Is it Real 3D or Fake 3D?

[Amr-3DT]

Is it Real 3D or Fake 3D, a listing that tells you the difference in how the past and upcoming films are presented in 3D.

- VIEW HERE - (http://realorfake3d.com/)

[hulahuga]

Thanks :).

Quite interesting actually since a some of these movies like Airbender and that Cats and Dogs market themselves heavily on their 3dcontent...

[Kage]

I for one think that is this kind of thing that will kill the 3D trend going on at the moment, and annoys me deeply.

So far, except for parts of Superman Returns that were converted, I haven't seen a post processed stereoscopic film & I don't want to.

Superman Returns with the bits that were, showed me how bad the effect actually looks. Very cardboard cutty with errors.
You simply cannot create 2 camera views with one... not successfully.

I'm annoyed for instance though that the Harry Potter film's coming out this year will be post produced in "3D".
I didn't see the Half Blood Prince in 3D. I watched that in 2D.
I thought that those films would have done it properly, but I'm guessing not.

If you aren't going to film in stereoscopic, then do not bother at all in my opinion.

[hulahuga]

Agreed... It just looks odd otherwise as you said. Blocky and stacked-like...

[Kage]

I'm hoping people join this:

http://www.facebook.com/editalbum.php?aid=-1&oid=139974022687650&add=1&htmlup=1#!/group.php?gid=139974022687650&ref=ts

[hulahuga]

Done :).

Ps: From what I've heard though some studios actually put some more work into this and manage to do it pretty neatly at times, though still not as good as doing it from start...

[Kage]

Thanks :p :D

Still, if you aren't going to do it properly from the start, why bother.
It seems a way to cash in on the supposed fad, which I think could be quite successful this time round if companies get it right.
Doing it this way is one sure way to kill the 3D hype

[hulahuga]

Yeah, but I don't think they'll stop Sony anytime soon though... ;P. Wonder how many times they said 3D in their E3 press conference...

[Kage]

Haha, but at least the PS3 will be taking 2 camera views, albeit either with downgraded visuals/resolution and be creating a true stereoscopic image with it.

But its true, that I think for consoles at least, it's too early. We are struggling with a lot of games to push 720P as it is

[hulahuga]

The only minus is a strict 30 fps instead of 60... The PS3 can handle it ;)...

Heard anything on the debate different 3d glasses??

[Kage]

The only real short term solution at the minute is shutter glasses tech, but the PS3 should be compatible with all the major makers. I do not think Sony will restrict the 3D viewing to using their TV's only, but its something Sony would think of doing of course.

Polarization needs even more filters, and I haven't seen a TV released that would work with for example the RealD glasses yet.

TV without glasses is the next big step, but of course, there are technical barriers to be broken.

I cannot wait to see what the 3DS looks like in person however. A portable device should be able to get it right.

Some games already run at 30fps, and at 720p don't they? The only other option would be to down scale.
I believe 3DTV is going to use the down scaled option, which I don't think is very good at all. Were already limited to 1080i without 3D on top

[inveni0]

Haha, but at least the PS3 will be taking 2 camera views, albeit either with downgraded visuals/resolution and be creating a true stereoscopic image with it.

But its true, that I think for consoles at least, it's too early. We are struggling with a lot of games to push 720P as it is

False. PS3 Exclusive games are practically REQUIRED to be in 720p. Besides, KZ3 is already confirmed in 720p at 60fps in 2D. So, when they go to 3D, all they'll do is half the frame rate.

GT5 is another we don't have to worry about. If I'm not mistaken, in 2D, it's 1080p, 60fps, and it's the most realistic driving game available on ANY platform, including PC.


The only minus is a strict 30 fps instead of 60... The PS3 can handle it ;)...

Heard anything on the debate different 3d glasses??

Agreed. But I really ignore fps for some reason. I don't know why, but I can even play games at 15-20 fps and it doesn't bother me much.



TV without glasses is the next big step, but of course, there are technical barriers to be broken.

I cannot wait to see what the 3DS looks like in person however. A portable device should be able to get it right.


Microsoft has their 3DTV that includes head tracking and a wedge lens that focuses each image into the correct eye. It can even display a different image to two different people. It's pretty impressive. If you haven't seen the tech demo, I recommend googling it.


Some games already run at 30fps, and at 720p don't they? The only other option would be to down scale.
I believe 3DTV is going to use the down scaled option, which I don't think is very good at all. Were already limited to 1080i without 3D on top

Who is limited to 1080i? The games?

[hulahuga]

Well fps is always nice but I do tend to ignore it since my pc needs an upgrade now... It was super when I got it but that is like 4 years ago... (I am like twelve on the pic of me pulling the cart with it!!!)


Regarding 3d glasses for the ps3 I checked out ps3's 3d function in a mall in Miami... Was pretty cool (only demos though were a Motorstorm demo, a Stardust demo and a Warp HD demo). With Pacific Rift I didn't notice any visible performance differences (only a srict 30). Not that much 3d effects popping out of the screen other than some cool stuff with the dirt. But the most interesting feature with the ps3 was just how well the layering and distancing worked, this primarily popped in Stardust since you had a lot of objects with different distances... Really looked good and gave another feeling to the game.

From what I gather they were polarized lenses but on the other hand they had an on and off button... so they more likely are shutters...

[Kage]

Definitely shutters then. They'll just be switching on off in an alternating 120 times a second

[hulahuga]

mm.
You know someone tried to release them at 60 and people got severe eye strains...

[The Prime]

I believe that full colour 3D is still in its infancy.

The face book group saying:

Join if you hate the fact studio's are trying to cash in on the 3D hype right now; filming in 2D with one camera, and then trying to post process the film to make it "3D"


Is ridiculous. 3D is cool frankly, it adds an extra edge to the experience. It's true they are still trying to get it right, and often filming in 3D is too expensive, and studios are being quite careful with their money in the "current economic climate".

Surround sound is completely faked in most cases. Unless they did have the microphones positioned accuratley in relation to the cameras, at the seige of Helms Deep, or aboard a space ship. Yet rightly nobody complains about this, because it sells the experience to you, and it's cool to have the extra level of immersion.

3D isn't perfect at the moment, and it's not financially, or physically practical to have 2 cameras filming every scene. And don't forget it's people in our position who end up doing the actual process of making a 2D film 3D in post, and your facebook page is pouring hate on them, as well as the "fat cats" who make the decisions.

[hulahuga]

Well as I said before I enjoy it when it is done good, but at times it is a bit blocky and just "meh"...

ps: you don't have two separate cameramen but one camera with two lenses... (if I am not way off...)

[The Prime]

ps: you don't have two separate cameramen but one camera with two lenses... (if I am not way off...)

Granted, but I'd imagine they still aren't cheap.

[hulahuga]

Not cheap to hire a large team of post processing artists either ;P. Something says to me that that technique is becoming pasttime...

[Kage]

Its fair enough The Prime, that you hate me for making the facebook group, but I still stand my ground when I say that it is ridiculous as you put it, that they are doing this, as a short cut to make money (seeing as it costs more to see a 3D film in the first place).

I stand my ground also when I say that if its not to be done right in the first place. Do not do it at all

I love 3D films when they are filmed right. Avatar was fantastic!
Don't think I'm against them. I'm not.

I'm against the post processing method.

Sound is unrelated to what I'm talking about. It makes sense that they have to do that, since the sound is mostly added afterward anyway.
3D doesn't have to be. Stereoscopic means 2 cameras have to be used to stay true to what it is.
It is this kind of thing in my opinion that will kill the 3D industry, and that is why I'm against it.

So yes, I am pouring hate on the 'fat cats' that make these stupid decisions.

If someone got a job to make a film 3D from a 2D source, then so be it, but its not a film I want to be seeing.

I will see Harry Potter in 2D as it was originally filmed, and I hope people follow me in that decision too, so they realize it isn't financially better to fake it

[hulahuga]

What a discussion we got going here :)!

[The Prime]

Wooah, hold your horses, I never said I hate you. And I said it was you that was being ridiculous, not "them" for making 2d films 3d.

A large part of what makes a 3D movie worth while is the CG. And you can't film CG with cameras, hence the term, CG. It seems what you are so bothered about is purely the live action being filmed in 3D. That is a very expensive process, and personally I don't mind that it isn't perfect. You seem to want the industry to make it perfect, rather than very good. That's very high and mighty of you to think that people should lobby against films that aren't genuine 3D, when a large part of the content (CG) is faked all the way through.

As you say at the end, you should go watch Harry Potter in 2D, and try and take out the 3D industry just because it isn't perfect. You can sit in the cinema with a big self justified smile on your face, because you saved a few pennies. Just don't try and make people jump on your holy than thou band wagon, with the most pathetic of pathetic demonstrations; a facebook fan page.

I may just start a facebook page against you...

[Kage]

But wait, haha

CG can be done with 2 cameras...

You are not getting the point

Pixar's Toy Story 3 for example is rendered with 2 cameras side by side

That is fine with me. That is great! It is still simulating 2 cameras and making the 3D effect real, because it is stereoscopic.

Filming with 2 cameras on a live set is also doing it properly.

If they decided to only film, or render with one, and fake the 3D effect, then I don't believe in it.

3D, I know isn't perfect. Flickering, and not enough frames per second is something I notice.

Even James Cameron would agree with me that the processed way of making 3D is in his eyes wrong, and I'm sure he would join my group.

To make 3D better, as James also put it, you'd have to film at 60fps, which would be a lot more believable and much less jumpy in faster scenes.
24-25-29FPS is fine for 2D stuff, but as soon as depth comes in, our brains notice a lot more the loss of frames.
He wanted Avatar to be filmed at 60fps but they wouldn't allow him to.

That is a restraint which I guess is understandable, but at least he did film with 2 cameras, and also rendered with 2 cameras.

[The Prime]

But wait, haha

CG can be done with 2 cameras...

You are not getting the point



A camera in a computer is not real, no matter how much you try and argue that using fake cameras to make "real" 3d of an object that isn't real.

And you have no point, you just want people to not go to fake 3D films because you think it's not "real" enough for your. You have an agenda, not a point.

If you don't like something, avoid it is my point. Don't go hating on something that is doing no harm. If you think it's crap, then don't go and watch it, simple as that.

[Kage]

You are not getting my point though.

Rendering 2 separate sources, i.e, a left and a right view in CG is doing the job right as well.

You are getting 2 separate views, so there is no cheating involved in the post process...
Just as you would if you filmed with 2 cameras simultaneously in a live shoot

[The Prime]

I have no qualms with your so called "point". It's not a point, you are highlighting the obvious; how 3D is made.

What I am saying is that you shouldn't make facebook groups (again, idiot protests) or the like, trying to condemn post processed 3D. You should in fact be happy that Hollywood is embracing 3D more seriously now than ever before. Instead you're complaining that they are faking the 3D. When I highlighted that surround sound is faked, you think that is fine, but 3D should never ever be faked?

So in a sentence, what is your point? As I don't believe you have one.

[Kage]

Facebook groups are used all the time to get something across. Check how the X-Factor didn't win Christmas number 1 as a result. Without Facebook, that would not have happened.

I do want 3D to succeed. I love the 3D concept. I just think it is flawed, and studio's are taking advantage of the hype.

Money is one thing, but these film studio's gain so much back from the profits anyway, that filming in 3D with 2 cameras/rendered camera's is viable.

Not every film has to be processed in 3D to make it worth while anymore. That is something I'm also putting across. A 2D film is great. I'd prefer that not every film was made 3D.

If a film wasn't intended to be 3D in the first place, do not try and make it 3D in post to gain a little more money from the hype. That is killing the industry, not helping it.

I've said all I can say The Prime. I'm not trying to get at you or anyone else.

That group I made in anger after reading that Harry Potter wasn't even going to be done right.
That was my first anguish, after in cinema's the word Harry Potter 3D was splayed across the screen.

I'm sure some studio's can post produce the 3D effect properly with enough time and effort from one source, but that is in my opinion taking away the magic that is stereoscopic 3D in the first place, and that is all I am getting across.

[The Prime]

Facebook groups are used all the time to get something across. Check how the X-Factor didn't win Christmas number 1 as a result. Without Facebook, that would not have happened.

And therein lies my point. Who do you think really lost out there? Do you think Simon Cowell was bothered? Or the people at ITV? No, the one person who lost out there was the poor kid who was just doing what he could to make it as a singer, and half the internet idiots jumped on board so as to get RATM to number one. A band who haven't lifted a finger muscially in years, end up with a number 1, and stonking royalties.

Without Facebook, that would never have happened. Well at least it's being used to do good in the world, and not for idiots to have there say...

[Kage]

That was the point I was trying to make with Facebook.
It is probably one of the most influential ways to get something across nowadays, and I dislike Facebook personally

[hulahuga]

And therein lies my point. Who do you think really lost out there? Do you think Simon Cowell was bothered? Or the people at ITV? No, the one person who lost out there was the poor kid who was just doing what he could to make it as a singer, and half the internet idiots jumped on board so as to get RATM to number one. A band who haven't lifted a finger muscially in years, end up with a number 1, and stonking royalties.

Without Facebook, that would never have happened. Well at least it's being used to do good in the world, and not for idiots to have there say...


Okay here (plain objectively) we have a flaw with democracy overall, so if you want to bring up that debate please do, but you can't really complain at it and win in today's situation...

Secondly (not talking about just this qoute) I think it is a huge scam to market the two films "Airbender" and "Cats and Dogs" as "the 3d event of the year with full surround!!!" when they don't give that to the customer in the sence you might think... I haven't seen any of them but I am planning on seeing Airbender in 3D just to have two hours of effects, and I sure hope they have done it good.