Clash of the Titans

[Neilg]

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the entire conversion to 3d was done in 6 weeks by 10 guys.

From my limited experience with roto that would make me want to kill myself. It doesnt suprise me it's not too hot.

[walee]

i don't understand all this hype around the 3D stuff, especially if it's done in post, that doesn't add anything more to the movie besides the fact that it feels like your watching a movie with sunglasses. On the contrary to my surprise, Avatar in IMAX3D was pretty amazing, especially with the clarity of the image where all the colors are right. I guess it's also the difference in technology between imax3D and real3D that makes real3D movie's brightness so crappy !

[andrewjohn81]

did you notice how bad the resolution of iMax digital projectors are compared to most other theaters? I really don't enjoy seeing the pixels from 15 rows back. You notice it mostly in white areas. I'm not a big fan of the "screen door effect" and it was very apparent.
I think one of the biggest difficulties is depth of field. They often force you to look somewhere, but you might want to look somewhere else. 2D artists dd that with blurring, but with 3D you're eyes basically act as the two cameras that filmed it, so it's almost painful to look anywhere else in a scene sometimes.
That's my only complaint really. I think 3d can definitely be a distraction, but it can also add something amazing to a film. I think there's a slightly different way of looking at the picture when it's in 3D and artists will have to adjust their compositions to please the eyes of the viewers. I'm excited to see what the future will bring.

[^Lele^]

Prime Focus (old Frantic VFX) did the conversion with their new tool, but if i can recall it properly, it had to be done in a silly low amount of time.
While i do NOT know any of the details, my guess is that one would need to roto out the bits, and then push or pop them.
That means that at the very least one gets very visible action planes, and when something goes slightly wrong, you have hair standing behind the char's head XD
It's a start, in my view, bound only to get better (or be dropped entirely, who knows :P).

[Syclone1]

saw Clash last night and it was ok I guess, I found a lot of the action too fast for the film which ended up blurring too much and objects and characters ghosting. I prefer the original still

[glyph]

I didn't realise Alice was converted in post, I thought it was shot in 3d
but it got me thinking that one could use the same conversion process for a 3d cg movie by using the z depth map
- with the actual z depth map the end result should be much better

would that be more effort than rendering from two cameras?
would the 3d effect be worse?
might make the work flow simpler..

[vlado]

There are some effects, like reflections and refractions which are inherently view-dependent, and a conversion cannot fix them - for example, when looking through a glass pane.

Of course, this may or may not be important - depends on the scene.

Best regards,
Vlado

[^Lele^]

It looks like this Vlado character knows his rays...

[glyph]

damn should have thought of that one - but the option to have glass not affect z would help some of the users who want post driven dof fx on their stills!
(hmm guess it couldn't work..)

[^Lele^]

http://gizmodo.com/334426/zcam-3d-ca...without-gloves

I want its babies (found this as the "post" approach to 3d and Z talk got me thinking...)

[beestee]

Looks a lot like microsoft's natal:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/m...ls-eyes-video/

It is some exciting technology.

[^Lele^]

ah! didn't know Natal was depth-based too! Good video, btw, thanks Ben!