A flaming skeleton riding a motorcycle always looks cool. And so we now have a second Ghost Rider movie. There are area's of the film that come across kinda cheesey. The 3D is weak. I'm thinking its probably a conversion. It's actually quite a weird movie at times- story wise. But I did enjoy the show.

Chief's score card:
Story: 7
Acting: 8
Special effects: 8
3D: 6.5/6.75
Final Score: 7.25

Dispite some flaws this is a strangely entertaining movie. The 3D is there but hardly noticable at times. I'll be looking for the 3D Blu-ray in the coming months.

cheers

Probably the only reason I would see this film is the 3D. If you think its weak, I guess I'll just pass.

Yes, it's a conversion.

http://realorfake3d.com/

I refuse to watch a new film that is converted because personally, I don't want to promote widespread use of this method. For me, the only pleasure that I get from a live action 3D movie is knowing that it was shot with two lenses on the set. You can't replicate the real thing with a conversion. I read elswhere and agree that a natively shot 3D movie has in "infinite" amount of reflective 3D elements to the 2nd view. No conversion can ever create that natural phenomenon. When I saw my one and only modern day 3D conversion "Captain America", I could see throughout flat 2D areas within every image of the film and it bugged the hell out of me. In the end, i forgot the movie and just played "spot the element that they missed".

Gae43

Check this article out:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... n?page=all

I suppose if your fixated on not having more than a few hairs of separation, it doesn't matter if you want to use camera rigs or 2D/3D conversion. It's only when you really get down and dirty that the differences (and benefits) become clear.

Regards,
Neil

They didn't take the time to learn 3d-shooting properly and therefore junked it. Imbeciles...
Another option is to make the entire movie cg animated (those are the only that actually works to some degree). Then 3d is almost an easy bonus and besides that: proper. I just can't state how much i dislike how the late evolution with 3d-movies has gone.

Maybe easy, but not free. That means they have to either double their render time or double to computers to render. Some films could spends months just rendering, so this adds significant cost.

At least we get some actual real movies in 3d, which they never really had before. The 3d out now reminds me of the tape recorder tapes of the 80's, where you like the mechanics of it but it takes a hard time to get to the right spot and wish the quality was better.

The light bulb has not gone on yet for some things in 3d mainstream.

On the bright side...House of Wax and Dial M for Murder on Blu-ray 3D might make up for some of the modern day 3D shortcomings.

http://3dperfection.blogspot.com/2012/02/rumours-that-warner-brothers-may-be.html

Gae43

Now you're talking!
I've been putting off getting a 3D Blu-Ray player because there is still nothing worth watching out there. I've told myself that I will buy the player as soon as Dial M for Murder is released.
It drives me crazy that they will spend millions converting films like Titanic and The Phantom Menace (not to mention all the new films released in fake 3D) but they continue to ignore the substantial catalogue of titles that are already in 3D, just waiting to be released.

It's a world gone mad.

They could also convert those scenes in the same way they did for Meet the Robinsons, ie. using the 2D render and the 3D assets to generate the second image.

With the appropriate tools I guess the render time would only be a fraction of a standard second view render, with a much better result than a standard 2D-3D conversion.

Nice find, signed up...

It's a question of patience I guess, you can already find one 3D movie and two 3D shorts from the 50's on the PSN (The Mad Magician and two Three Stooges shorts), with at least one more to come (Miss Sadie Thompson) and probably some others from the 10 owned by Sony (Gun Fury, Man in the Dark, etc.).