James Cameron, Piranha 3D actor Eli Roth speak up in support of 3D conversions
By Richard Lawler 
posted August 13th 2010 4:51PM
posted August 13th 2010 4:51PM
Check Bloody-Disgusting for the rest of his comments, and listen to Cameron in his own words on MarketSaw -- we'll see how audiences and critics react over the coming weeks and months."You can shoot digital 3-D and it looks great, or you can shoot film and convert and it looks great - but only if you planned to do it that way from the start...With Piranha 3D, the very title of the film is Piranha 3D," he continues. "It was written that way and photographed to be converted. This means that when you're setting up a shot, next to the camera is a technical adviser from the 3D company who tells you exactly what light won't work for the 3D, how far the subject has to be from the lens if you want it to look good when it pops out of the camera, etc...It's not easy and it's not instant and when it's a last minute rushed decision we can see it immediately. But to associate Piranha 3D, a film which spent years planning this, months shooting it with the technicians on set checking the convertibility of every shot, and so far 8 months working on the conversion, is not fair."
AWESOME
Alexandre Aja directed Piranha 3D.
@Will Dearborn Ah, I misread the article, thanks. corrected.
This fish has been dead for 1.21 Gigawatts!
No. Alice in Wonderland was planned for conversion early and took a reasonable time doing the conversion. And it sucked. The movie itself was okay, I think. Truthfully, the 3d was so distracting, I can't remember half the movie. I was so ticked off that I spent extra to see this horrible 3d. I will NEVER watch another conversion EVER.
Go Native 3D or GO HOME.
On a side note, I look forward to seeing Avatar 3D again when it re-releases this month and I look forward to seeing the upcoming native 3d films Resident Evil 4 (even if RE3 was a terrible movie) and especially Tron Legacy. I'm considering driving 6 hours to Dallas to see Tron on Imax 3D (real Imax, not the LieMax they have 20 minutes from me)
@LazarusDark I actually didn't know Alice in Wonderland was a conversion until after I saw it. I really thought it was native 3D. Clash of the Titans looked bad with some weird distortions, but The Last Airbender had little depth to it and for the most part I felt I was watching the movie through a dirty window. I dread seeing the new Harry Potter movie in its converted state, and I'm now weary of Piranha 3D because I thought that was being shot in native 3D as well. I know the Step Up movies aren't most peoples' cup of tea, but the new one has the best use of 3D I've seen in a film since the latest fad started.
Titanic is my favourite movie. I can't wait to see it again at the cinema. I'm curious/excited to see how it is in 3D. I saw Alice in Wonderland and I didn't really like it. The 3D was good at most times imo but SUCKED when Alice was tumbling down the rabbit hole. But that could have been just bad CGI in general (I haven't seen it in 2D). I haven't seen Clash of the Titans 2010 so I can't comment, although I've heard many complaints.
Hopefully the industry has and continues to learn from past mistakes and improves the conversion process.
Maybe they should charge an in-between price from converted 3D movies - more than 2D but lass than native 3D. But then again, I have no idea if it's more costly or about the same to convert to 3D than it is to film it in 3D.
PS Love the Jason stuff :)
"it looks great - but only if you planned to do it that way from the start."
Does that mean Titanic won't look great?
I say bollocks. At best, after converting is only going to produce 'fake stereoscopic'. IE, they can show different images to each eye, and change the separation so that things appear to be at different depths, but I dont believe this is very convincing. Alice in Wonderland's 3D was converted and pretty average - suffered a lot from things appearing to be 'cut out' at different depths which I attribute to the converted 3D.
The problem is, in REAL (ie, 2 camera) stereoscopy, each camera is recording from a slightly different angle, and therefore captures date the other camera does not. This leads to a realistic stereo effect. The 3D conversion people believe this info is unnecessary, however, I've yet to be convinced.
I'm not sold on 3D. Avatar was interesting, but I would have watched and enjoyed the movie whether or not it was in 3D. It's a James Cameron film after all. That the ticket cost more to watch it in 3D only annoyed me and was initially shocking as I wasn't expecting a premium. I think the trend to cash in on higher ticket prices is a disturbing one. It's more a fad than a technical marvel. And I'm pretty sure we're beginning to see over saturation in the use of 3D, to the point where people are becoming leary of the technology.
When you watch a converted movie you're basically watching a 2D image which has been vacuum formed over a depth map. What the hell is the point of that?
It's the modern equivalent of colorization. At best it produces a passable but still inferior 3D effect. At worst it looks bloody awful. In every instance the effect is lossy since elements are rescaled and moved around.
May as well watch the 2D version since in all likelihood the experience is going to be better.
Piranha 3D - when I saw this trailer I thought it was one of those spoof movies like Scary Movie - kinda poking fun at the whole 3D abuse.
I wish my initial thought was true, since this movie looks utterly terrible.