The point that they have to insert CGI/digital footage, making the film less "real" is one thing that troubles me. As much as I love tech and scifi and stuff, I'm old-fashioned enough to like real stuff as much as possible in movies.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:36:05 PM Subject: [scifinoir2] Article: How FX Studios Turn 2D Movies to 3D Moneymakers It was once believed that 3D filmmaking was something of a dark art, composed entirely of witchcraft and a lock of James Cameron's hair. These days, however, we know better — there's a complicated lunar cycle involved too. And a little something called dimensionalization . In an interview with Studio Daily, visual effects studio In-Three discussed the powerful technology responsible for bringing 2D films into the third dimension -- and its more complicated than you might think. Features like Avatar are filmed with stereoscopic 3D equipment, but not every production is so fortunate; many films are recorded in 2D only to be converted to 3D in post-production. With dimensionalization, In-three takes this "flat" footage, and breaks down each scene into its core components. This includes the foreground, background and key objects or actors. With the company's in-house software, artists arrange the pieces, tweak for depth, and ultimately create the 3D effect viewed in theaters. As a result, In-Three's Matthew DeJohn explains that the process turns a conventional piece of film into an entirely digital work. Where holes are present, footage is augmented or filled with CGI, the goal being to "fool the brain into thinking it’s real 3D." While this can present certain challenges compared to film shot in stereoscopic, it does have its advantages. "Because dimensionalization is a post process, you get more artistic control compared to shooting [in stereo]," says DeJohn. "We can go in and make specific choices and use the available depth budget to its best advantage." The process is time consuming, however, and involves between 300 and 400 artists for an 120-minute feature -- at close to $100,000 per minute. But now that films like Alice in Wonderland have pushed the process to the mainstream, it might not be long before some of our old favorites are given the 3D treatment too. -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
