What it takes to properly convert a 2D movie to 3D
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted April 8th 2010 11:47AM
posted April 8th 2010 11:47AM
Anyone who saw both Alice and Clash of the Titans will tell you that all dimensionalization isn't created equal. While most didn't realize Alice wasn't actually shot in 3D, reviews of Clash were titled like "the first film to actually be made worse by being in 3D." While the dimensionalization of Alice took four to six months, Clash was done in eight to ten weeks -- as well as being converted by different companies. We can't blame 'em for trying though, as In-Three tells 3DCineCast blog it uses four to six hundred people while wearing 3D glasses 50 to 75 percent of the day, and costs about 80 to 100 thousand dollars per minute to do dimensionalization properly. Which is just crazy as well as makes us wonder how that's cheaper than just using 3D cameras. The good part about doing it in post processing though is it gives the creators more artistic control as the dimensionalization is done by hand, frame by frame. Of course the concern is that people will see movies like Clash of the Titans in 3D and write off the dimensionalization process all together, or worse 3D entirely.
Avatar was the best 3D movie ever. Bar none.
@SolidSnake Seen it 4 times. And yes ur right
@SolidSnake obviously. being filmed in 3d, with specially made cameras made just for 3d and that movie gives it a huge edge.
The new resident evil movie is filmed with those cameras so it'll be interesting to see the 3d quality in that. especially since the movie quality will probably be crap lol
@SolidSnake
agreed
although, How to Train Your Dragon is up there
mhhhhhh a new star wars episode in 3d i sense
@bigdonny
How To Train Your Dragon was pretty good too.
@SolidSnake
Too bad the story sucked.
@SolidSnake Dragon wins bar none.
@eko2
No. Avatar does. Dragons wasn't as good.
@SolidSnake
Is Avatar any good in 2D?
@SolidSnake
I already know how to train my dragon, so I didnt bother seeing it
@Hate Everything
Avatar is exactly the same in 2D
@Master Yoda
An impostor I sense.
@NeoK 182 So the same as Avatar then
@SolidSnake
No, Jaws 3D was the pinnacle of 3D. The diver in the mouth scene as Jaws smashes the control center glass will never be bettered. NEVER I tell you!
@SolidSnake All this "real 3d" vs "fake 3d" discussion I somewhat messed up.
What does it mean "Filmed in 3d"? When you're comparing films you need to realize that there's at least one important thing there - "Video recording of reality" and "Computer generated graphics".
When someone says "Alice is ok, but Clash is total crap while both are post-process 3d" we need to take into account that real video in Alice is what? 12 minutes total? And everything else is CG generated (except for Alice and Depp's faces) in stereo 3D, they didn't convert CG scenes, they are 3D by nature. But when you talk about Titans - this movie is mostly video, which had to be converted, and which actually produced crap. So.. it's not apples to apples.
And Dragon is also fine.. why? correct, because it's full length 3D CG. No conversion made AND no fancy 3D cameras used. But still ok.
And to Avatar - that's the perfect combination of 3d virtual world plus carefully aligned video scenes shot in 3d as well. that produces the stunning effect.
The point is - Avatar is not the only good 3D. Most animated 3D films are good as well (while they were not shot in "real 3D"). And the more video shot in 2D you have in the film the worse the converted movie will be.
@SolidSnake That's like saying "This hamburger was the best meal I've ever had from McDonald's".
@SolidSnake
Hmmm, hardly, Michael Jackson in Captain EO was the best :p
@SolidSnake Ant Bully was also awesome in IMAX 3D when it came out.
@SolidSnake Agree, for me.. I'm eyeing to the 3dtv going to be released by nvidia, aside from the one being advertised by Samsung- http://bit.ly/3d-tv-future-opinions
@(Unverified)
You haven't eaten enough crap third-world meals if you still look down on McDonald's hamburgers. AND their toilets are *so* sparkly.
@SolidSnake
Avatar was the best LOOKING 3D movie. It felt like watching Pocahontas or something, storywise...
@gavmiller I have to respectfully disagree. METALSTORM The Destruction of Jared Syn is the best 3D movie ever made.
@Decay sooooo you completely missed the part about how Alice was converted over a period of 6-8 months and Titans was done in like 11 weeks (and by more than one company)? Me thinks that has more to do with it than anything.
@Brokinarrow I didn't miss that. It is just an abstract number more or less relevant to the topic being discussed.
Neither of us know what each of those teams were doing during that time. One thing is the timeframe and another - actual number of staffweeks spent (may be Alisa's team consisted of 10 ppl who were processing data on "as needed" basis, not 'round-the-clock), quality of incoming material, feasibility of the task itself and tools used. Knowing only time between start and finish gives you only a preliminary idea on the reasons for resulting quality.
So I didn't want to speculate on that, was talking from technical perspective only. I doubt Titans could become significantly better if they spent additional 8 month on conversion. Conversion of 2D video is evil by itself.
Don't give two shits
@Macc55
Then leave.
@Macc55
then why post?
@216
Cause he gave one shit, just not two...
The 3D in Alice was actually pretty lame. I guess after you see Avatar, you can really tell when it's done half-assed.
@LAY Agreed
@LAY
Avatar set the bar now the other 3D movies either have to get somewhere near it or fail miserably...
@LAY Agreed. I saw Avatar, expecting to see the same thing in Clash and was HIGHLY disappointed. I even took of my 3D glasses during the movie and in most scenes I couldn't see the difference.
Alice's 3D really wasn't very good... I found many items looked like flat cardboard cut-outs (e.g. the brim of the mad-hatter's hat didn't stick out, Alice was exceptionally "flat-chested" in some scenes, etc). They added 3D laying between objects, but they didn't add all the 3D needed within objects.
And that's the "good" conversion. Sorry, I'm not buying.
Yes but you forget about the brilliant last final destination. By the way there may be a bit of sarcasm there. 3D is good but shouldn't be added for the sake of it. Avatar was amazing but I'm also not sure I'd think the same if I saw the 2D version.
@xenon73
2d Avatar is unwatchable. I will never, ever watch it in 2d, it makes the Navi look like smurf cartoons. In the 3d, I really was able to suspend disbelief and actually empathize with the characters. I love the 3d version and look forward to getting a polarized projector for my theater room and watching it again.
Good, I have no interest in 3D anyways, give me 4k 2d...
"...In-Three tells 3DCineCast blog it uses four to six hundred people working while wearing 3D glasses 50 to 75 percent of the day, and costs about 80 to 100 thousand dollars per minute to do dimensionalization properly."
What?? LMAO!! Are you serious? I was looking for the "/sarcasm" tag. Seriously, I think I want to be a consultant for In-Three...
I don't even bother with 3D anymore, it's just a lame excuse for Hollywood et all, to jack up the price of a movie ticket by 30-50%. IMHO, it simply isn't worth it to pay the extra price.
To each their own.
@KimH
I agree. I haven't seen any 3D movies in the theatre and I won't until the prices drop. 3D should have been used to boost ticket sales, not ticket prices.
"Clash was done in eight to ten weeks" and "costs about 80 to 100 thousand dollars per minute"
So if we assume 40 hours a week...
40 hours/week x 60 min/hour = 2,400 min/week
2,400 min/week x 10 weeks = 24,000 min to convert Clash
24,000 min x 80,000 dollars = 1.9 Billion dollars to convert Clash
According to this website, http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-0CHF/clash-of-the-titans/stats/, the budget for the entire movie was only 70 million. So are we expected to believe converting the movie to 3D cost more than 27 times the entire budget?
@oilytheotter They meant minutes of movie, not manhours. So if the movie was 180 minutes long it would be $18MM USD.
@MadMike That makes way more sense. I'm a dumb.
@oilytheotter Dang, in the time it took me to log in someone else already told you... pfft.
@oilytheotter
Actually the movie was 106 minutes running, totaling $10.6MM USD.
Given the In-Three stats (If they did the movie, the article was vague on that point). That's $44.208665 / manhour with it taking roughly 3.77 manhours per minute of movie utilizing all 600 people working full-time for all 10 weeks just on video processing alone (not including planning, budgeting, meetings and quality control).
That's also what In-Three would make per manhour. If you break it down to what they actually paid the people while staying profitable considering the cost of the computing power alone it would take. I'm assuming they pay the workers about $21.50/hr. Unless they have a profit-sharing deal in which the cost was only $44.21/hr and then they probably paid the workers $32/hr.
@MadMike
The total was 400 to 600 people, but not all at the same time.
@oilytheotter
At least you admit it. :p
@MadMike
Yeah, I'm sure they pay $32/hr to the indians they outsource the bulk of the work to. This is really funny.
Avatar was "OK" in 3-D. Honestly - I don't really care much for 3-D. Especially all these TV's that boast "3-D Ready!". How about a TV that can ACTUALLY display 1080 lines of vertical resolution during full-motion and not a measly 650 (LCD) and 900 (Plasma)? Hrm...?
How about instead of 3-D TV shows, we ACTUALLY get HD shows that aren't compressed to heck and back. Both Comcrap and FiOS.
How about movies with ACTUAL plots that aren't rewrites and sequels!
@MadMike
You are asking for too much... I mean who wants to watch a movie with an actual plot instead of the "Bayformers" movies?