Search

 

The Hobbit' Officially Pushed to 2013

Started by Kadri, April 28, 2010, 01:58:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Henry Blewer

#1
April 28, 2010, 02:00:56 PM
Oh, well. It's playing in imagination now.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

Rhalph

#2
April 28, 2010, 03:31:19 PM
I want them to do the Silmarillion :P

Kadri

#3
April 28, 2010, 03:38:34 PM Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 03:42:12 PM by Kadri
Quote from: Rhalph on April 28, 2010, 03:31:19 PM
I want them to do the Silmarillion :P

How much films could they make from it; 5 ? 10 ?  ;)

Of course in 3D !

I am curious when we will hear the 3D restored version of The Lord of The Rings ?  :) Did anyone ?

Hannes

#4
April 28, 2010, 05:37:22 PM
Unfortunately not (at least me!).
Did anyone see some examples for 2D movies transferred into 3D in postwork? I can't imagine that the result is really as convincing as the real thing.

goldfarb

#5
April 28, 2010, 05:42:38 PM
--
Michael Goldfarb | Senior Technical Director | SideFX | Toronto | Canada

dandelO

#6
April 28, 2010, 05:56:27 PM
No, but I have seen an example of a 3D, rotund man transferred into the body of another... http://www.jc-news.com/gfx/PETER-JACKSON-BEFORE-AND-AFTER-AINDREAS-DOT-COM.png

:D

I can't wait for The Hobbit... Oh, wait, I have to.

Kadri

#7
April 28, 2010, 06:00:53 PM Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 06:02:27 PM by Kadri
LOL !

2012 is better , thanks Goldfarb :D

Kadri

#8
April 28, 2010, 06:10:29 PM
Quote from: Hannes on April 28, 2010, 05:37:22 PM
Unfortunately not (at least me!).
Did anyone see some examples for 2D movies transferred into 3D in postwork? I can't imagine that the result is really as convincing as the real thing.

It depends i think how much they are willing to spend=work on it.
But in theory it can not be the same as directly filming in 3D. If you ask me of course.
...
Giving the work there is maybe a point where it doesn't matter so much anymore for most of the viewers .
But i don't know where this point is , or how to define it . Anyone ?

leafspring

#9
April 28, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: Hannes on April 28, 2010, 05:37:22 PM
Did anyone see some examples for 2D movies transferred into 3D in postwork?
I haven't seen any but they can't be very good by definition because every real shot remains 2D. Only the CGI can be re-rendered as 3D material and therefore have a 3D effect. Besides, there are some rules to make 3D really work for the viewer. Take Clash of Titans for example. Merely the CGI is 3D and even that wasn't planned during production so the viewer gains almost nothing from it.
Lang lang er vejen for Aslaug
Længe venter lykken på Kraka

latego

#10
April 29, 2010, 04:15:36 AM
Quote from: Rimmon on April 28, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: Hannes on April 28, 2010, 05:37:22 PM
Did anyone see some examples for 2D movies transferred into 3D in postwork?
I haven't seen any but they can't be very good by definition because every real shot remains 2D. Only the CGI can be re-rendered as 3D material and therefore have a 3D effect. Besides, there are some rules to make 3D really work for the viewer. Take Clash of Titans for example. Merely the CGI is 3D and even that wasn't planned during production so the viewer gains almost nothing from it.

Unless your sight is perfect you won't manage to match the two images. A couple of weeks ago, in a mall near were I live, they were showing a 3D TV screen. I donned those silly glasses and... it was even worse than looking directly at the screen. If this 3D stuff becomes widespread, I will stop going to the movies.

goldfarb

#11
April 29, 2010, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: Rimmon on April 28, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: Hannes on April 28, 2010, 05:37:22 PM
Did anyone see some examples for 2D movies transferred into 3D in postwork?
I haven't seen any but they can't be very good by definition because every real shot remains 2D. Only the CGI can be re-rendered as 3D material and therefore have a 3D effect. Besides, there are some rules to make 3D really work for the viewer. Take Clash of Titans for example. Merely the CGI is 3D and even that wasn't planned during production so the viewer gains almost nothing from it.

nope...that's not how they do it...
the CG isn't re-rendered as stereoscopic...the whole final film is processed to create the two different images...it's a hack and an expensive one.
--
Michael Goldfarb | Senior Technical Director | SideFX | Toronto | Canada

leafspring

#12
April 29, 2010, 05:17:26 PM Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 05:19:17 PM by Rimmon
Well, I stand corrected then.  :)

Just had a short glance how they do it since I couldn't imagine how that is possible, but it makes sense. Obviously they virtually rebuild every scene to get depth information, mask important objects that shall become three-dimensional and generate an off-set image. Is that the standard way or just one way to do it?
Lang lang er vejen for Aslaug
Længe venter lykken på Kraka

Kadri

#13
April 30, 2010, 07:11:49 PM Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 07:30:08 PM by Kadri
Video: How IMAX Wizards Convert Harry Potter to 3-D

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/video-how-imax-wizards-convert-harry-potter-to-3-d/#ixzz0mczVu62w

Nothing we don't know , but the first video i saw about this method on a blockbuster .
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions