Monday, June 21, 2010

Retrofitting the 3-D

The race to expand our supply of dimensional movies continues; also increasing is the excuses for the crappier conversions.

The process of converting 2D films to 3D has hit some serious speed bumps on the road to acceptance, but it will remain a key component of filmdom's march into 3D.

That was the message emerging from a panel Thursday assembled by the Intl. 3D Society in association with the Visual Effects Society.

Without mentioning the recent brouhaha over the quality of the 3D conversion of "Clash of the Titans," moderator and 3D tech guru Lenny Lipton asked why 2D-to-3D conversion is sometimes controversial.

Some of the negative feelings may stem from the knowledge that a converted movie is "created after the fact" and people don't consider it the "real thing," said Aaron Parry, topper at Stereo D, which converted the upcoming M. Night Shyamalan kid pic "The Last Airbender.",,,

Uh, no. The negative feelings come from the conversions being no freaking good.

But regarding 3-D in general, I'll go further than that. Last night I saw a dimensional screening of Toy Story 3 with the Resident Teenager. Though we both enjoyed the movie a lot, afterwards I asked him, "how did you like the 3-D?" and he said:

"I didn't. I would have preferred the flat screen version. I thought you were the one who wanted to see it that way ..."

I'll admit it, I kind of did.

But not anymore. After having seen a half-dozen three dee epics, I'm pretty much through with the technology. Weighed against the dimmer screen, higher ticket price and awkward, plastic goggles, getting to watch moving View Master just doesn't jazz me.

I think I'l be gawking at the flat screen versions of my favorite movies from here on out.

11 comments:

Tim said...

My teenage daughter also requested that we see a flat screening. She said that 3D is distracting.

Ryan.G said...

I won't watch another S3D movie if I can help it. I hate wearing glasses over glasses, and the fact that it makes everything darker by a few stops is a step backwards in my opinion.

I prefer my movie going experience to not have fumbling objects on my face and a clear bright screen, thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

There was absolutely no need at all to watch TS3 in 3D - I feel ripped off. There was no gain whatsoever. HtTYD and Avatar were worth the additional price for the 3D, but this was a complete waste of $10 per ticket.
I'm telling everyone I know not to go to the 3D or Imax for TS3.
Sorry Pixar.

Anonymous said...

The 3D conversion of the crappy Alice in Wonderland was as bad, if not worse, than Clash of the Titans. NOT TO MENTION a WORSE film.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone pay more to see a movie of lesser image quality (3D)? The images are darker (up to 1/3), and the glasses annoying and clunky.

Let the backlash BEGIN!

Brubaker said...

My theater only had Toy Story 3 in 3D (thankfully the ticket price is not that insane yet...about $7).

I'm still scratching my head on what was the point of 3D. There was no reason for it to be in 3D at all. If they have a flat version available I would take that in a heartbeat.

I liked the film, though. The "Day and Night" short it played before was great, regardless.

Anonymous said...

The 3D conversion of the crappy Alice in Wonderland was as bad, if not worse, than Clash of the Titans. NOT TO MENTION a WORSE film.

And how can you have a public appraisal of the audience's opinion toward 3D-conversion, quote, "without mentioning" Clash?
Clash and Alice have now become the Elephant In the Room for the entire industry...It's like talking about the Sahara "without mentioning" the heat!

(Unless they meant "Not mentioning it by name", and nowadays, nobody HAS to.) ;)

Anonymous said...

The "point" of 3D is to get theaters to convert to digital projection. Even if 3D fades the installed digital projection infrastructure will allow studios to dispense with film prints.

I won't claim an "insider" told me that, it just seems logical.

Without 3D there was no consumer demand for anything other than regular film projection, but the new 3D required digital and if theaters wanted the 3D customers, they had to install digital projection.

The other "point" of 3D is it's fun (sorry complainers). It may only be a temporary novelty, but for now it's fun.

It's true that the glasses cut some of the light reaching your eyes, but your irises adjust to whatever light level is hitting your retina so watching a movie with the glasses on doesn't end up being any darker an experience, unless you have very weak eyes or go to movies amped up on speed which causes your irises to contract unnaturally.

Anonymous said...

The "point" of 3D is to get theaters to convert to digital projection. Even if 3D fades the installed digital projection infrastructure will allow studios to dispense with film prints.

Of which the upshot could be that if the rise of digital projection replaces the technology of celluloid film prints, studios might find it easy to start stockpiling vintage digital prints again--
With the rise of home theater, revival theaters have discovered that studios no longer have old 16 and 35mm prints of lesser-known vintage titles to distribute (or can't or don't bother to maintain old deteriorating non-classics), and film festivals these days have almost literally nothing to show.
It was the digital form of DVD that sparked film restoration; with filmless projection, it could become easy for studios to keep their digitally restored masters for theatrical distribution.

3-D may be a gimmick, but a technology needs a Killer App--Nobody ever noticed digital projection when it was just Star Wars prequels.

Anonymous said...

Either see it in 3D or dont.

This is a non-issue.

(and 3D projection is brightened to counter the dimming effect of the glasses. must we explain this every time?)

rufus said...

I don't like wearing glasses...wuaaaaa!

what a bunch of whiny bitches.....

The point of 3d is to jack up the ticket prices, duh!

rufus.

Site Meter