favreau_3d_imax

Jon Favreau has been talking about 3D for a while now. Last year, he admitted that he would love to shoot Iron Man 2 in 3D. The problem with going 3D at this point, Favreau says, is technology. His cinematographer (Matthew Libatique) likes to shoot film, and likes the look of film. 3D would require him to shoot digital, and between that constraint and the additional expense, it wasn’t an option for Iron Man 2.

But now, AinItCool is reporting that Marvel is tinkering with converting Iron Man 2 to Digital 3D. Apparently the comic book and film company had one minute of the sequel converted into 3D as a demo, which has all the suits impressed. So impressed that they put out bid requests to three companies to see exactly how much the conversion process would cost, and how long it might take.

I’m not a 3D evangelist, but I am one of the few bloggers who believes the technology offers more than a gimmick. I’ll admit, 3D movies still excite me, especially when the technology is used to help tell the story, adding another dimension of emotional investment depth. I’m even excited about the possibility of remastering old films, like Toy Story and Toy Story 2 for example, in 3D.

I would love Love LOVE to see Iron Man flying in Digital 3D…

That said, I don’t think this is a good idea. Why? Find out after the jump.

The few live action 3D films have mostly been shot using 3D cameras, which essentially feature two lenses, one for each eye. Many of the films you see in 3D today were animated using a computer, created in a 3D digital environment, and rendered twice. If Disney wants to convert Toy Story into 3D, they return to the original animation files and render the movie with a second eye camera (there is more to it, but I’m trying to keep this simple). But with a live action film, there is no way to return to the original digital files, because there are none.

The 3D effect is created using a couple different methods, but basically they must recreate a 3D environment and graph the original image on to the 3d polygon. For a film like Nightmare Before Christmas, a stop-motion animated film, the process is passable. For sequences with humans, its less effective. Anyone who saw Superman Returns in IMAX with the few 3D sequences know what I’m talking about. You kind of get this 3D cut out effect, with layers of depth but the objects look flat. I’ve heard it has gotten better, but have not seen the 3D upconversion of the last Harry Potter film. You can see a video about how this process is done below.

I don’t yet believe that 3D created as a post process is ready for prime-time, and neither does George Lucas. There is a reason why you haven’t seen the original Star Wars films rereleased in 3D yet, even though he announced the possibility in 2005. Producer Rick McCallum confirmed a couple years later that Lucasfilm is “planning to take all six films and turn them into 3-D,” but they are “waiting for the companies out there that are developing this technology to bring it down to a cost level that makes it worthwhile for everybody.” The fact that only the first 15 minutes of the latest Harry Potter could be converted shows you the time and expense involved. Also, it just doesn’t look great. I’m not saying that it won’t eventually. But right now, its not ready for primetime. And if it was, you’d be seeing a lot more full feature films considering 3D up-conversion.

Harry at AICN mentions that Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is being converted the 3D after the fact, and that is true. Tim Burton decided to shoot the live action using a 2D camera. But what you must remember is that most of that world is going to be created in the computer. Even most of the characters are performance captured. And most everyone that knows anything about the 3D process, thought Burton made the wrong decision to film the live-action segments using 2D cameras. It just doesn’t make sense.

And remember, Jon Favreau loves to blend computer animated effects with practical. So even sequences where Iron Man appears may include live action and computer created elements. So the process of turning Iron Man into 3D would be mostly a post process, like Harry Potter.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

  • Eric
    To me, I think high-speed filming (at least 48 fps) with 4K HD is just as important as 3D. Throw 3D into the mix and as long as filmmakers stear clear of the "objects flying at the screen" gimmick, then it can add a tremendous sense of being part of the movie.
  • Ganeshan.J
    Can anyone have the idea what is the secret behind this 2d to 3d conversion process? what is work flow, step bye step? what are the software have been used for.
  • jason
    There are exceptions, but for me 3D at the moment (and I'm sure it will in a few years be good enough to be worthwhile), is another example of us being fobbed off with something as progress that, in reality, is actually a step back.

    With the incredible clarity and color of HD, why do I want to watch a blurred, dull picture in 3D ahead of a clear, vibrant picture in 2D?

    It's been the same with LCD TVs until finally people are able to actually afford and watch HD images on them. Why trade in a good SD picture on your old cheap TV for a crap SD picture on your expensive flat screen?

    Yes, 3D is currently making people go to the cinema to get the experience, but that will tail off unless it improves and looks good from every seat in the cinema.

    Certainly, rather than finding 3D helped me suspend my disbelief with Avatar, it was a constant distraction. Impressive, yes, at times, but a gimmick and a distraction most certainly.

    How you can suspend disbelief with a pair of massive black rimmed glasses on your head anyway is beyond me.
  • clydeD
    Very good post Peter.

    There is an on-going debate on just how "worthy" a conversion, 2 recent films were. G-Force and the first segment of Harry-Potter.

    I am of the opinion that these converted films should be labeled 2.5D films. as they are not Stereoscopic 3D films in the true sense, and there are glaring errors in these converted films. People are encouraged to follow the debate here http://realvision.ae/blog/2009/08/2d-to-3d-conv... and form their own opinion. (At best, the debate can be a learning experience for future planning of 3D films).

    Regards,
    Clyde
  • stevenkar
    I watched Final Destination 4 in 3D and it just didn't work. Maybe it worked a few times during the movie but it was mostly underwhelming and after a while, ineffective.

    I think the 3D effect works best with animation and CGI-heavy movies because the filmmakers have more control.

    I watched the Avatar preview in IMAX 3D and was genuinely impressed by the 3D effect (and everything else about the preview for that matter).
  • e_dog
    At $3 extra per ticket, I don't think it's much of a mystery as to why Marvel wants to make Iron Man 2 3D.
  • richmcleod
    Sciretta, thaaaaank you for crying fowl on this. It's all I was thinking about reading Harry's piece last night.

    Another point of distaste - the digital video for live action stereoscopic 3-D cameras needs improving upon. Still looks like 'Attack of the Clones'- level digital video.
  • Duke
    "And most everyone that knows anything about the 3D process, thought Burton made the wrong decision to film the live-action segments using 2D cameras. It just doesn’t make sense."

    Yes, doesn´t make sense, except the fact that Richard Zanuck didn´t want to expend money with 3D cameras. So is the convertion cheaper?
  • Joe
    It's almost guaranteed we'll see IM2 in 3-D at some theaters on April 30th (May 7th?). Marvel and Paramount have seen the increased grosses of films with the 3-D boost (G-Force made $100 million due to it, and The Final Destination wouldn't have broken $20mil opening weekend without it).

    Will it happen? Yes. Will it look shitty? Probably. Will I just see it in 2-D instead? Definitely.
  • Sorry, Peter, I don't understand how 3D adds "another dimension of emotional investment depth."? Can you elaborate?
    A horrible acting performance remains a horrible acting performance, irrespective of what fancy technology it exists in. I would have thought it'd be the performance that is required to maintain the 'emotional investment' you speak of?
  • Erm, and just for the record, I'm not trying to sound snarly. Genuine interest, is all.
  • commonsensenazi
    I think he was speaking specifically of that scene in UP, of which I agree as I could more readily discern the danger when it looked much more immense. He was positioning that used correctly, it can add that investment in the character. Not necessarily that the tech alone adds the investment, the way in which it can be used can do it.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    I'll take excellence in cinematography over anything 3D every single time. Sadly, excellence in cinematography remains a rare and special thing. I'm going to have to assume that Favreau's film is already as impressive and as Scott's Alien, Cameron's Aliens, and Kubrick's everything if they are looking to go a step further. If that isn't true, maybe they can retroactively go in and change the composition, color, lighting, and sound edits first.
  • jarrette
    Peter, I don't understand why you say this is a "bad idea". I to was skeptical about 3D conversion shows, but then G-Force came along and stereoscopically looked great (it was shot in 2D and then they converted over in post kind of at the last possible minute. You can't tell the difference with their live action shots. I honestly think this is a better way to make 3D movies than shooting with the camera rigs. There are not enough educated Camera Assistants in the world and a typical live action shoot goes too quickly to adequately integrate 3-D into the process. Being able to throw it all into post is the way to go, but an incredibly expensive time consuming way to go....however if you are doing a comic book movie with a ridiculous budget, that isn't much of a concern...fucking A! MAKE THAT SHIT 3D!
  • blindviewer
    I agree, 2D to 3D conversions can look wonderful. The only problems I had with G-Force was when they skipped scenes because of dialogue. This brought me out and was quite annoying.
  • joe_6285
    It could be good but only few scenes will look good in 3d they could have choosen it for the dvd release but with theatrical release i would wait and watch it in 3d .But they should have shoot the entire film with 3d camera converting to 3d is not an option to make 3d movies.Look how james cameron shot his movie in 3d and it looked visually interesting in imax 3d .
  • Name
    Slightly off topic but since Peter brought up "Up" (I stopped reading after he mentioned spoilers), I'd like to ask a question.

    I'm yet to see Up because it has not been released in the country that I reside in, was Up created with 3D in mind (like Toy Story 3D) or made in 2D and "upconverted" for lack of a better work to 3D (like Toy Story 1 and 2 have been)?
  • It was created in 3D and rendered for 3D. Only see it in Real D/Disney 3D and not Dolby 3D
  • Name
    Thanks Peter.
  • ambient_indie
    3-D needs to work without glasses. That's when 3-D isn't a gimmick.
  • blindviewer
    Reading must be a gimmick as I wear glasses.
  • quintushalls
    Contacts! Plus there is a HUGE population that can't see 3D, yet still go to the movies. In fact there are soooo many people that can't see 3D, but still see, that they are allowed to drive, despite their lack of depth perception. They already have 3DTVs that do not require glasses. In fact, even if you only have one eye, you can see it. The technology exists, they just have to implement it.
  • blindviewer
    That technology is years away, and even longer in becoming affordable.

    Not to mention you can find a closer showing of the 2D version.
  • mbellerbrock
    Totally not the same thing. You get to choose the style and size and fit of your glasses. And if you already wear glasses 3D lenses are that much more of a pain.

    But anyway, if they upconvert it I'll stick with 2D thank you very much, as I will with Avatar.
  • mbellerbrock
    @blindviewer, I can still like Avatar without the pointless 3D. And you calling me a 14 year old valley girl? wtf? That doesn't even make sense.
  • blindviewer
    You probably shouldn't disagree with your mascot.

    I'm starting to get the feeling all these 3D haters are 14 year old Valley Girls.
  • Corey
    Iron Man 1 did fine without 3-D.

    Why does this not surprise me that something like this would be announced the day after Marvel was bought by Disney.
  • freemachine
    I know I'm being a party-pooper, but I sincerely hope that they NEVER find a way to efficiently and cheaply convert existing 2D films into 3D. Those films were never conceived with 3D in mind, so I hardly think that 3D will truly enhance the films in any meaningful way. In fact, 2D to 3D conversion will only serve to cheapen the films.

    Conversly, movies currently filmed in 3D often don't translate well in to 2D. I recall seeing Beowulf in 2D and was annoyed by the constant sticking of spears into the camera. The spear tip would take up 80% of the screen and actually took away from the fight scenes. Yes, in 3D, the experience would have been welcome, but not in 2D. I haven't seen The Final Destination, but I gather from the previews that the obvious 3D gimmick of having things race toward the observer will only look stupid in 2D.

    Basically, watching any film in a format other than that for which it was intended is pointless.
  • I think its unfair to use a movie which uses 3D as a gimmick at times (Beowulf) as an example of the technology. Look at how Disney/Pixar used 3D with Up, or how Laika used 3D in Coraline. In Up (possible spoiler) there is a moment when they are high above the ground, and the 3D not only adds a layer of dimension, but adds to the consequences. You are afraid for the characters involve, and more invested in their fate. Most people don't notice the sequence because, whenever anything is done right, you shouldn't really notice it at all (same is said with film score or special effects)

    I disagree that upconverting old films to 3D being a bad idea entirely (if the technology was good enough). Sure, it was not conceived that way. And no, I don't think it should ever be done without the original director okaying and supervising the process. But I do agree with Katzenberg in one respect. We see in 3D. Us being able to watch a movie in 3D (without gimmicks, without eyestrain, and hopefully eventually, without glasses) is one step closer to reality. And the closer to reality the less we need to put away our sense of disbelief. I challenge you to see Toy Story upconverted, and aside from issues resulting from the glasses, tell me you'd rather watch it in 2D on the big screen.
  • quintushalls
    But I think there should always be an option to see a film in 2D. If everything goes 3D, it will rule out a large audience. There were a lot of people coming out of Avatar day with a headache or were dizzy, after being exposed to the 3D for 15 minutes.
  • tonhogg
    I find these claims a little hard to believe. Did you actually go around asking people if they were dizzy during the film. I read an article once and the writer said they actually did ask a lot of people if they had trouble with the 3d after a movie and none of them said yes. A couple said if felt weird the first few minutes but then they got used to it. Some do have trouble with it, but it is in small numbers, not enough to stop 3d tickets sales from doing well, otherwise you would not see the sale of 3d tickets there have been over the last 5 years in markets that have had shown 3d movies over those 5 years. I think it is funny how people that don't like 3d try to wish into being things that would stop it.
  • quintushalls
    Your comment is a little unfair. I said a large audience, not a super
    majority. 5-12 percent of Americans have some degree of difficulty seeing
    3-D features because of problems with depth perception called
    stereoblindness. There have been plenty of articles regarding headaches/eye
    pain after wearing 3D glasses, especially after a long movie like Avatar. I
    can't see how you can say that having a 2D version is unreasonable? I'm sure
    that they can still make money by just selling 3D films, but Avatar was also
    in 2D in a large percentage of theaters. There are a lot of people out there
    that prefer 2D films. But if you get rid of 2D entirely and continue 3D with
    a requirement for glasses, you could lose a good 10% of the viewing
    audience.
  • Andyrooskie
    True, it might put us one step closer to reality, but I don't WANT reality. I already have that.

    I'm all for 3D when it's used well and used artistically (Up, Coraline). But I would rather look at a beautifully done painting of a landscape than a pristine photographic recreation. I don't want a director to recreate reality for me, I want to see the world through their eyes. If 3D is a part of that vision, excellent. Bring it on. But I think it's a mistake to assume that simply converting something to 3D is going to cause the audience to become more involved. If it's a good movie, they were already.
  • BrendonConnelly
    I'm pretty sure Beowulf never uses 3D as a gimmick. It certainly engages with the 3D-ness of it's nature in an overt way... but is that the same thing?

    Again, I'm less interested in 3D taking us closer to reality than it giving us more controls on how to subvert and bend reality in a subtle and 'intangible' way.

    Marvel's mistake here was to not shoot 3D in the first place.
blog comments powered by Disqus