|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 03-21-2005 01:21 AM
This is strange. I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but apparently there's a process to "convert" 2D to 3D...? How does that work?? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Anyway, here's the article link.
And the text:
Five Major Filmmakers Support TI’s Digital 3D Cinema
by Joseph L. Kleiman
March 17, 2005 (Las Vegas) – Today at ShoWest, Texas Instruments DLP Cinema unvield their prototype 3D product. The images were shown on a 48-foot white matte screen, and projected on a Christie CP 2000 DLP Cinema projector with a Dolby surround sound system. Doug Darrow, Business Development Manager for TI DLP Cinema hosted, with filmmakers George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez and Randall Kleiser in attendance.
George Lucas and James Cameron each introduced a collection clips during the presentation. The first, introduced by Lucas, showcased the 2D to 3D conversion process perfected by In-Three. 2D to 3D conversion clips introduced by Lucas included the speeder chase from “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones,” Tony Scott’s “Top Gun,” Disney’s “Lilo and Stitch” and the entire first reel of “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.” The 3D conversions were spectacular, but even wearing the streamlined LCD glasses, ghosting occurred. Regardless this minor issue, Lucas feels that this 3D digital conversion actually outshines the original film. According to Lucas, a number of demos have been made to his company over the past 20 years by various companies, but In-Three’s was the first one to meet his standards. Lucas is planning to release his entire Star Wars saga in 3D for the 30th anniversary in 2007.
Lucas has been pushing digital solutions for almost eight years. According to the filmmaker, the more he’s used digital solutions, the more advantages he has encountered and the more possibilities he has discovered. Because 30-40% of films today utilize a digital negative, the preparation of films for digital cinema will be cost efficient. The advantages of a digital presentation are the lack of weave due to sprockets, scratches and tears. Whereas a film print degrades the more it is shown, a digital print retains its pristine condition.
After Lucas, Cameron introduced a selection of clips showcasing how digital 3D projection disregards the way the film was shot. Cameron’s montage consisted of clips from his 3D features “Ghosts of the Abyss” and “Aliens of the Deep,” both filmed with a combination of a 3D digital rig and CGI; Cameron’s “Terminator 2: 3D” from Universal Studios Theme Parks, shot on 5perf/65mm; Robert Rodriguez’ “Spy Kids 3D,” a hybrid of live action and CGI; CGI clips form Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films (following up Jackson’s appearance in 3D during the Lucas portion of the presentation, where Jackson lends his support to the new technology with his ultimate goal being hobbits in 3D); and Robert Zemeckis’ “The Polar Express,” filmed with performance capture and starring virtual characters. “Ghosts,” “Aliens,” and “Polar” have all been screened in 3D on IMAX screens, but this was the first 3D digital screening of scenes from “Spy Kids” utilizing polarized lenses which allowed for a full-color image and completely impressed its director, Rodriguez.
Cameron noted that we now exist in a production world where all parts of production (filming, post, CGI) are digital, and where, with digital projection, it’s possible for a movie to live its entire existence without seeing a single sprocket. This results in the most perfect 3D image possible. According to Cameron, the specs for 3D projection are outlined in the DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative) specs (this statement contradicts what Charles Swarz of USC’s Entertainment Technology Center stated at an earlier ShoWest presentation). Cameron said that 3D is currently available only in the IMAX format. He wants 3D to be available in every multiplex, pointing out that the IMAX version of “The Polar Express” grossed $45 million, meaning that 35% of the film’s revenue came from only 2% of its screens. By increasing the number of 3D screens available, distributors and exhibitors can drastically increase profit through offering a premium product. Cameron noted logistical issues regarding distribution still need to be overcome, such as whether 3D will be a day-and-date release with its 2D counterpart or if it will be released a few weeks prior. It’s also not certain if theaters will charge a premium price for the 3D product.
Each filmmaker continues his support of IMAX and IMAX 3D. Cameron noted that, to date, only 16 IMAX films have been released in 3D. He believes that by now IMAX should have thousands of 3D releases, but the venues are not there, much like he believes that by now there should be thousands of venues for digital projection. Additionally Cameron asserted that digital cinema will not act as competition to IMAX, but rather compliment it by providing more product for IMAX 3D. Audiences are looking for a premium theater experience, and all five filmmakers feel that, with its larger screen, IMAX provides that experience.
Lucas, Cameron, Zemeckis, Rodriguez and Kleiser embrace this new 3D technology. Kleiser, who directed “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” for Disney’s theme parks discussed seeing In-Three’s demonstration of 2D to 3D conversion for classic films, including “Gone with the Wind” and his own film “Grease.” As previously mentioned, Lucas is scheduling a 3D conversion of all six Star Wars films for Summer 2007, which Cameron noted would put them up against his own 3D feature, “Battle Angel.” In addition to wanting to convert “From Dusk to Dawn” to 3D, his original desire, Rodriguez has a 3D family film, “Shark Boy and Lava Girl,” scheduled for release this summer, and Zemeckis has two 3D productions in the works. Lucas also mentioned that he wants the fourth Indiana Jones film to be made in 3D, but first must turn Steven Spielberg to the 3D side of The Force.
Article © 2005 Joseph L. Kleiman/Amanda Gardner
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester
Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 03-21-2005 06:50 AM
quote: Adam Martin
There were at least 24 between 1986 and 2002.
Yeah, I don't doubt that. I mean, even in my meagre 7 years working with the format, I personally have run at least 16 different IMAX 3D films. I don't know where they like to scrape these facts ... oh, wait, that was according to Cameron, supposedly.
As for Cyberworld 3D's rendition of Antz, I thought it was re-rendered; not just "converted" from the 2D animation. I mean, with CGI, it's easy enough just to plop another "camera" there and turn on the render-farm, right?
Now, converting previously existing 2D live action to "3D"? I can't imagine that whatever digital "fudging it" that's taking place is going to be impressive, but apparently it passes Lucas' "standards", so I'm curious now.
I'm pleased however that Cameron is backing IMAX and its 3D format, even though I don't think he's ever actually shot a frame of FILM on the features he's released that way (or am I wrong?). Digital conversion must be the way to go these days. (Although, for the record, I'm sure it was plenty difficult and expensive getting digital 3D cameras down to shoot the actual Titanic, so nevermind the logistics of getting the beast that is the IMAX 3D camera down there!)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 03-21-2005 09:37 AM
3D, if done correctly is not tiring on the eyes at all. I sat through 35 double interlocked full length 3D features in ten days, some days with five features back to back. The only eye strain I experienced was during "Gog" and I think that was because one eye had pretty good color and the other was faded. Even so, I only had a slight headache, and it went away in half an hour. The other three guys who were with me said it didn't affect them at all.
Now I'm not suggesting that every multiplex retrofit themselves for double interlock shows (althought that would be cool! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) ), but that polarized 3D is definitely the way to go. Shutter glasses are expensive and the trouble of keeping them charged all the time is just an added pain in the ass that isn't worth it. It's a shame that Kodak (I think Jeff said it was Kodak) stopped work on Vectograph (I think that was what it was called, although I might not be spelling it correctly) 3D when they did. That was a process where they used dye transfer film, and the polarity was printed on the film in the dyes. BOTH eyes were printed on one piece of 35mm film, and no special lense was required... only a silver screen and polarized glasses. Jeff ran a demo for us at the 3D show, and considering the fact that it was a "work in progress" process, and they hadn't quite perfected it yet, it still looked incredible. I can't imagine what that would look like today had they continued developing it. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Now, anaglyph for two hours... yeah that hurts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-21-2005 03:05 PM
quote: Mark J. Marshall
3D, if done correctly is not tiring on the eyes at all. I sat through 35 double interlocked full length 3D features in ten days, some days with five features back to back. The only eye strain I experienced was during "Gog" and I think that was because one eye had pretty good color and the other was faded. Even so, I only had a slight headache, and it went away in half an hour. The other three guys who were with me said it didn't affect them at all.
I forth that emotion, Mark. I too was at Jeff's amazing 3D festival and sitting through four 3D features back-to-back, much to my amazement what with all the talk I used to hear about 3D giving people headachs, didn't cause me any eye discomfort or headaches whatsoever. But then again, that was probably the closest to a perfectly tuned 3D system as one could find anywhere. Ghosting was almost non-existant and image brightness was never a problem. And these presentations were of old material which is subject to base shrinkage problems; new prints of newly shot 3D material should go even further to perfect the system.
And yes, the Kodak polarized dye system was astounding -- single strip 3D without sacrificing half the film geography and halving the resolution and without reduction of light caused by the traditional polarization filters on the projectors. This system would go a long way to that goal of getting 3D into mulitplexes where dual projection is now only a 3D lover's wet dream due to the fact that so many screens today are outfitted with only a single projector. If indeed 3D is to make a come-back (I mean REAL 3D, not old 2D film somehow "converted" to look like 3D [to some blind directors]), then the Kodak system could make it an easy reality. And gee, you STILL wouldn't have to outfit every screen with a $150,000 video projector. Which reminds me of that old Ethel Merman song, "Film can do anything vid' can do better....yes it can."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic