Transformers 3 is using the Arri Alexa Pace cameras from Avatar to go 3D
By Richard Lawler 
posted July 6th 2010 3:02PM
posted July 6th 2010 3:02PM
After a bit of back and forth, Transformers 3 has been confirmed as yet another action flick jumping on the 3D train. The good news (unless you were really happy to hear that Megan Fox would no longer be a part of the franchise) is that they're filming in 3D as opposed to converting it in post production (like Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland and The Last Airbender) as revealed by master of the 3D camera himself, Vince Pace. Apparently nothing would do for Michael Bay but Jimmy C's best, requiring the cameras used in Avatar and the upcoming Resident Evil flick. Just in case you were wondering, our friends at Cinematical have put together an impromptu list of recent/upcoming 3D movies that will be using a 2D to 3D conversion process (Harry Potter, Narnia, Piranha 3D) and those originally shot in 3D (Tron Legacy, Saw VII 3D) -- so you know what to expect before you put your cash down for a ticket.
I saw The Last Airbender in 3D last night. Aside from the movie being only so-so, the 3D effects were absolutely useless. Of course my kids, who have both seen the entire TV series thought the movie was great, so it was money well spend, but the 3D in the previous and the commercials was more entertaining that the 3D in the movie.
@glennS
air bender used different 3d technique as avatar did. So the 3d should prove to be better than useless post process effects. Or at least that is the idea
@Joeyjoejoe Shabadoo
Airbender used post processing 2D to 3D conversion. That's what the Engadget article states anyway. I can attest to first hand knowledge that the effects looked fine when they were present, but there wasn't very much 3D in the movie besides the ships coming out towards you, which they overused. The effects added nothing to the action sequences or the scenery, which is where you would want them. So yeah, it WAS completely useless. Fireballs flying out towards you would have been extremely cool, and they didn't do any of that. LAME.
Why try to hide it? They just need to be upfront and just call the next movie:
Transformers 3: A Hot Pile of Dog S#!*
@DC MIKE
The sad part is that I bet it will make at least $500mill
I cant see it now, the movie will have everyone (even optimus prime) as a comic relief character. With every one else being a Victoria secret model. Also explosions.
Holy crap.
SAW VII was SHOT in 3D?
I don't get it ... if a crappy horror flick like that decided to actually use 3D cameras instead of converting them, why aren't bigger Hollywood movies doing that as well? Were they just too late when filming began or did they just decide to go the cheap way out? (Not that converting is cheap, but it sure does look cheap.)
@Meekermoloko
SAW has a cult following despite what people think of the films so, I'm sure they could afford the cameras.
@Plazmic Flame
I've seen Saw I through VI. I've also read the screenplay for the original. I still think they are crappy ... but that doesn't mean I won't watch Saw VII. In general though, producers try to make horror movies in the cheapest way possible since they don't make that much money compared to other Hollywood movies, so maybe the 3D cameras have come down in price.
The cameras aren't the issue. The issue is the amount of integration you have to do between live-action footage and post effects. It's much harder to track, scale, and position the elements added in post for 3-D. It all has to be rendered correctly, with no half-assing to fudge things.
Also, on a smaller production it can be easier to accomidate for the changes in shooting style, lighting, etc that may need to be made for the 3D cameras, simply because you are not going to have the giant set pieces, 20 cameras, and multiple units shooting etc. A couple guys who know what they are doing versus training 150 people and then having to worry about how the different effects houses down the line are going to handle the 2000 different shots/footage etc. Bigger movies tend to have a much longer production pipeline as well, so stuff coming out this year may have had stuff shot or decisions made regarding filming etc. well before even avatar came out. ex. four month turn-around versus 2 years.
Actually, I made a Public Google Calender for AVS forum that shows all the 3d movies coming out over the next year or so and tells you whether they are conversions or which cameras/ aspect ratios they use. Feel free to add it to your own Gcal, I will try to keep it up to date.
http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=pqvj3bt83u4sle3mbij38bqlok%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago
or iCal if you prefer: http://www.google.com/calendar/ical/pqvj3bt83u4sle3mbij38bqlok%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics
here's the AVS forum thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1237092
@LazarusDark
I find it sad the fact that titles are being released that gain no benefit from 3d. This is why I think 3D is going to end up being a fad, for every movie that actually gains something from 3D five more are released that could do without it, nobody is every going to take it seriously if only thing its being used for is to boost revenue numbers.
Example of revenue numbers boost is Avatar, even though it did use 3D very well it took ticket sales inflation plus the premium price for 3D to get the numbers it did, these two things together caused its average ticket price to be double that of Titanic's average ticket price, BTW I hated Titanic so this in no way should be taken as defending that movies numbers.
@Meekermoloko
I read in a recent 3D World (3D as in 3D modeling/animation etc, not 3D TV/movies) something along the lines that some movie makers actually prefer to convert movies to 3D instead of shooting them in 3D because they have a bit more control over how it turns out. The example given was the recent Alice In Wonderland.
Sorry, I don't remember a lot of the specifics for why they do it (nor have I seen a movie in 3D of either style to know whether that really pans out as they hope), but apparently at least some creators prefer it.
WTF are they talking about? The Alexa was just announced a few months ago. Avatar was shot on Sony cameras. http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Avatar-Got-Shot-Using-Sony-HD-Cameras-6850-01.html
And if they wanted "the best", they'd be shooting on Red One Mysterium-X cameras, now being used to shoot Pirates of the Caribbean 4 in 3-D.
So this is pretty inaccurate top to bottom.