New Harry Potter - not true 3D

[Smokey]

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/harry-potter-fx-supervisor-talks-very-good-3d-in-deathly-hallows-part-2.jpg

It seem the new Harry Potter film (Deathly Hallows Part 2) was shot in 2D with standard camera, and was converted to 3D after the post production stage. The movie was recorded with a standard movie camera and shot with the understanding that the result was going to be presented in 2D. Adding 3D to the title was an afterthought.

A true 3D movie is shot with a camera system designed specifically for that task—it involves two lenses (one for each eye).

So be aware before paying extra for 3D version :)

http://screenrant.com/harry-potter-deathly-hallows-part-2-3d-benm-121606/

[Worf101]

Harry and Company lost me about 2 movies ago. I'm less than interested and not intrigued in the least. My son too his prom date Abrielle to see the 32 version on Opening Night. All I could git outta him in tems of a review was "it was massive". I'm not sure if that means it was good of bad but I can only it was good enough to keep his mind offa groping her. I haven't seen the deathly hallows yet so I'll rent that first then rent this next year.

Worf

[ForeverAutumn]

All I could git outta him in tems of a review was "it was massive". I'm not sure if that means it was good of bad but I can only it was good enough to keep his mind offa groping her.

Worf

Are you sure that he was referring to the movie when he said "it was massive?".

Sorry, I had to beat GMichael to the punch. :D

That explains why one of my friends was complaining about how spending the extra $5 to see it in 3D wasn't worth it. I'll let her know why. Thanks.

[recoveryone]

I will be glad when this wave of 3D is over. I may wait to get it on BR along with the last Transformers. Worfs' son opinion is the reason I don't run out anymore to see the latest releases es. If not seen at the right theater on the right system, then you will feel cheated out of your money and loose more respect for the industry as a whole. I Saw Avatar in 3D on IMax and it was just ok to me, looked much better on my system in 2D, Took the 10yr old to see Last Airbender in 3D, the trailers had more impressive 3D effect than the movie, Look better at home in 2D. When I do go out to see a movie that has both 2D and 3D I choose the 2D now, its just not worth the money, its more hype than substance and that same hype is driving the HT market right now.

It took almost 10yrs from the original HD startup date (2001) for HD to be available in most homes either through OTA/Cable or some other Sat service. So now we are just to jump onboard with this 3D, sorry not happening here.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I will be glad when this wave of 3D is over. I may wait to get it on BR along with the last Transformers. Worfs' son opinion is the reason I don't run out anymore to see the latest releases es. If not seen at the right theater on the right system, then you will feel cheated out of your money and loose more respect for the industry as a whole. I Saw Avatar in 3D on IMax and it was just ok to me, looked much better on my system in 2D, Took the 10yr old to see Last Airbender in 3D, the trailers had more impressive 3D effect than the movie, Look better at home in 2D. When I do go out to see a movie that has both 2D and 3D I choose the 2D now, its just not worth the money, its more hype than substance and that same hype is driving the HT market right now.

It took almost 10yrs from the original HD startup date (2001) for HD to be available in most homes either through OTA/Cable or some other Sat service. So now we are just to jump onboard with this 3D, sorry not happening here.

Well said. We went and saw Harry Potter on Monday and there were twice as many 3D showings compared to 2D. All four of us wanted to see the 2D showing, so there was no conflict there. But when we got to the theater that was showing the 12:50 show, it was one of the smaller auditourium venues. We looked down the corridor and theater #5 had it starting at 1:15 and it was the larger stadium type so we waited the extra 25 minutes. Well worth the extra time.

[Worf101]

Are you sure that he was referring to the movie when he said "it was massive?".

Sorry, I had to beat GMichael to the punch. :D

That explains why one of my friends was complaining about how spending the extra $5 to see it in 3D wasn't worth it. I'll let her know why. Thanks.
Thanks WOMAN, there's another keyboard shot to pieces. LOL, that wuz funny!!!!

Worf

[Woochifer]

Are you sure that he was referring to the movie when he said "it was massive?".

Sorry, I had to beat GMichael to the punch. :D

That explains why one of my friends was complaining about how spending the extra $5 to see it in 3D wasn't worth it. I'll let her know why. Thanks.

FM - I didn't know you had this blast in 'ya -- bonus points for making Worf blush! :blush2:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/harry-potter-fx-supervisor-talks-very-good-3d-in-deathly-hallows-part-2.jpg

It seem the new Harry Potter film (Deathly Hallows Part 2) was shot in 2D with standard camera, and was converted to 3D after the post production stage. The movie was recorded with a standard movie camera and shot with the understanding that the result was going to be presented in 2D. Adding 3D to the title was an afterthought.

A true 3D movie is shot with a camera system designed specifically for that task—it involves two lenses (one for each eye).

So be aware before paying extra for 3D version :)

http://screenrant.com/harry-potter-deathly-hallows-part-2-3d-benm-121606/

2D to 3D conversions are not the devil, and in some cases it is necessary to do it this way. If the movie has ton's of CG, then it is almost impossible to blend live 3D with stereoscopic CG. In this case, 2D to 3D conversion is necessary for the entire film. If there is a lot of run and shoot camera work, it is almost impossible to do that without having technical issues. Even if you shoot all of the movie in live 3D, you will still have technical issues that may blur the stereoscopic images. So you have to fix that in post production by taking the clean 2D images and doing 3D in post. Even Avatar had some shots converted to 3D in post because of technical issues that kept knocking the stereoscopic images out of sync.

The issue here should not be whether the 3D is shot live, or in converted in post production. It should be on whether the 3D is good, or bad. Alice in Wonderland is a prime example of very good 3D that was converted to 3D in post production. The Last Airbender is an example of very poorly done 3D.

When considering 3D in pre-production, every shot must take into consideration how the 3D will look within the frame. If everything is not positioned correctly within the frame, a poor 3D conversion will be the result. Well done 3D is worth the premium price. Poorly done 3D is not worth the price.

Shooting 3D live is still in its infancy, and is still not technically perfect to do. Until the 3D camera's mature technically, it will still be necessary to do a little, if not all of the 3D in post production. The camera's are still quite bulky, can go out of sync when moved around too much, and can be tough to work with in low light conditions.

If everyone knew all of the technological challenges that Cameron had with Avatar, they would understand totally why most live 2D to 3D conversions are done in post production. Fortunately he had the cash to work through all of his issues(as did Bay with Transformers, another movie shot live in 3D), a lot of directors and DP's don't.

Someone needs to school the author of the article in the link. 2D to 3D is NOT a upconversion. It is just a conversion. Upconversion takes a native resolution upward to a higher resolution without actually increasing any information.

[recoveryone]

Thanks T for that inside look of the issues, but then why are many of the studios pushing this format?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks T for that inside look of the issues, but then why are many of the studios pushing this format?

The answer to this is simple, revenue. They get more revenue from 3D showings than 2D showings. This goes for theatrical showings, and Bluray's as well.

[Smokey]

2D to 3D conversions are not the devil, and in some cases it is necessary to do it this way. If the movie has ton's of CG, then it is almost impossible to blend live 3D with stereoscopic CG. In this case, 2D to 3D conversion is necessary for the entire film. If there is a lot of run and shoot camera work, it is almost impossible to do that without having technical issues. Even if you shoot all of the movie in live 3D, you will still have technical issues that may blur the stereoscopic images. So you have to fix that in post production by taking the clean 2D images and doing 3D in post. Even Avatar had some shots converted to 3D in post because of technical issues that kept knocking the stereoscopic images out of sync.

The issue here should not be whether the 3D is shot live, or in converted in post production. It should be on whether the 3D is good, or bad. Alice in Wonderland is a prime example of very good 3D that was converted to 3D in post production. The Last Airbender is an example of very poorly done 3D.

When considering 3D in pre-production, every shot must take into consideration how the 3D will look within the frame. If everything is not positioned correctly within the frame, a poor 3D conversion will be the result. Well done 3D is worth the premium price. Poorly done 3D is not worth the price.

Shooting 3D live is still in its infancy, and is still not technically perfect to do. Until the 3D camera's mature technically, it will still be necessary to do a little, if not all of the 3D in post production. The camera's are still quite bulky, can go out of sync when moved around too much, and can be tough to work with in low light conditions.

If everyone knew all of the technological challenges that Cameron had with Avatar, they would understand totally why most live 2D to 3D conversions are done in post production. Fortunately he had the cash to work through all of his issues(as did Bay with Transformers, another movie shot live in 3D), a lot of directors and DP's don't.

Someone needs to school the author of the article in the link. 2D to 3D is NOT a upconversion. It is just a conversion. Upconversion takes a native resolution upward to a higher resolution without actually increasing any information.

Thanks for info. May be studios should make distinction bewteen 3d movies that were done live vs the ones that were done in post production. This way the movie goer don't feel like he/she has been cheated if 3D is not up to their expectations.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for info. May be studios should make distinction bewteen 3d movies that were done live vs the ones that were done in post production. This way the movie goer don't feel like he/she has been cheated if 3D is not up to their expectations.

If the 3D is well done(whether its live or post) most folks won't care about knowing how its done. Its about the quality, not how its done. .

[Kam]

And now Ridley is a convert to the 3D world, at least from ComicCon (i think the quote was from) him saying after shooting Promethius in 3D he'll never go back to 2D.

[bobsticks]

And now Ridley is a convert to the 3D world, at least from ComicCon (i think the quote was from) him saying after shooting Promethius in 3D he'll never go back to 2D.

Hey Kam, good to see you 'round these parts.

[vibe]

has anyone seen the 3d version? if so how did it look? i wanted to see it originally but if it looks bad ill jus save the $5.