Titanic 3D

[Neil]

Well the posters are starting to appear, with the 3D version of the film being due out next April

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51981

I'm very interested to see how well Cameron can 3D a 2D film.

That said, I can't imagine paying to see it at the cinema. While I enjoyed it first time around, I more than feel I've been than and done it now!

[SymphonicX]

God I hate this film. I can never get through it all, I hate the main cast and really can't stand the type of movie....love story offset by a disaster....Pearl Harbour, Armageddon, all those kinda films. I swear this gave Roland Emerich a career. ugh.

As big a supporter of 3D as I am, the idea of post converting old movies to 3D is ridiculous. The whole idea of it is to provide you with a sense of depth that you never had with a 2D picture - with a 3D conversion one needs to "draw" in extra lines of pixels around the subjects to create the optical illusion of stereoscopic 3D - so all that "depth" you'll be experiencing is directly from the hands and minds of the stereo 3D post production house and absolutely nothing to do with the actual dimension of space available to the crew when making the movie!

[Neil]

I enjoyed the film at the time, although I do feel it's aged badly, mainly due to its own success.

But like you, I'm bemused by the post 3D conversion process, and I just cannot understand how it works. In effect with the original footage you say have the right eye's perspective. So they have to go through every frame and generate the left eye's perspective, introducing detail (parts of objects, scenery, people, background) that was never captured in the first place. So they somehow have to jig all near objects around, and paste in stuff behind them. It just seems like a mind blowing amount of work!

That said, my bluray player has a 3D function to 3D old 2D movies on the fly. And although not great, it does have a reasonable attempt! Amazing!

[bassman]

I really enjoy the film, but I still won't bother with this conversion. I'm not a big fan of the post conversion process but Cameron is the current king of 3D, so maybe it will be worth it. Maybe i'll check it out if the old lady really wants to, but I doubt it.

I will say that if I had the choice between this and Phantom Menace 3D, this definitely wins....

[AcesandEights]

Billy Zane in 3D?

Mein Gott!

[Neil]

Billy Zane in 3D?

Mein Gott!
LOL! But he was quite good in Titanic IMHO.


And you of course really do need to give the man some respect! Let us not forget the following:-

**NOT WORK FRIENDLY**http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hzuEvv8g8nM/TfuREJvOggI/AAAAAAAAHNc/TA8BCRI68cQ/s1600/Kelly+Brook+net+bikini.jpg

[AcesandEights]

LOL! But he was quite good in Titanic IMHO.

I complete agree, actually. I think he was perfect for the part.

Now, would I check a 3D experience of Titanic out? Maybe, don't know who'd I get to go with me.



And you of course really do need to give the man some respect! Let us not forget the following:-

**NOT WORK FRIENDLY**http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hzuEvv8g8nM/TfuREJvOggI/AAAAAAAAHNc/TA8BCRI68cQ/s1600/Kelly+Brook+net+bikini.jpg

Wow. :)

[Neil]

Wow. :)

Yep! The boy did good :)

-- -------- Post added 17-Nov-2011 at 09:16 AM ---------- Previous post was 16-Nov-2011 at 09:43 PM ----------

Titanic 3D trailer... in 2D...

g1I_ls4t1As

[rongravy]

Now, would I check a 3D experience of Titanic out? Maybe, don't know who'd I get to go with me.

Ummmmmmmm, I bet it wouldn't be hard to get a chick to accompany you to this piece of crap...



I'm guessing he's giving it the treatment so that pesky Star Wars doesn't somehow overtake it on the alltime box office when its 3D version comes out.
I'm gonna hafta pass.

[AcesandEights]

Ummmmmmmm, I bet it wouldn't be hard to get a chick to accompany you to this piece of crap...

I'd have to twist my wife's arm to go see it and if I went with another woman, well...you wouldn't want to know what part of me she'd twist.

[rongravy]

I'd have to twist my wife's arm to go see it and if I went with another woman, well...you wouldn't want to know what part of me she'd twist.
Ha, I can imagine. Wow, a female who doesn't like Titanic?!?!?
When I was in Dallas in August it was on every damn day. My wife always had it on when I'd go to the room. Yuck.

[Neil]

this piece of crap...

* sighs at internet binary opinion *

Yes, you don't like it. But there is no way any (rational) person can proclaim this movie as "crap". It's well filmed, well produced, fairly original, and some of the lengths gone to during production were astronishing, etc etc...

By all means say you don't like the film, or don't enjoy it, or certain aspects don't agree with you. But at least try and be fair about it, else people just get the idea your opinion is nothing more than knee-jerk and certainly not considered or fair.

[SymphonicX]

I enjoyed the film at the time, although I do feel it's aged badly, mainly due to its own success.

But like you, I'm bemused by the post 3D conversion process, and I just cannot understand how it works. In effect with the original footage you say have the right eye's perspective. So they have to go through every frame and generate the left eye's perspective, introducing detail (parts of objects, scenery, people, background) that was never captured in the first place. So they somehow have to jig all near objects around, and paste in stuff behind them. It just seems like a mind blowing amount of work!

That said, my bluray player has a 3D function to 3D old 2D movies on the fly. And although not great, it does have a reasonable attempt! Amazing!

I think, essentially, they're basically doing it in a 3 or 4 step process - remove the character from the scene by cloning the background (creating background plate), mask around the character to remove the background (creating keyed out subject), modify the masked out subjects by adding extra lines around the edges (again more clone stamping - one set of modifications for the left eye, one for the right eye - but they probably just do the right eye to be honest...), recomposite the background and subject elements using two composition cameras (the original "angle" will become the left eye - left eye is the master in Stereoscopic 3D), offset by an interocular distance (the distance between the eyes), and add what's known as a depth matte to create a sense of perspective between the subject and the background...imagine doing that frame by frame....easier to go back and reshoot the whole bloody movie...!

Not seen the software myself, but I imagine it's more automated than frame by frame - using trackers, would probably be able to guesstimate the results with a few tweaks needed to make it work better...older films that weren't shot anywhere near a chromakey background would be a nightmare...!

[Neil]

I think, essentially, they're basically doing it in a 3 or 4 step process - remove the character from the scene by cloning the background (creating background plate), mask around the character to remove the background (creating keyed out subject), modify the masked out subjects by adding extra lines around the edges (again more clone stamping - one set of modifications for the left eye, one for the right eye - but they probably just do the right eye to be honest...), recomposite the background and subject elements using two composition cameras (the original "angle" will become the left eye - left eye is the master in Stereoscopic 3D), offset by an interocular distance (the distance between the eyes), and add what's known as a depth matte to create a sense of perspective between the subject and the background...imagine doing that frame by frame....easier to go back and reshoot the whole bloody movie...!

Not seen the software myself, but I imagine it's more automated than frame by frame - using trackers, would probably be able to guesstimate the results with a few tweaks needed to make it work better...older films that weren't shot anywhere near a chromakey background would be a nightmare...!

I'd love to know how they do it. It's not even just 'moving' objects is it, as even the perspective must change. ie: With a face close up in the middle of the screen, your left eye can see the left side of the nose, while your right eye can only see the right side of the nose. So they have to (if they're doing it properly) completely change the perspective/angle of people/objects! Amazing!

[SymphonicX]

I'd love to know how they do it. It's not even just 'moving' objects is it, as even the perspective must change. ie: With a face close up in the middle of the screen, your left eye can see the left side of the nose, while your right eye can only see the right side of the nose. So they have to (if they're doing it properly) completely change the perspective/angle of people/objects! Amazing!

I'm not sure how it's done specifically - I've literally just started a job in Sterescopic 3D work. I use a piece of kit called SGO Mistika
http://www.postproductionbuyersguide.com/images/Product%20Images/SGO-Mistika.jpg

It's a Stereo 3D geometery onlining and mastering suite - it can correct badly shot 3D (which is unsurprisingly, almost everything shot in 3D for TV) and things that are uncontrollable by the camera ops on the day. For instance, some cameras are mirror rigs and some are two individual cameras interacting with each other - when the interocular distance is incorrect, the two eyes won't match up and this will cause you a massive headache as your eyes don't know which image to focus on in either eye. Also imagine when a bit of sunlight hits the camera, and it creates a lens flare - but sometimes the difference between the cameras means that the flare only appears in one eye - this leads to a really bizarre effect of the brain percieving light in one eye but not the other....and hello again migraine!

Then you've got mirror rig cameras - where the 2nd eye's perspective is generated not from a second camera lens but a mirror of whatever the first camera is seeing - a piece of dirt gets on the mirror, or a smudge, and you're fucked.

We can fake 3D stuff in here but all it does is essentially push the image back on the screen plane - the process of an image leaving the screen is called "parallaxing". When an image comes out of the screen at you, that's called negative parallax. We have a "depth budget" which we can break, but with the nature of 3D work you have to be constantly aware of the changes between depth and the frequency of the edits - going from a shallow shot to a deep shot then back to a shallow one very quickly can be horrendous on the brain - which is why films like Quantum of Solace could NEVER be post processed into 3D without a major re-edit, or the depth budget shrunk to unworkable proportions.

Sorry I was gonna ramble about rotoscoping in compositing tools, which is how I believe they have created a post process 3D film like this - but I'd be here all day. Anyway I hope that was even mildly fascinating, but I'm sure it wasnt' hehe. In quick answer I think they avoid the problem of having to redraw both sides of someone's nose by using a depth matte to enhance areas that should appear to protrude, such as noses. They wouldn't be redrawing bits of faces in a 3D environment, because it'd never exist in one, from my knowledge. Ultimately, stereo 3d is an optical illusion - no depth information ever exists in a 3D picture after it's laid to tape/file and transmitted, or whatever - it's an illusion created by management of colour, light, and offsetting two cameras' interocular distance - ultimately stereo 3D is cardboard cut outs existing in a 3D plane - what we after effects users have been called "augmented 3D" for a few years now....

TL:dr!

[Neil]

^^ I think you've just given me a brain tumor!!!

[rongravy]

* sighs at internet binary opinion *

Yes, you don't like it. But there is no way any (rational) person can proclaim this movie as "crap". It's well filmed, well produced, fairly original, and some of the lengths gone to during production were astronishing, etc etc...

By all means say you don't like the film, or don't enjoy it, or certain aspects don't agree with you. But at least try and be fair about it, else people just get the idea your opinion is nothing more than knee-jerk and certainly not considered or fair.
Ok, I'll admit it's well shot, so I guess I'd have to change that to it being more like a turd dipped in glitter.
No biggie, a lot of movies I like get ragged on here...

[Neil]

Ok, I'll admit it's well shot, so I guess I'd have to change that to it being more like a turd dipped in glitter.
LOL! Boy you really must hate it :)