|
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. |
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.