[joshvm]

3D is fine, it just needs a few things:

1) High frame rate - really, enough of this "24fps looks better" nonsense. We can make adaptive frame rates if need be. This kills the nasty tearing you get when cameras pan, particularly noticeable over fancy landscape scenes.

2) Brighter projectors - don't know why this isn't the case already.

3) Actually shot in stereo. There's a very good chance that the last 3D movie you saw was depth-ified in post process. Shooting in 3D is expensive and requires more editing, calibration etc, so people don't like doing it.

[blueskin_]

>enough of this "24fps looks better" nonsense. We can make adaptive frame rates if need be.

I don't even understand the 24fps logic, as all it causes is tearing and motion blur. We need better framerates, but across the board, not just in action spots, as 48/60 give smoother motion overall. The Hobbit was 48fps; I bet most people either didn't notice, or thought it looked better. Certainly, there was no appreciable motion blur or tearing in a film that would have been full of it at 24.

>2) Brighter projectors - don't know why this isn't the case already.

Already done, along with more reflective screens, but yes, still needs improvement.

>3) Actually shot in stereo. There's a very good chance that the last 3D movie you saw was depth-ified in post process. Shooting in 3D is expensive and requires more editing, calibration etc, so people don't like doing it.

Yep. This is the main problem. Having movies shot in 2D and made 3D in postproduction is like shooting in black and white and having a 6 year old colour them in with crayons. Native 3D shooting is easier than it was thanks to James Cameron et al but still requires more investment in skills, equipment, time, calibration, etc, and better ongoing reviewing and monitoring during production. Some people just don't like to spend money where they should, but still ant to reap the benefits.

[erichocean]

The Hobbit was 48fps; I bet most people either didn't notice, or thought it looked better.

I, and everyone in my family, thought it looked terrible at 48fps and in 3D—like a mid-80s BBC soap opera. I didn't see the 2D version, so maybe the film itself just sucked even in 2D.

There's a very good chance that the last 3D movie you saw was depth-ified in post process. Shooting in 3D is expensive and requires more editing, calibration etc, so people don't like doing it.

This is just flat out wrong. "Depthifying" things in post produces better 3D, full stop, because a single 3D depth works poorly across the entire image.

Every. Single. Animated. Film. uses multiple 3D depths in the same shot, which is what "depthifying" allows you to do, and that's a huge reason why animated films have the best 3D currently. If you just shoot 3D in-camera, you're forced to choose a particular 3D depth and the results, in most shots, are sub-par.

BTW, my information comes from talking with actual 3D supervisors in Hollywood (where I lived) and the cml-3d list, which is where the people who actually do this shit for a living hang out and talk about the 3D releases as they come out, the techniques they used, and why. If you're curious about the craft, you could do worse than signing up for the mailing list and listening in on the conversations happening there.

[blueskin_]

>This is just flat out wrong. "Depthifying" things in post produces better 3D, full stop, because a single 3D depth works poorly across the entire image.

No, you're flat out wrong. Again, would you colour in a black and white film in postproduction and expect an accurate result?

As movies normally create depth by blurring objects at different distances to mimic the human eye, this interferes with actual focusable depth if it is postprocessed into 3D. It is possisble to do it right, but it takes the best part of a year (see: the 3D-ifying of Titanic), not two weeks like Disney moview or Clash Of The Titans took.

Point taken about animated films usually having better 3D, but that is exactly because it's easier and cheaper to produce natively.