]

Studios put things in movies to AVOID a G rating. A "G" is almost as much a kiss of death these days as NC-17

I know; I find it silly that PG is now pretty much the new G--look at MR. PEABODY, the new Muppet movies, FROZEN...just a trace of whatever to bump it up to PG. Like it really makes a difference to go to that trouble? Years ago many full blooded movies got a G, but that's another topic.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Older kids and teens avoid G movies like the plague.