Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Jun 11, 2015.
Two hints: romantic comedy; movie that made no money. Cannot say more.
I agree about the style being a factor in whether the CGI works or not. As an example not mentioned above, in the movie Green Lantern the CGI used to make the power ring constructs didn't work very well because I think it clashed a bit with the real world. However, in Green Lantern - The Animated Series the entire series being CGI (with a stylized look) worked. Due to many of the Green Lanterns not being human trying to do it in a realistic style would not have worked.
And here is another example of invisible effects where the work is so good, you just about never notice it:
This is from about 6 years ago for a non-blockbuster Ryan Reynolds film called Safe House. I thought it looked amazingly good, particularly some of the car stunts, which you would swear were real. There was still a lot of dangerous stunt driving, but the effects made it 5 times more intense and violent. When they do work this good, it totally avoids the "fake and plasticky" VFX look that takes me out of the movie.
It's to damn fast. Hard to follow
That actually looks pretty cool, I may have to check out this movie! Kinda reminds me of the car stunts from Ronin, although I think those were all done for real with no CGI whatsoever, weren't they? That was back in 1998, so....
Hate 3D conversions from 2D,cheapskates.
That's pretty much everything these days. Actual 3D production is going down fast. I knew one of the colorists at Pace 3D (dual-camera consultants) and they went out of business about 5 years ago. Even a $500 million film like Avengers is shot flat and dimensionalized. The trick is whether or not it's done well, and that's always a matter of opinion. Me, I'm good with the 2D.
What did you think of Terminator 2( 3D conversion)?
From an audience perspective, my friends and I try to avoid 3D showings at all cost. Reasons including the fact that the 3D technology causes our heads to ache after about thirty minutes, the glasses are incredibly hard to clean effectively once they get dirty and the tickets cost more than a standard showing. I don't know if this is a widespread audience trend as well, but it doesn't surprise me to hear that genuine 3D production is going downhill. The bad 3D experiences take away the chance of having a good 3D experience
I hate the darker picture. But I have to say, Dolby Vision 3D gets the brightness pretty much back up to normal, and it can work there.
It's not about being cheap. 3D equipment can be cumbersome and awkward.
2D to 3D conversions work VERY well these days - there's really no super-compelling reason to shoot 3D anymore...
Tell that to Jim Cameron and Peter Jackson! All their stuff was captured with dual-camera stereoscopic camera rigs. Does it make the movie better? Eh. I like what Michael Bay initially said about 3D in 2010...
“I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them,” Bay said. “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.”
And he later took that back, because the studio took him aside and said "STFU! 3D adds another $100 million to a movie that grosses $700M or more!"
Famously, Bay later revealed his quote that bad 3D conversion was $50,000 per minute, mediocre 3D was $100,000 per minute, and acceptable 3D was $150,000 a minute. Which means that one of his 2.5-hour films would typically cost over $25 million just for the conversion, plus the film has to be completed 6 months prior to release, to give the 3D artists enough time to convert the film without compromise.
Deadline: Michael Bay And James Cameron Skeptical Of 3D Conversions: “The Jury Is Out”
Dolby vision 3D?
I'm with Bay on this one (if nothing else). I'd made the same layering criticism when I first saw Cameron's supposedly proper 3D-shot Avatar. I mean, it looked good mostly, but the artificial layering of foreground, middleground and background elements were a distraction.
I haven't seen any 3D movies since, but if Cameron can't get it totally right with a proper setup, I doubt others can do better starting with a 2D filmed image.
I like Scorsese's thoughts on 3D...
Martin Scorsese: '3D is liberating. Every shot is rethinking cinema' | Interview
Hugo is one of the best 3d stereo movies that I have seen. Simply gorgeous and creative!
Sure - but Cameron's last movie came out 9 years ago, when conversions were primitive, and it's also been a few years since the "Hobbit" films concluded. PJ also wanted that high frame rate for those movies.
I'm not saying "real 3D" isn't a good thing - I am saying that bias against conversions isn't accurate anymore. Some of the best 3D I've seen - "Gravity", "Pacific Rim" - came from conversions...
Ditto. Scorsese: "a painting can't turn." IMHO this perfectly sums up the power of 3D cinema. And after recently seeing 'Ready Player One' in 3D, I for one hope more & more movies are available for viewing in 3D. Quite frankly I would love to see Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' in 3D. Now that would be "the ultimate trip"...
Things will be even cooler with Augmented Reality.
Can't happen. Kubrick had a fairly iron-clad contract against changing his films without his permission. And since he's dead, that permission won't happen. Kubrick was against stereo soundtracks for a long time, so I would imagine he would not be pleased with a visual conversion to 3D... and converting mono soundtracks to stereo is comparatively easy, straightforward, and economical. 3D conversion is (as I said elsewhere) about $150,000 per minute.
Damn! Stosh must have had some serious pull. Or a good lawyer. Or both. I hear ya about his aversion to stereo, because IIRC when I projected a film-print of 'The Shining' the sound was in mono.
The first movie that convinced me on this regard with particles, and other CGI stuff added to sets takes me back to 1997 with Zemecki's Contact. There are many CGI added that pass as real like giant T.V. sets with their reflection on the floor, CGI images on mirrors and the likes.
I always wondered why such a perfectionist as Kubrick with his outstanding looking pictures wouldn't want to match them with stereo or multichannel audio tracks.
Can an stereo or multichannel mix can be done from a mono audio track if the original multitracks or sound elements were lost so they were not available? If so, any known example of this?
IIRC there were many problems Kubrick encountered during theatrical runs of 2001 involving projection & sound issues.
Separate names with a comma.