Hmmm... So, what is the difference between JVC's conversions and, say, that used by Cameron for TITANIC? Is it simply a matter of not taking the time needed to do it up right? I have not seen either I ROBOT or JUMPER, but I've seen a few conversions I didn't care for, namely Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND and , but for every one I don't like I've seen a dozen I think are pretty amazing (any Pixar title, WIZARD OF OZ, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, etc.) I will probably wait for it to show up on 3-D Rentals.com and check it out before purchasing.
I have a feeling that perhaps we don't share the same views on what makes for a great 3D film, i personally think the format needs to utilize all of the technology, it should have great depth and great pop out, this can also be referred to as negative and positive parallax, i do not think Pixar are fully taking advantage of the technology and the same goes for these Fox conversions, if you enjoy the PIxar movies then it's highly possible you will enjoy the Fox converted titles as well.
I do not view pop out as a gimmick, i view it as a vital part of 3D, it is also known as positive parallax in the industry, i feel studio's and filmmakers are far too often just using 50% of the technology and ignoring positive parallax,
I haven't watched Alice In Wonderland yet, i viewed the opening scenes only, i thought those opening scenes looked very good, i won't say more until i see the whole thing, my favourite 3D films are still the ones actually shot using native camera systems.
Michael Bay ( he who is much hated but not by me ) said a few years ago that a top shelf conversion cost between $120,000 to $150,000 per minute of footage, other estimates depending on who you speak to quote $40,000 to $100,000 per minute, usually there can be a team of upto 700 people working on the conversion and they can take upto 9 months to complete the work.,
The JVC system doesn't require as much rotoscoping as other conversion systems, that saves Fox a lot of time and money, indeed the claims i have read state it requires only 3 people and takes 3 months at one third of the price of a normal conversion.
A few links below, the first just backs up my information, the second link is a very entertaining read about the more expensive 3D conversion process which they used for Titanic and other films.
What is interesting is that there has been a decline in films being shot in native 3D, the studio's seem to believe the conversion process ( not JVC's ) is good enough, this has led to a massive drop off in films shot using 3D camera systems, they are also playing it safe with the conversions, depth is in plentiful supply but positive parallax ( pop out ) is under utilized if they even use it at all, while others may find this approach acceptable i do not.
Edited by FoxyMulder, November 24 2013 - 09:51 PM.