Slashdot Mirror
How James Cameron Pumped Volume Into Titanic
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."
...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?
Nothing else matters if they can't get naked Kate to look right.
And yet nothing of value was added.
I'm somewhat confused by the success of the 3D "remake" of Titanic, considering that 3D has been a massive failure so far. The market (not counting a tiny niche of enthusiasts) has rejected 3D at the movies, on game consoles, on TVs, etc. Sales started out decently, but took a major hit, and there just doesn't seem to be any interest in 3D.
So when 3D Titanic is such a success (at least for now), is that because people are just thrilled to see a "classic" again at the movies, or is the 3D genuinely sparking people's interest? Is it the 3D that is causing people to buy tickets? And if so, why did just about everything else 3D fail so far?
Is this the resurrection of Titanic the movie, or the 3D experience?
Clever signature text goes here.
When I said that movie lacked depth...
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Does Leonardo DiCaprio embrace you at the end of the ride, because that would be DREAMY.
I want to see Terminator 2 in 3D.
I'm guessing you're not going to like the "Springtime For Hitler" Experience either. Sort of like "Pirates of the Carribean", only with Nazis.
Check out the (parody) trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJxj1mou03M
I saw this movie, not out of my own free will. I was impressed with the 3D. It was good, not over done and I could not believe it wasn't filmed that way.
It wasn't just a cheap shoe-horning of objects onto differing planes. I still don't think the 3d added value, but the tech itself was done right.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, people said the same thing about color. Color film (vs B&W) is a more "real-life" experience. Evidence suggests that "real-life" experience has a lot to do with movies - from color, to picture quality, to positional audio. 3D is a (if not the) next logical step.
To be honest, I thought Avatar was a masterfully executed film, if a bit cliched. It's certainly cohesive and "all-encompassing" in a way that few movies are. It's a shame the plot was so pedestrian. The 3D made the movie impressive, but since it seemed like a tech demo more than a proper flick, it came at the expense of me wanting to watch it again in 2D. By comparison, black&white never stopped me watching Casablanca, or Citizen Kane.
But there's all sorts of movies that are a lot of fun, if "safe". I can't exactly call them bad, in the same way that I can't call any of those Sundance films bad despite the fact that they're so boring. It's just a different kind of movie.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
My wife made me go see it with her. For the record, they were glorious.
Color actually added something to movies, I think. And if I am not mistaken, the mass market did not outright reject it, unlike 3D.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
3D is a (if not the) next logical step.
What about smell-o-vision. ;)
The more I use slashdot the more I think it's turning into shit
I wish there was something anything better
Any recommendations out there? Anonymous responses are ok. Thanx much.
Have you tried Slashdot 3D?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Did color really add anything to movies, though? It may seem that way to us, but I get the impression that there is a bit of psychological feedback going on between what we see in movies and what we expect in movies.
In fact, there seems to have been a lasting effect from the original black and white movie footage of the the 1900-1950 era in that often directors will present footage set in that era in black and white. Sometimes it just feels wrong when it's in color. (it's almost like if you were to time travel to the 1920s you would expect everything to be in black and white)
Consider that you can get just as much, if not more out of reading a book, even though a novel tends to lack even a single picture.
But I find it can be pretty painful watching, e.g., 80s sci-fi movies with the terrible effects, whereas I bet back then they felt much more believable.
My conclusion (without having any formal education on the psychology involved) is basically that we can adapt our imaginations to any medium. Our minds might need some training in the medium to understand what to filter out and where to provide missing pieces, but frankly a 2D representation will wind up being just as good as a 3D representation as long as you're accustomed to it. (Why do people get freaked out at horror movies? Because they accept the reality being presented to them.)
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
If it were real 3D, sure then everyone would be all about it. If you could get a real 3D display, they'd be the Next Big Thing(tm). However the "3D with glasses" shit we have now is nothing new. It has been tried at least twice before by my count and failed badly both times. There are multiple problems:
1) You have to wear glasses. If you don't it is an unwatchable mess. So you can't just have something in 3D playing on your TV and have people wander in and out. Also all the glasses have downsides. The polarized ones lose the 3D effect if you tilt your head too much, the shutter ones flicker a bit and require power, the analgyphic ones fuck with colour.
2) For the polarized and shutter glasses, they kill brightness and hurt contrast ratio. They are like wearing ND4 or worse filters on your eyes. So you take a nice bright digital projection screen, put those on and it is kinda dim. Only thing to be done is to just overpower it with even more brightness but that isn't always feasible.
3) There is no parallax. As you shift your view and position, everything stays static, because they only provide image separation. They don't provide parallax so shit looks wrong.
4) There is no focus. Everything is in the same plane of focus. This only works if everything is at or beyond your infinity focal point. If anything gets closer, your brain gets confused.
It is a half-assed 3D implementation, as I said tried before (Disneyland had a 3D Micheal Jackson flick years ago as an example). It isn't a real 3D display. You show me the display that can get all the aspects of 3D, separation, parallax, and focus, and can do so without wearing something, you've got the next big thing in displays. Until then, it isn't going anywhere.
Have you tried Slashdot 3D?
Yes, I have. Right click anywhere on slashdot. Select inspect element. Click 3D button on bottom right corner. Welcome to the future!
Until I can:
then it is not a 3D film. At best it is a sad imitation of 3D.
As long as the filmmaker controls the focal plane in a movie, it cannot be considered any more 3D than a more traditional movie. In fact, if a so called "2D" movie contains enough information for a machine to convert it to this poorly simulated "3D" then the original was effectively 3D already. While I applaud the research into making 3D movies, TV, and computer interfaces a reality, so far I've seen one that even approaches 3D by meeting my #2 criteria above (Johnny Lee's Wii hack). However, the viewer still has zero control over the focal plane and therefore, it is STILL NOT 3D. The focal plane issue is, IMO, the primary cause of headaches by the current weak 3D imitation systems. I'm sure someone will solve it someday, but probably not in what remains of my lifetime.