Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallow filmed in 3D or converted?

[Recostar]

Does anyone know if they have filmed it in 3d or they are just converting it?
If it was converted I'm not going to bother watching it in 3D but if it was filmed in 3D i will.



Here is the trailer for the movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC2tmFVNNE

[Likay]

You've got a clear point. I wish that 3d-movies shoulöd be stamped either "real-3d" or "2d-3d-conversion".

[Dom]

It looks like it was a 2d-3d conversion I get all my movie lists here: http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its shows either a 3d movie is "Native3d" or "2d-3d conversion" and one movie I seen on there was given an really bad 3d rating.

[Fredz]

There is a teaser in 3D on YouTube too, you can judge by yourself :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2yI5Olyncg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yuriythebest]

There is a teaser in 3D on YouTube too, you can judge by yourself :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2yI5Olyncg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aaaaaaaa what was that?? I think 3dmovie guy made that himself. totally awful and looks like L and R are the same just offset a bit.

[Jadentheman]

It has been announced that this movie(both parts) will be converted for a while now. At least Harry Potter has good 3d conversion and they usually put the time into ittoo so it won't looked rush. Even though I agree that should have filmed part 2 in 3D, they announced they weren't going to do that, even though they could change their minds last minute especially after the Last Airbender reviews

[Recostar]

Thanks for the responses guys. It's a conversion . They really do need to indicate if its a conversion or filmed in 3D. It makes such a huge difference. I think , or at least I'm hoping, with more movies coming out people will start to catch on about what the difference is and maybe these directors will start filming there movies in 3D and stop converting them. Although ,this brings up an interesting opportunity.

What if this growing trend to convert 2D movies into 3D really picks up and software developers create a way to convert 2D movies into 3D but make them actually look really good !! Just a thought, although there are many holes in this idea it would be great to watch some of my classic favorite movies converted into Good 3D. For-instants

The Matrix Trilogy
Star Wars movies
My little pony
Clash of the Titans( the original 1981 version with harry hamlin)
The Dark knight

I would love to see these movies in good 3D. well, maybe not my little pony

Just out of curiosity, Is everyone in agreement that the current technology out there to convert 2D into 3D is not so good? (referring to Cyberlinks 3D and arc software programs ) Or is there something out there that does a good job converting that i missed?

[Recostar]

There is a teaser in 3D on YouTube too, you can judge by yourself :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2yI5Olyncg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for the link Fredz, I downloaded the video and watched it in 3D. It looks like its converted but everything is at the same depth. If this is what to expect in the theaters then count me out.

[Dom]

I think each company comes up with their own tools and conversion technique for 2d-3d. They are just having a difficult time rendering depth/volume/pop-out with only one camera lens angle. I guess they do an automatic conversion process to that only take a few hours or so to complete. They just pick and choose what settings to use and click the start button. Now if they started filming their stuff in direct3d polygon format with one camera lens, then they could add what ever the heck they wanted in 3d software, lighting, effects virtual cameras ect... its the way to go for software wise but for hardware wise 2 camera or maybe if they can pull it off a 3 camera setup or 4 ----->sidebyside and topbottom. lol hopefully some day.

[urbi]

Converted 3d or "real" 3d Harry Potter should make no real difference, as most action scenes are cgi. Or do anyone think, Radclife can fly?
So only the actors are real - but to 3Dalise them, there a good and proven methods (texturing on 3d-cgi). This seem to be one of the main reasons not to make "real" 3d filming. Its very complicated to do 3d blueboxing - the background (cgi) will be composed into the picture and has to fit in exactly. Its easy to change distance and position of actors in the cgi background. But if the Scene is 3d, then you have to fit the parallaxe and the stereobasis also if you want to let the actors fly for example. It has to fit exactly or the 3d effect will be bad. So maybe corrections in the real film part will be needed anyway.
I think, there will not be any scene without cgi. The whole film will be composed in computer. And if they do so, the whole scene will be created 3d - in the computer. The actors are 3d models in the scene - later the real filmed persons will be cut in. So there is no big deal, instead of coping them, to project them on 3d avatars. Of course many handworking - but thats necasarry for 2d production also.

There are 3 diferent kinds of 3d-movies I think:
1. Native 3d filmed
2. 3d-CGI with some real but 2d-2-3d-converted elements
3. 2d-Productions converted afterwarts

A priory it seems far-stretched to say "conversion is bad". The question is not wether HP is coverted or "real". The question is, how it is converted?

(Sorry for my bad english, I´m native German and english was an F-grade in school)

[Fredz]

Two examples of conversion everyone knows for now are Alice and Clash of the Titans, and both were pretty bad from a 3d viewpoint. Why would it be better now for Harry Potter, did they invent any earth shattering technique for 2D-3D conversion in the past last weeks ?

[Addict3d]

I think there's a big difference between Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans. Alice's 3D didn't visually distract me from watching the film. When watching Clash of the Titans, there where points in the film where I was pulled out do to incorrect depths of field.

Will Deathy Hallow have this problem? Probably not. And I'd expect the only good 3D scenes will be filled with action and CGI. Easily half of any Harry Potter film is filled with static dialogue scenes. I don't think we'll see a success conversion of this type until James Cameron's Titanic in 2012.

[yuriythebest]

ppl please don't confuse the (lack of) converison done by 3dmovieguy on the trailer with the actual conversion that the movie will undergo or already underwent. While I'm against conversions and regard them as pointless when you can just make new true 3d content I'm sure it will be much better than, well, the total lack of 3d in that trailer.

You've got a clear point. I wish that 3d-movies shoulöd be stamped either "real-3d" or "2d-3d-conversion".

I'm sure the studios don't wish that

[android78]

Converted 3d or "real" 3d Harry Potter should make no real difference, as most action scenes are cgi. Or do anyone think, Radclife can fly?
So only the actors are real - but to 3Dalise them, there a good and proven methods (texturing on 3d-cgi). This seem to be one of the main reasons not to make "real" 3d filming. Its very complicated to do 3d blueboxing - the background (cgi) will be composed into the picture and has to fit in exactly. Its easy to change distance and position of actors in the cgi background. But if the Scene is 3d, then you have to fit the parallaxe and the stereobasis also if you want to let the actors fly for example. It has to fit exactly or the 3d effect will be bad. So maybe corrections in the real film part will be needed anyway.
I think, there will not be any scene without cgi. The whole film will be composed in computer. And if they do so, the whole scene will be created 3d - in the computer. The actors are 3d models in the scene - later the real filmed persons will be cut in. So there is no big deal, instead of coping them, to project them on 3d avatars. Of course many handworking - but thats necasarry for 2d production also.

There are 3 diferent kinds of 3d-movies I think:
1. Native 3d filmed
2. 3d-CGI with some real but 2d-2-3d-converted elements
3. 2d-Productions converted afterwarts

A priory it seems far-stretched to say "conversion is bad". The question is not wether HP is coverted or "real". The question is, how it is converted?

(Sorry for my bad english, I´m native German and english was an F-grade in school)

See my review of the 15 min intro to the last harry potter:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3899" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Despite what other say, I felt it was a terrible conversion and added virtually nothing. Had I known, I would have just watched the normal 2D version. Unless they have somehow managed to up the quality 1000%, I'll save the extra $$$ and see it in 2D. I'm not going to reward the studios for making gimmicky 3D conversion, they have to work to get my premium money on top of already ridiculous ticket prices!

[fildubek]

I think the question is are they going to the render the cgi in 3d creating to views or are they going simply to convert the cgi scenes in 3d like they did in clash of titans. If going to render it in 3d might look good but if going to convert it will propably be terrible like the clash of titans.

[skrubol]

I don't see any reason a great 2d to 3d conversion can't be done. However there is a huge reason that it won't be done.. Cost/labor. The tools are out there now (Photoshop will probably do it, but probably not the most efficient way.) 3d conversion could be done similarly to how colorizing was done. Have artists sit with a graphics tablet and paint a 3d offset layer in frame by frame. Very tedious to do 150,000 frames or so, but a few $Mil would be able to do it I'd think.

[Jadentheman]

Let's post this link again

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/ ... er-to-3-d/

[Recostar]

Let's post this link again

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/ ... er-to-3-d/

Wow , To see how much work they put into making this movie 3D is incredible !! I really hope it turns out. I hate to admit it but yes, I am a fan of Harry potter and really want to see it in 3D, but only if its done right.








TOD July,14,2010 5:36PM R.I.P ---->

[Likay]

I have nothing against conversions and the developement on this. Someday it might eventually be possible viewing 2d-movies in satisfying 3d but the results today is way off.
However i'm very much against those halfassed releases which they dare call 3d when it's not close to. The borderline (and a generous one too) for me is simply when a conversion looks better than it's 2d-version. I don't mind some artifacts here and there but overall 2d-3d conversions must to be a lot better than the up to date released ones to be enjoyable. It's a pity for those who put years of manhours into a conversion and the result turns out to be crap though.

[Jadentheman]

Oh and even if the 3D on part 1 sucks then they can redeem themselves with part 2 because they have a whole year to convert that movie.

BTW I heard that the director for this film didn't shoot in 3D because he thought it was too troublesome