How Do You Convert a Movie to 3D, Anyway?

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
With the apparent acceptance and audience approval of the conversion of James Cameron’s blockbuster movie Titanic and George Lucas’s Star Wars, more classic films will surely be lined up to be re-released in 3D. The question here is: How do they make a 2D movie into a 3D version?

Monsters or bullets appearing to fly out of the screen towards the audience add to the “wow” factor of a movie, but can cause nausea in some moviegoers and may just not be appealing to others.
 
3D movies can cause nausea? Video games can cause epileptic seizures! Walking on the street can cause getting hit by a car! So what.

I went to see Titanic 3D and it was awesome.
 
How would putting a lame film in 3d make it awesome? :confused:

Cause people are naive and don't mind paying full price twice for the same product, lol. 2D to 3D is as simple as applying a filter in Photoshop unless you're actually re-shooting everything using a 3D camera (which has 2 lenses and records two streams, basically like the left and right eyes). The 3D "remakes", where they don't shoot the video again, are just cash-ins. Sometimes they'll add 3D (rendered) effects to emphasize stuff flying at you, but the video is just converted, not a lot of work goes into it at all, so they're only doing it to make very easy money for almost no work.
 
The question isn't how do you do it,but why? It's just a gimmick and people are tired of it already,it certainly isn't worth the extra money you pay. Just ask Disney,they're losing a bundle on John Carter. A good movie stands on it's own,it doesn't need 3D.
 
Cause people are naive and don't mind paying full price twice for the same product, lol. 2D to 3D is as simple as applying a filter in Photoshop unless you're actually re-shooting everything using a 3D camera (which has 2 lenses and records two streams, basically like the left and right eyes). The 3D "remakes", where they don't shoot the video again, are just cash-ins. Sometimes they'll add 3D (rendered) effects to emphasize stuff flying at you, but the video is just converted, not a lot of work goes into it at all, so they're only doing it to make very easy money for almost no work.

Did you read the article? So either it is a lie or maybe its more difficult to convert a movie (at minimum for a decent conversion).

For titanic (never want to see btw), 450 people worked for a year to do the conversion. Cost of ~18 million.

While yes it still can be a considered a cash grab, it seems to be far from just applying a filter. Maybe crappy conversions can be done that way, dunno... I just think with the article saying they just slapped a filter on it, let the computers churn for a few days and whalla! Seems to be a very simplification of the process.
 
The question isn't how do you do it,but why? It's just a gimmick and people are tired of it already,it certainly isn't worth the extra money you pay. Just ask Disney,they're losing a bundle on John Carter. A good movie stands on it's own,it doesn't need 3D.

While I tend to agree... I won't go out of my way to only see 3D, for some movies its pretty cool.

Star Wars for example seems to be a very fitting movie for 3D, lots of action etc.

Is it worth a 30-50% mark-up... well that is debatable. Though I have enjoyed many of the 3D movies I have gone to.
 
The "How" is fairly easy. For 2D filmed scenes, you apply a temporal comparison filter between two frames like so:

  • If an object is moving faster than those around it, that object is "in front".
  • If an object is bigger than it was last frame, that object is "getting closer"
  • Conversely, if an object is smaller than it was last frame, that object is "moving away"
Once you have identified the layers (Which is typically done anyway by your encoding software to produce better P and B frames), you do a temporal fill based on the last frame on the covered areas of each layer, then you composite the lot back together twice, once for each eye. It's easily simple enough to do that the tech is available in cheap plasmas these days (My Samsung 51" PN51D550 has it built in, and that was a bargain at $800 Canadian).

For CGI scenes, you re-render in 3D. 2D items that are close and may need extra detail can also get rendered in 3D and composited on top, but most studios don't bother with that.

As for the "Why", that's easy. "To make more money". It's a cheap, simple and easy process to do to "upconvert", yet 3D movies, even poorly upconverted ones (Clash of the Titans 3D or Alice in Wonderland 3D anyone?), get greater profits at the box office.
 
I'm only a little surprised they are releasing Episode 1 first in this format. Back in 2005 I interviewed with InThree, and they were already working on the original trilogy. Plus, the process to convert 2D to 3D looked very boring.
 
T I T A N I C 3D was soooo much better than the original -- a love story in 2-dimension just isn't the same.. ;p
 
How would putting a lame film in 3d make it awesome? :confused:
Different people different needs. I don't get people who watch WWF, South Park, Big Bang Theory, etc. etc. etc.

Cause people are naive and don't mind paying full price twice for the same product, lol.
It's an entertainment expense, nothing more and nothing less. There are quite a few movies I watched more than once, some of them even at the actual theater rather than a rented DVD or stream or whatever.

To me it was money well spend as I received the entertainment value I was hoping for.
 
How about JAWS 3D? No,not the godawful sequel,but the original. Not that I'm crazy about 3D,but I'd love to see it on the big screen again.
 
its all fake and a movie shot in 3d on the set is filmed with 2 cameras so it has a real view of the 2 perspectives.


A flim not shot in 3d only has the same image offset for both eyes so it sucks more you will never get the real effect.

exceptions.

CGI done in 3d studio max or maya can have 2 views since its fucking 3d already just go back to the master model file and change the camera.

anything extracted using the computer off the film and changed to be offset for the second eye.
 
I have an sight defect from birth and cannot see 3D :mad: I have 20/20 vision but cannot merge the 2 images and it causes headaches. BTW I also cannot see the hidden images in those abstract pictures where you are suppose to stare at it and an image appears. :mad::mad:
 
I have an sight defect from birth and cannot see 3D movies :mad: I have 20/20 vision but cannot merge the 2 images and it causes headaches. BTW I also cannot see the hidden images in those abstract pictures where you are suppose to stare at it and an image appears. :mad::mad:
Bad day for me:mad:
 
guess you should change your name to jackofalltrades exceptenglishandfinding3dsailboats
 
I have an sight defect from birth and cannot see 3D :mad: I have 20/20 vision but cannot merge the 2 images and it causes headaches. BTW I also cannot see the hidden images in those abstract pictures where you are suppose to stare at it and an image appears. :mad::mad:

You can't see 3D or you can't watch 3D movies?
how do you read a book? Do you have to close one eye?
With no depth perception parallel parking must be impossible. Sports are also out.
Dude that sucks.
 
Apparently you can try to get a prescription for prism glasses.

Your ophthalmologist might prescribe glasses with prisms if your eyes do not track or align properly. When you first receive your new glasses, you may experience a feeling of eyestrain, headaches and, in some cases, nausea and dizziness. It is important to give yourself adequate time to adjust to wearing glasses with prisms
 
I have great depth perception for some reason the 2 images do not recombine in my mind and looks distorted and causes me a headache, It's been that way all my life. You know how if you can see a 3D movie it is suppose to look like it has depth to me it doesn't I see 2 images overlaid on each other, and I guess it causes eye strain trying to see it correctly. But I have no problems parking or anything requiring depth perception.

It is a bummer I do miss out on alot of cool stuff like 3D movies and such.
 
I have the same problem as jackofalltrades, so this is not something he has made up. I have found that the 3D TVs that use the LCD glasses work pretty well, but after an hour or so I still get a headache. 3D movies with the passive glasses are out though. Frankly I don't really miss it though; the 3D effects are mostly a gimmick.
 
I have noticed that persons with limited intelligence get headaches when watching 3D films as it puts extra strain on their brain. Lol

I went and saw Titanic in 3D and it was amazing. I enjoyed the film from a historic standpoint as well as Kate's boobies. Lol.
The 3D effect was mostly seamless, you'd have thought it was originally shot in 3D, but there were a few imperfections in some of the 3D enhanced shots, but what can you do.

Titanic was processed frame by frame, cutting out elements that will be 3D and then processed.
I can see why they used so many people since there are a ton of frames in a 3 hour film.
 
Frankly I don't really miss it though; the 3D effects are mostly a gimmick.

Wait.
You just said you have the same problem he gots (Cant see 3d), and then said 3D is a gimmick?......

I dont think your condition is what you think it is.
 
3D movies can cause nausea? Video games can cause epileptic seizures! Walking on the street can cause getting hit by a car! So what.

From what I hear, getting nauseous from 3D movies is WAY more common than either of the examples you suggested, so I wouldn't say it's really a good analogy.
 
How would putting a lame film in 3d make it awesome? :confused:

You are definently cool because of your non conformist attitude. But I think you could ratchet it up a notch by non conforming with the non conformist. Take it to the next level.

Different people different needs. I don't get people who watch WWF, South Park, Big Bang Theory, etc. etc. etc.

Have you tried South Park at all? Not being critical. The show has some pretty strong social commentary behind the colorfull language. Its not Family Guy, there is actual substance to South Park. Was an episode about that very topic.
 
Back
Top