Quote Originally Posted by Smokey View Post
While searching, it seem that on average shooting in real 3-d will add 30-50% increase on a 2D budget. While conversion only cost 5-10% of 2D budget.

There also seem to be alot of pro and cons with shooting in real 3-D vs post 3-D conversion. Real 3D have much more cons than pros

Shooting in real 3-D:

Pros

1. Easier to capture nuances of complex 3D scenes such as crowds, rain, snow, leaves, smoke, reflections, rain, leaves, etc.

2. Preview stereo images on set and on location

3. In edit, footage can be reviewed in stereo making editing decisions easier.

Cons:

A. Cost: it’s more expensive to shoot in 3D because it requires twice as many cameras, specialised rigs and lots of specialised personnel; as an extreme example, the 2nd Unit for Pirates 3D was 200 strong on occasions. Obviously there is twice the amount of data to manage, wrangle and archive.

B. The extra equipment and personnel mean few shots can be done in a day.

C. Lens choices are restricted. For example, long zooms don’t work on a rig because the image is flattened and the 3D effect is lost, plus zooms can be tricky to align correctly

D. Depth is essentially locked-in. It cannot be changed greatly in post. The only way to change depth (as it is really a factor of the interaxial distance) in any meaningful way, is to convert one eye.

E. No guarantee that what is viewed on set will translate to the scene (see BAFTA anecdote above)

F. No option of using 35mm film (unless we go back in time to the Friday the 13th dual camera 35mm solution, or similar – and anyway, 35mm grain, flicker, natural degradation when presented multiple times and it’s inherent expense, is not really ideal!)

G. Non-parallel rigs require a convergence puller on set who determines the convergence points during filming. In edit, it is vital to have the correct convergence point and yet the scope for changing convergence in post is limited.

H. Each camera can and will see colours, lens flares differently which must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

I. Frequently the alignment will be different and this must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

J. Polarisation will mean that there are image differences when filming reflective surfaces

Post production 3D conversion:

Pros

i. Cost: it’s cheaperii. Shoot as normal but plan for 3D to maximize the effect
iii. Complete range of options. Can shoot on film (see latest Star Trek) with any film camera or use any digital camera
iv. Complete range of camera lenses
v. Complete flexibility to add depth even when using telephoto lenses
vi. In edit, complete flexibility to set the convergence
vii. In post, complete flexibility to set the depth and volume for each and every element in each and every scene.
viii. In post, complete flexibility to add or delete elements

Cons

a. Crowds, rain, snow and smoke, sparks are more difficult to convert.

Native 3D versus 2D to 3D conversion: Pros and Cons | THE 3D COMPANY
Smokey, this information is from last year accumulated from information from the year before. It is outdated.

The pro's are largely pretty consistant, it is the con's that I have some issues with.

Live shooting of 3D.

A) The cost of shooting live has dropped pretty dramatically over the last year thanks to James Cameron. These days they do FAR more pre-production work in an effort to streamline the process and shaved the cost of live shooting. They can also shoot more shots in the course of the day thanks to all of the pre-production work done before camera's are even mounted. It is still more expensive than post, but not anywhere close to what it used to be - and especially since this was written. Pirates 3D was shot in late 2010 and early 2011. That is a long time ago, and many things have changed in two years.

C) While lens choices are still pretty limited when compared to 2D, there are a lot more choices today than there was 2.5 years ago.

D) With Cameron's newer camera's, depth can be dialed in on location. However, the article is right. After it is dialed in, it cannot easily be adjusted in post.

E) This is largely correct because they use flatpanels on location, and film screen for post.

F) This is irrelevant since 35mm film is rarely used these days. For the last three years there are an industry wide push to get rid of the film distribution system. As a matter of fact at the beginning of this year the studios sent out notices informing theaters to convert to digital or they would no longer get first run movies to show. That is basically the nail in the coffin for widespread film presentations. DP's can still shoot in 35mm, it just won't be distributed that way.

G) These days the DP has become the convergence puller as industry wide training has given them more tools and information to work with. No need for a dedicated puller any longer.

H) These days camera's and lenses are picked long before shooting begins, so this is largely a non issue.

I) This is expected, and every 3D movie has had to go through this. This is built into production costs from the very beginning.

J) This is seen on set during production and adjustments can be made to reduce reflective surfaces.

I largely agree with the pro's and con's of post 3D. However crowds, rain, snow(which is not really a problem anymore and was not a big deal since the movie Polar Express) smoke(which is hard for digital 2D camera's as well) and sparks(also difficult for 2D digital camera's) are difficult to convert, but the software for converting 3D has gotten so much better than it was when this article was published. The visual difference is not subtle either, it is very noticeable upgrade in 3D quality.

Smoke, you cannot use a nearly two year old article to describe what is happening today in the film industry. Technology in the film industry moves far too fast for that.