Lucas To Redo Star Wars In 3-D

Warlock7 writes "You might have thought that it was going to all be over on May 19 with the release of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Well, not so fast. It seems that George Lucas is planning to re-re-release the Star Wars films in a new 3-D format. There are also several other directors that are interested in this new technology and they are trying to get theaters to install new technology to allow the showing of their films in the new 3-D format [req free reg]."

Comments

Re:3D

[dschuetz]

Anyone have any information on how these 3d films are different from past attempts at 3d? Do you still wear glasses?

Most likely, you'd still wear glasses, yes. Let's remember the two aspects to 3-D photography: 1) getting 3-D information in the first place (usually with multiple cameras), and 2) delivering that data to the eyes (usually by somehow targeting each eye with a different image).

There are a few other ways to do 2, mostly relying on odd tricks like image "jiggling" (which works, sort of, but isn't that great). Generally, 3-D relies on parallax comparisons made possible by each eye seeing a slightly different image. In order to do that, we need some way to target each eye with a unique image. Some "autostereoscopic" methods use wire or lenticular screens (you see that sometimes in 3-D movie posters). Most systems use glasses. Originally they used red/blue glasses, but that didn't scale well with color films. Then the industry moved on to polarized filters, but that required the viewer hold his head pretty close to straight (if you tilted your head too far to one side, the images would blur and then swap). Polarizing lenses with circular polarization helped minimize some of that. Current "state of the art" uses high-speed LCD shutters in glasses synchronized to the film projector or TV, which shows the right image first (with the left eye blocked by a shutter), then the left image (swapping the shutter to the right eye).

There's also "one lens" systems that rely on an odd optical trick I can't even begin to explain (been a while since college physics), but it has the effect of making objects in motion *in one direction* appear closer to the viewer, while objects at rest or moving the opposite direction appear farther away. This has been used in "3-D Roller Coaster!" videos hawked in mail-order catalogs, and I think was even used to promote a Rose Bowl parade some years back.

Anyway, that's all just the delivery problem. The tougher side is the content problem. Lucas only filmed his movies with a single lens, so there's no parallax information that can be used to provide 3-D images. If the films were *completely* computer generated (like, say, The Incredibles), then it'd just be a matter of rendering it once, then telling the computer "shift the camera left 3 inches" and render again. (has pixar actually done this? it'd be cool. :) )

So with only one image to choose from, how do you "create" depth information? One way that I've seen in the past is to use motion and/or focus artifacts to "guess" at 3-D location in the frame. That is, if something moves in front of another thing, then it's reasonable to assume it should be shown forward in the frame. Or if something's slightly off focus (foreground or background), then you can also assume it's in a different depth plane, and shift it accordingly. I actually saw "Lost In Space" processed with something like this technology, and while it was interesting, it basically sucked.

Why? For one thing, no matter how smart, the extrapolated depth cues are always just guesses. Unless you work the film manually, scene-by-scene (and even frame-by-frame), there will be problems with consistency with the derived depth information. Also, with a two-camera system, each "eye" not only sees slightly different images, but they see images with slightly different *content*. That is, it's not enough to simply shift an X-wing left or right, but one eye needs to see a little something more where the X-Wing was moved out of. Automated processes (in the past) couldn't do this.

Now it's possible that with advances in technology, it's finally possible to consistently guess at object depths, and to fabricate reasonable hidden information. As I said, it's not worked well in the past, but in the past, it's been attempted by hucksters and snake-oil salesmen and sold to gullible third-tier theme park movie houses (I saw the aforementioned Lost in Space about two miles from Walt Disney World,

Re:Please Say It Ain't So

[jedidiah]

Under George's direction, ILM and Dykstra did infact invent the motion control camera. If you're not aware of this then you have no real background in this area and no real basis to tell anyone anything.

ILM was the first dedicated motion picture effects house. ILM invented or improved on technology as needed.

Now 2001 represents the absolute pinnacle of pre-SW effects. What George and ILM did was to set the minimum standard to that level (and higher) and enable everyone else to achieve it.

Motion control allowed an effects shot to be seamlessly composited and only limited by the tech of analog film compositing.