Damn the Gods! (Titans '10)

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

This just got awesomer and cheesier as it will now be in 3D. 

Just 3D, or Imax 3D?

And 3D haters, you can still watch it in regular old 2D. Really, I don't see why you complain about a mechanism which adds something to a film and takes away nothing, and which is entirely optional. 

[Tripe]

Doesn't bother me as long as it remains optional, alternatively if it becomes commonplace and then adds no sort of premium to the ticket price I'm fine with that too.

[Doctor Who?]

Well ticket prices have been raising for 2D movies any way.  When I went to see Batman Begins a ticket cost $5.00,District 9 cost $8.50,and Avatar cost me $10.00.  It's not really that big a jump.  In a year or so I'm pretty sure 2D are going to cost the same as 3D one if the price keeps going up like it has.  At least with 3D you are getting something extra instead of paying more for the same thing.

[Tripe]

At least with 3D you are getting something extra instead

I'm not

[Doctor Who?]

Yeah there may be a few people who can't see it and I am sorry about that really I am but I think you may end up in the same boat as deaf people who go to a movie with out subtitles.  They can't release movies to compensate for ever problem someone can have.  It suck but between Blu Ray,and the internet movie profits are way down so movies are doing what they have always done when this happens,they are giving people something in theaters that they can not get at home.  It sucks and I am sorry but if movies are still going to be around in 20 years it looks like this is the way they are going to have to go.  It's like when Widescreen and color replaced fullscreen and Black and White in the 50s.  I have to wonder how long 3d will work and if we are seeing the end of movies.  I'm guess that at some point in our life times will will see TV and DvD completely replace movie theaters.  It's sad but there you are this is a last ditch attempt to say a dieing medium.

[Tripe]

They can't release movies to compensate for ever problem someone can have. 

No, read my this post again:

Doesn't bother me as long as it remains optional, alternatively if it becomes commonplace and then adds no sort of premium to the ticket price I'm fine with that too.

The only potential issue I have is if 3d is still adding a premium to general ticket prices and a version isn't available without said premium.

It's a fad. It'll pass.

I suspect this contains a great deal of truth.

[mrbasehart]

While I agree that it's little more than a novelty, I don't think 3d's going away anytime soon.  Studios believe there's too much money to be made, especially after seeing what Avatar has done.

[Sharktopus]

I'm so not interested in a movie that's been reverse three-deeified after it's already been shot.

[TeamRAD]

This just got awesomer and cheesier as it will now be in 3D. 

...hahahahahahahahaha! Awesome.

[Sharktopus]

Slate.com explains how a 2-D film gets converted to 3-D:

Draw a map of each shot and let a computer do the rest. 3-D movies are normally filmed using two slightly offset cameras. Both images are projected onto the viewing screen, with those cheap plastic glasses feeding one image into your left eye and the other into your right. Without the benefit of the second camera during filming, producers have to generate the two offset images based on the single flat picture that they have. The first step is to separate the shot into somewhere between two and eight layers of depth. Take, for example, an image of a man standing in front of a brick wall, with a blue sky behind the wall. The graphic artist might separate the shot into three layers: the man, the wall, and the sky. Then, he would take each layer and draw contour lines around any object that appeared there. He'd start by marking depth lines on the man using a computer, turning the image into a sort of topographical map. He'd repeat the process for any objects in the other layers. (If there were a bird in the sky, he'd draw lines there, too.)

Once this is done, the computer takes over. Software creates a new, offset image of the man by moving the various regions of the contour map to the left or right and smoothing everything out. The closer bits—the tip of the man's nose, for example—would be moved the farthest, while the more distant parts—the back of his shoulder—would be displaced a bit less. Then the process would be repeated for the other two layers of the image: the wall and the sky. (The former would move only slightly; the latter hardly at all.) Broadly speaking, this process must be completed for every object in every shot of the whole movie—an undertaking that might take months, even with a team of 30 or more artists. (The workload depends in part on the amount of chaotic motion in a scene. If an object is relatively still, the artist can map out a few representative frames and let the computer interpolate the rest. Otherwise, he might have to work frame-by-frame.)

In other words, a butload of time and money go into giving us a headache, basically.

[Doctor Who?]

Slate.com explains how a 2-D film gets converted to 3-D:

Draw a map of each shot and let a computer do the rest. 3-D movies are normally filmed using two slightly offset cameras. Both images are projected onto the viewing screen, with those cheap plastic glasses feeding one image into your left eye and the other into your right. Without the benefit of the second camera during filming, producers have to generate the two offset images based on the single flat picture that they have. The first step is to separate the shot into somewhere between two and eight layers of depth. Take, for example, an image of a man standing in front of a brick wall, with a blue sky behind the wall. The graphic artist might separate the shot into three layers: the man, the wall, and the sky. Then, he would take each layer and draw contour lines around any object that appeared there. He'd start by marking depth lines on the man using a computer, turning the image into a sort of topographical map. He'd repeat the process for any objects in the other layers. (If there were a bird in the sky, he'd draw lines there, too.)

Once this is done, the computer takes over. Software creates a new, offset image of the man by moving the various regions of the contour map to the left or right and smoothing everything out. The closer bits—the tip of the man's nose, for example—would be moved the farthest, while the more distant parts—the back of his shoulder—would be displaced a bit less. Then the process would be repeated for the other two layers of the image: the wall and the sky. (The former would move only slightly; the latter hardly at all.) Broadly speaking, this process must be completed for every object in every shot of the whole movie—an undertaking that might take months, even with a team of 30 or more artists. (The workload depends in part on the amount of chaotic motion in a scene. If an object is relatively still, the artist can map out a few representative frames and let the computer interpolate the rest. Otherwise, he might have to work frame-by-frame.)

In other words, a butload of time and money go into giving us a headache, basically.

Maybe for you but my eye work.   Also I like fun things and I figure tickets cost so much any way I may as well get something cool for it.

That was pretty cool.  thanks.

[Sharktopus]

Slate.com explains how a 2-D film gets converted to 3-D:
In other words, a butload of time and money go into giving us a headache, basically.

Maybe for you but my eye work.   Also I like fun things and I figure tickets cost so much any way I may as well get something cool for it.

That was pretty cool.  thanks.

There's more detail at the link. Don't get my wrong, I think 3D is pretty nifty, but I just know it'll be Hollywood's newest easy alternative to actually telling a decent story.

[Doctor Who?]

Slate.com explains how a 2-D film gets converted to 3-D:
In other words, a butload of time and money go into giving us a headache, basically.

Maybe for you but my eye work.   Also I like fun things and I figure tickets cost so much any way I may as well get something cool for it.

That was pretty cool.  thanks.

There's more detail at the link. Don't get my wrong, I think 3D is pretty nifty, but I just know it'll be Hollywood's newest easy alternative to actually telling a decent story.

Still it's not like they were doing that before,I think the last time they told stories with movies was the early 70s.

[Sharktopus]

Slate.com explains how a 2-D film gets converted to 3-D:
In other words, a butload of time and money go into giving us a headache, basically.

Maybe for you but my eye work.   Also I like fun things and I figure tickets cost so much any way I may as well get something cool for it.

That was pretty cool.  thanks.

There's more detail at the link. Don't get my wrong, I think 3D is pretty nifty, but I just know it'll be Hollywood's newest easy alternative to actually telling a decent story.

Still it's not like they were doing that before,I think the last time they told stories with movies was the early 70s.

Very true.

[Tripe]

Intersting, I don;t get a headache at 3d movies, it just looks 2d to me. I wonder if the offsetting means I get a crisper 2d image or something (it can't be much crisper though but maybe a little).