I honestly had forgotten about this:
Star Wars in 3D: What Happened?
- Thread starter Captain Dunsel
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
Maybe because 3D is a dumb gimmick that rarely actually adds anything to a film?
I've seen literally one (1) film with 3D in it that wasn't just some BS marketing crap: Dredd 3D. And that's because the 3D element was woven into the narrative, and otherwise was very, very muted depth-of-field stuff that can honestly be achieved just fine with regular filming techniques.
Every other movie is just an excuse for Captain Eo "COMIN' AT YA!!" gags.
I've seen literally one (1) film with 3D in it that wasn't just some BS marketing crap: Dredd 3D. And that's because the 3D element was woven into the narrative, and otherwise was very, very muted depth-of-field stuff that can honestly be achieved just fine with regular filming techniques.
Every other movie is just an excuse for Captain Eo "COMIN' AT YA!!" gags.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yep.
It was dumb in the 50s, but understandable because the tech was new. It was dumb again in the 80s, and less understandable because the tech WASN'T new, and it had been dumb before. It was dumb in the 2010s because the tech was old, and it was dumb TWICE before.
It's still dumb today.
Unless you weave it into the narrative. If it's actually part of the story, I have no problem with it. But it almost never is. It's almost always just a gimmick that mostly relies on "Comin' at ya!" gags.
It was dumb in the 50s, but understandable because the tech was new. It was dumb again in the 80s, and less understandable because the tech WASN'T new, and it had been dumb before. It was dumb in the 2010s because the tech was old, and it was dumb TWICE before.
It's still dumb today.
Unless you weave it into the narrative. If it's actually part of the story, I have no problem with it. But it almost never is. It's almost always just a gimmick that mostly relies on "Comin' at ya!" gags.
Dredd was also the only movie that came out at the time to actually use another tired trope that was trending: slow-mo. It weaved both elements into the movie so well, I feel bad for anyone that didn't catch it that way originally in the theaters. The use of slow-mo, with the 3D, in Dredd was beautiful. Almost sublime.
jts1031
Sr Member
We need smell-o-vision!
joberg
Legendary Member
On Douglas Trumbull and his technical/engineering inventions for 3-D:
In March 2011, director James Cameron announced plans to film his next Avatar-type 3D feature in a digital version of Showscan. Cameron has been pushing for movie theatres to adopt higher frame-rates to maintain the 3D effect during scenes involving high-speed motion (such as explosions). At twenty-four frames per second the 3D effect breaks down, while at forty-eight or sixty frames per second it is maintained. Sixty frames per second is difficult to achieve with conventional film because of the stress on the medium itself; recording sixty frames per second using a digital camera is commonplace."
"In 2014 Trumbull announced that he had developed a new digital capture and projection system called Magi. It shoots and projects native 3D in 4K at 120 fps, using an innovative technique he called "cadence", which had never been used in previous 3D systems: "We were shooting 60 [frames] per eye, projector was going 120—left eye, right eye, left eye, right eye. You’re shooting the same way you’re going to project it. And that's when this magic happens. It's only one flash per frame, and the sequence is actually temporally correct. There are in fact 120 different positions. Anything that moves in front of the camera is going to have 120 different positions." That year he also produced a short dramatic film, UFOTOG, to highlight the capabilities of the Magi system. The story deals with a man who has developed a sophisticated 3D photographic system to track UFOs and prove their existence, despite interference from a shadowy government agency. The film has been shown at film festivals and industry conferences and to filmmakers and studio executives." (Wikipedia sources)
What Trumbull deducted from his experience is that, with the 120 fps for each projector/eye, he would eliminate the blur that every movement makes on a regular film (34 fps or even 60 fps). The absence of blur would be the exact way the brain sees movements in real life.
Therefore making it a "natural/native 3-D effect". The big problem with this new tech is that no movie theater owners would scrap their hardware for the new and more expensive one.
In March 2011, director James Cameron announced plans to film his next Avatar-type 3D feature in a digital version of Showscan. Cameron has been pushing for movie theatres to adopt higher frame-rates to maintain the 3D effect during scenes involving high-speed motion (such as explosions). At twenty-four frames per second the 3D effect breaks down, while at forty-eight or sixty frames per second it is maintained. Sixty frames per second is difficult to achieve with conventional film because of the stress on the medium itself; recording sixty frames per second using a digital camera is commonplace."
"In 2014 Trumbull announced that he had developed a new digital capture and projection system called Magi. It shoots and projects native 3D in 4K at 120 fps, using an innovative technique he called "cadence", which had never been used in previous 3D systems: "We were shooting 60 [frames] per eye, projector was going 120—left eye, right eye, left eye, right eye. You’re shooting the same way you’re going to project it. And that's when this magic happens. It's only one flash per frame, and the sequence is actually temporally correct. There are in fact 120 different positions. Anything that moves in front of the camera is going to have 120 different positions." That year he also produced a short dramatic film, UFOTOG, to highlight the capabilities of the Magi system. The story deals with a man who has developed a sophisticated 3D photographic system to track UFOs and prove their existence, despite interference from a shadowy government agency. The film has been shown at film festivals and industry conferences and to filmmakers and studio executives." (Wikipedia sources)
What Trumbull deducted from his experience is that, with the 120 fps for each projector/eye, he would eliminate the blur that every movement makes on a regular film (34 fps or even 60 fps). The absence of blur would be the exact way the brain sees movements in real life.
Therefore making it a "natural/native 3-D effect". The big problem with this new tech is that no movie theater owners would scrap their hardware for the new and more expensive one.
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
The 3D with “stuff coming at ya” is stupid. But the 3D that shows layers and depth is entirely different, that’s the one that I enjoy. I saw Avengers in that 3D and it was great. I have the Doctor Who 50th anniversary and one of the discs is in 3D. My buddy still had a 3D dvd player and tv so I watched it at his place. It was the same type.
JediMichael
Master Member
JediMichael
Master Member
3D works best for theme park shows that last like 10 or less mins, where the seats move, has water and air and stuff like that.
I think of the old Shrek show at Universal. That was fun.
For a whole entire 2+ hour film, not so much.
I didn't get to see Phantom Menace in 3D back, 12 years ago I think, as life was a bit crazy at the time.
I did get to see Jurassic Park in 3D in 2013, more because I had never seen it in a theater and wanted to.
I thought they actually did a pretty good job converting it to 3D, and since it wasn't filmed in 3D, no major gimmick to "throw stuff at the audience". Of course, the 3D clearly wasn't needed, it was just something interesting to check out on a film I'd already seen a ton of times.
Surprised Disney didn't take the time to convert the rest of the Star Wars movies. Guess the cost of conversion VS how much money they would have made back wasn't worth it to them. Plus, being the new owners of the franchise at the time, didn't want to risk anything to much....but oh no....they decided instead to ruin it themselves, in house.
I think of the old Shrek show at Universal. That was fun.
For a whole entire 2+ hour film, not so much.
I didn't get to see Phantom Menace in 3D back, 12 years ago I think, as life was a bit crazy at the time.
I did get to see Jurassic Park in 3D in 2013, more because I had never seen it in a theater and wanted to.
I thought they actually did a pretty good job converting it to 3D, and since it wasn't filmed in 3D, no major gimmick to "throw stuff at the audience". Of course, the 3D clearly wasn't needed, it was just something interesting to check out on a film I'd already seen a ton of times.
Surprised Disney didn't take the time to convert the rest of the Star Wars movies. Guess the cost of conversion VS how much money they would have made back wasn't worth it to them. Plus, being the new owners of the franchise at the time, didn't want to risk anything to much....but oh no....they decided instead to ruin it themselves, in house.
Pretty sure I read they'd already converted more of them by the time the project was canceled.
JediMichael
Master Member
Well if they were already finished, or close to it, they should have released them to make some money. Strange the things Disney does.
It's funny seeing Nemo's dad Marlin in real life... and 3D!
Similar threads
