2D To 3D Converted Movies - good enough?
by clydd
- 18,055 views
2d to 3D converted movies: ...
2d to 3D converted movies:
The question being, should it matter to the Audiences? Also, is it better to convert a normal movie to 3D or Shoot it in 3D in the first place?
I lean to the point of having a bias toward shooting with real (or CG) stereoscopic cameras. 2D to 3D conversion studios that service Hollywood argue that it‟s better to shoot a film as regular 2D and then convert it to 3D later.
Accessibility
Categories
Upload Details
Uploaded via SlideShare as Adobe PDF
Usage Rights
© All Rights Reserved
Statistics
- Likes
- 0
- Downloads
- 165
- Comments
- 7
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 18,008
- Total Views
- 18,055
http://house-on-haunted-hill-3d.blogspot.com/ 1 year ago
http://2dto3dvideo.net 2 years ago
http://www.realvision.ae/2d_to_3d_conversion.pdf
People who are reading the comments below - they are all various answers to someone called 'Mr3d' and surprisingly after my long answer below all three previous comments by the user 'mr3d' have either been deleted by the user, or lost somehow by slideshare.
(note: I have not deleted any comments on this presentation)
I suspect it was a disgruntled industry person, but I have in the slideshare inbox a copy of the last comment made by 'mr3d' if anyone wants it I can email that. Regards
Want a nice idea for a Location Scouting and Previsualization system for your next 3 Dimensional film? see this presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/clydd/location-previz-in-stereo-3d 3 years ago
If it wasn't very clear in the document .. let me try one more time in a single long sentence..
My Gripe is with Conversion houses Blatantly saying that you should shoot a 3D movie in 2D and then convert it in post. and also that 2D conversions are a superior form of 'Creating 3Dimensional real world Imagery' versus capturing the real world in stereoscopic 3D.
THIS is WRONG! and this is what I then 'extrapolate' in the document to PROVE the caveats, flaws etc of this belief... With that out of the way..
let me say where have you been [ the deleted comment of mr3d asked me where have i been in the past 20 years with regard to movie/post production technology] in the past 3 years as far as 3D match-moving, Stereoscopic Color grading, Live Parallax setting and preview 'on SET' (with stereoscopic cameras), stereoscopic compositing software etc.. These tools have been mentioned in the document.
I feel your exposure to stereoscopy, is contained in the rotoscopy, planar tracking and Matte extracting domains only. The tools for EASY stereoscopic composting are already out there.
Your complaints about wrong depth grading for cuts is true- THAT's why you need a STEREOGRAPHER on set to assist in framing etc.
Use something like the SIP 2100 on site to set your Depth Its for newbies and pros alike to match stereo depth for a 'cut' from the previous shot. Much easier.. in full stereoscopic 3D AND less time consuming than converting every single object in a scene.
You also adjust horizontal parallax in post, and use animated floating windows to dynamically adjust Zero depth plane. are you aware of this?
what else.. lets see.. yes Stereoscopic compositing. for start you roughly line up your CG cameras at the same interocular as your physical cameras. finer tweaking is definately possible.
Once done, you pass it through your match-move software.. yes there are more than a few 3D capable match-move software out there! then you export the tracking data and tweak it for the right eye and render. I guarantee you, its not as time consuming as having a sweat shop of animators 'tracing' objects in scenes and then shifting them back and forth on a per frame basis at times!
Yes this is over-simplified you will say [my answers and the document itself has been criticized as being an overly simplified argument by 'mr3d'] .. but if I am to teach or expand on this.. the comments section here is not good enough.
Finally.. here's the Kicker.. Why not Shoot with a 3D camera.. then discard one eye view and 'go-to-town' with 2d --3D conversion if u must, for any scenes which you believe are better enhanced by conversion. At least the rest of the movie has got the true-ness of Stereoscopic 3D.
Dont go telling directors to Do away with shooting in 3D , and create their next 3D block buster by shooting in 2d!
Painting is one thing... destroying an EASY , optically correct and more visually appealing method of capture and presentation of 3 Dimensional content by 'hacking' objects with cookie cutting, blob like geometry creating and texture draping is another.
Painting in movies is either a set extention that is mostly in the background or of non consequence...and guess what? it works for 2D For stereoscopic 3D .. it's a dead giveaway and looks plain weird to have a room where the front table is 'converted' and the wall with a painting at the back looks flat cause they didnt extrude it!
Oh G-force?? yes... in the Pet Shop the desktop revolving postcard stands are Square Boxes! so are the shelves. yes that is wrong! would be much easier to shoot in 3D ..trust me.
It's easier to 'roto' around the central talent or region of interest in the left eye view and then tweak the same roto mask for the right eye view, and BLUR the regions of no interest in a scene to 'bring into focus' the Directors vision of the scene... this blurring can be selective and border on extreme so that audiences know, and do not try to strain their eyes and brain to fuse the background imagery... and yet this method would retain the organic roundness and details to not make it look like a 'paper world' background! something that is psychologically expected in a 3 Dimensional world.
This is the SAME EFFECT CONVERSION STUDIOS ARE USING to draw attention to the story plot... but WITHOUT having to recreate the Real world ARTIFICIALLY BY HAND MODELLING THE ENTIRE SCENE... completely counter intiutive in my humble opinion!
Use 2D --3D for what it is.. a tool and a special effect. (just like you mention painting in movies)
Regards. 3 years ago
Again for the sake of your convienance, this document addresses 3 things
1) You CANNOT inject information about the real world (CG is a different matter) that is not there i.e. not captured stereoscopically
2) 2D to 3D Conversions are NOT a superior method of creating 3d movies.. the process is just another 'special effect'
3) 2D conversion houses are wrongly promoting Outright shooting in 2D and convert later methodology as superior. That's all the Document is addressing.. ..
Oh! and as a bonus.. it shows you the flaws in the two converted movies! Regards
P.S for your reference here is who I 'worked' with previously
http://www.linkedin.com/in/clydesouza 3 years ago
All arguments on quality of conversion non-withstanding, My point of the article is the Blatant claims made by certain Conversion studios is that All 3D movies SHOULD be shot in 2D and converted later, AND that it is superior to shooting in 3D in the first place.
Neophytes and stubborn / jaded cinematographers will blame steroscopic capture as too cumbersome / expensive etc...
How much time is needed to convert? and cost? and quality of conversion..
OH.. and wait.. Missing information is being added/ synthesized by a person? when it is readily and ACCURATELY captured in a stereoscopic camera?
- Regards. 3 years ago
What im against is new hollywood films coming out with the '3D' label but which have been shot in 2D and converted later, saying its a more superior presentation that when actually captured with 3D cameras. 3 years ago