Is it Real or Fake 3D?

[Fredz]

"You are not sure if a 3D movie was shot in 3D or if it was converted from 2D? There is a new website with the info for some 100 movies up to now. Many film studios are trying to cash in on moviegoers' craving for 3D films. However, many studios are "faking it" by converting 2D films into 3D post-production. Worse, the studios are not being upfront in their advertising. Check Realorfake3D here."

Source : Stereoscopy News

There is information about a conversion process for "Meet the Robinsons" that I didn't know about in this page. They rendered the view for the second camera from the untextured 3D models and the intitial 2D rendering. It looks quite interesting if you don't have the horsepower to completely re-render a movie.

[cybereality]

Cool that someone is putting this out there. I can't stand the "fake 3d".

[WheatstoneHolmes]

Great find thanks!

One note however, it is reported that Disney's Beauty and the Beast is looking really great for a converted movie and I can well believe it, originally it was supposed to be released earlier this year and now it has been pushed up to 2011!

Sounds like they are working hard to make it perfect!

[android78]

It says that the Hubble 3D is fake. According to the official website, they sent up imax cameras. I really hope the list is a mistake.

[crim3]

It says that the Hubble 3D is fake. According to the official website, they sent up imax cameras. I really hope the list is a mistake.

If you like the effect then it doesn't matter much the truth.

[Fredz]

It says that the Hubble 3D is fake. According to the official website, they sent up imax cameras. I really hope the list is a mistake.

From http://3dcinecast.blogspot.com/2010/03/ ... rsion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :
"For its own films, such as the upcoming Hubble 3D documentary, one-third of which was converted, Imax will continue using its own process. That said, Gelfond sees more films being shot in 3D in the future as more 3D cameras - including a new digital product from Imax - become available."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :
"The IMAX 3D camera contained a mile of film, though this allowed for only 8 minutes 30 seconds of footage to be recorded."

So there is 18 to 21% of real 3D footage depending on the version (40 or 45 min). To me this does qualify as a conversion and makes Robert Gelfond, chief executive of Imax, a liar...

[Likay]

A 3d-camera in space is completely useless unless a ridiculous high separationbase is used (~1/200's of the total length to the object would give good images... ). If the object is somewhat static and not too far away the natural distance a satellite travel in a given time can be used to provide a separationbase. Like a cosmic "cha-cha" technique.
If the object rotates there are oppurtunities to shoot in 3d from a single point if the object itself do not alter shape.

About fake/real stereo my personal opinion is that nowaday conversions should never had been released. However: If a day come when a 3d-conversion is more preferable to watch than it's 2d-version i'm willing to accept it. As is today the developement is far from being satisfying though. It's a great effort of the author of the site but the biggest problem is making people aware of conversions and their caveats.

[yuriythebest]

wow it's awesome that someone is doing this! very useful and simple site and I applaud the author!

[android78]

A 3d-camera in space is completely useless unless a ridiculous high separationbase is used (~1/200's of the total length to the object would give good images... ). If the object is somewhat static and not too far away the natural distance a satellite travel in a given time can be used to provide a separationbase. Like a cosmic "cha-cha" technique.
If the object rotates there are oppurtunities to shoot in 3d from a single point if the object itself do not alter shape.

After seeing the short (45 second or so) preview for this in imax, I TOTALLY disagree. It is quiet amazing to see the telescope, astronauts and everything floating in the room in front of you with the earth thousands of miles in the distance. This is not something that an every day person can experience themselves and for that very short time it felt very real - to me and the other people I was with anyway. That's why I was surprised when I saw it as fake on the website. I guess that there will be a combination of real and fake 3d but, at least some of the space footage (8 min or so) is real.

So there is 18 to 21% of real 3D footage depending on the version (40 or 45 min). To me this does qualify as a conversion and makes Robert Gelfond, chief executive of Imax, a liar...

Reading between the lines, the 8 min is footage taken in space with the imax cameras. There will likely be 40-50% that was actually captured on earth with the imax cameras so, 40+20% = 60%, or roughly two thirds of real imax camera captured footage. I'll wait and see before I complain. Either way, it's likely to be the closest that I'll get to going into space for a long time.

[Likay]

I haven't seen the imax movie but i pointed out that very high separationbases are needed to get a stereoimage regarding the distances of space. The space itself is of course not relevant.
Since you mention astronauts and telescopes these objects could very well have been captured with a stereocamera and give a great result of depth and 3d. I'm talking about far away objects like galaxies and nebulas etc. For those it wouldn't be enough even using a "satellite cha-cha" method.

Either way, it's likely to be the closest that I'll get to going into space for a long time.

Dito, there are spacetrips but unfortunately i lack the money to play around with.

[Fredz]

Reading between the lines, the 8 min is footage taken in space with the imax cameras. There will likely be 40-50% that was actually captured on earth with the imax cameras so, 40+20% = 60%, or roughly two thirds of real imax camera captured footage. I'll wait and see before I complain. Either way, it's likely to be the closest that I'll get to going into space for a long time.

Sure, but that's still only 8"30 footage of 3D images in space, for a movie called Hubble 3D this does sound very much like false advertising. I'm not sure I'm willing to pay for a 3D movie in space where most of the 3D scenes have been filmed on Earth and the rest being 2D. Or worse, converted from 2D to 3D...

[yuriythebest]

made a video about this issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHaUm4lguro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;