Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How James Cameron Pumped Volume Into Titanic

Posted by timothy on from the really-big-hose dept.

MrSeb writes with ExtremeTech's account of how director (and deep sea explorer) James Cameron spent a reported $18 million converting his blockbuster movie, Titantic, to 3D. The article "looks at the primary way of managing depth in 3D films (parallax), how you add depth to a movie that was originally filmed in 2D, and some of the software (both computer and human-brain) difficulties that Cameron had to overcome in the more-than-two-year process to convert Titanic into 3D."

9 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Wonderful, but... by Brooklynoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?

    1. Re:Wonderful, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone's wife, mother, sister, girlfriend, etc.

    2. Re:Wonderful, but... by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You haven't ever wondered what a young Kate Winslets breasts and pubic mound looked like in 3d?

      --
      Monstar L
    3. Re:Wonderful, but... by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, but even then this won't show you.

      This is that crappy cut-out-silhouettes pseudo-3d. Think paper dolls at various depths, but each individual doll is flat.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Wonderful, but... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Titanic works for both men and women. For women, it's pretty obviously a love story about the poor little rich girl who falls in love with a man beneath her social stature and the trials and tribulations that they go through to be together.

      For men, it has explosions, breasts, and a snobs versus the slobs storyline--think "Caddyshack on the High Seas."

      See? It has everything!

    5. Re:Wonderful, but... by MDillenbeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just got done watching a Research Channel vid on youtube with Neil deGrasse Tyson. In it he told a story about Titanic where he talked about Cameron using a sub to check out the details of the Titanic to keep it authentic. However, with the scene near the end why the kid chooses to drown, he noticed that the night sky was not only wrong but the left side was a mirror of the right side. Thus, Tyson wrote Cameron a letter about it. Later, he met up with Cameron and decided to bring up the point, and Cameron mentioned how many billions it made and asked how much more the right sky would make him. Yet, that is not the end of the story. Years later Tyson gets a call - its some Hollywood type who says he's working with Cameron on updating Titanic and that Tyson would have a night sky for him. His next words had so much heartfelt emotion in them "YES!".

      So, I guess anyone who wants to see Tyson's accurate night sky will go and see it...

    6. Re:Wonderful, but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?

      I never understood the public's continued fascination with the Titanic.

      As for the 3D movies, please quit going to see them, so they'll let the format die.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  2. Most importantly, are Kate Winslet's tits in 3d? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing else matters if they can't get naked Kate to look right.

  3. Everyone wonders why? Here's why by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They spent 18 million reworking it to 3D. I haven't seen a lot of publicity so it's unlikely they spent more than 18 million for prints and advertizing. They made 17.4 million on the opening weekend just on domestic box office. It almost certainly will make 50 million domestic and could hit a 100 million although somewhere in the middle is more likely. Foreign is less for 3D but it sold strong overseas so it could match the US take. Break the numbers down and for a 36 million investment they get around 50 to 100 million back after you factor out the theater take. They either double or triple their money and that doesn't factor in a spike in DVD and Blu-rays since they are likely to also release a special addition. The studios are in it to make money not films. Why risk 18 million on a film that could bomb when they make 30 to 70 million in profit by recycling a hit? Disney survived through many bleak years after Walt died re-releasing old animated films.