How does an older movie get turned into a 3D movie?

I wondered the same thing when I saw Titanic in 3D. I’m not a huge fan of 3D and I don’t think it looks as cool as people say, but paying $10 to see an old movie in 3D was a huge waste. I thought the effects sucked; most of it didn’t even look 3D. It looked like they took the original and somehow “layered” half-asses 3D effects on top of it. I wasn’t impressed and, needless to say, I won’t be seeing Jurassic Park in 3D either.

Any who, I googled the question and found the answer.

I really wondered that about Jurassic Park too. Hope Pachyderm_in_the_Room or Filmfann know.

It’s not that hard. There are programs you can download to convert your own pictures/videos into 3D

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/124965-titanic-how-do-you-convert-a-movie-to-3d-anyway

I agree with @livelaughlove21 I’m totally not buying into the whole 3D trend. I feel like it will be good in the future but the technology just isn’t there yet. Even the glasses that are better than the old blue/red ones still have a grey tint and unsaturated all the colors in whatever film you’re watching. I’m also not sure if its me or how the glasses currently work but after about 45min of watching 3D stuff I start getting a killer headache.

Badly.

It seems to me that the greater the special effects – including 3D – the weaker the story is.

@uberbatman It’s not that hard. There are programs you can download…[article]
Thanks for a great link (& @syz for GQ) – this is the kind of stuff I find fascinating.

“Not that hard”? I dunno. As I read the article, It’s done frame by frame, 24 per second for the entire movie, creating a depth map for every pixel of some 300,000 frames. Recent movies are easier to do because they have access to details of set layouts, production stills, etc. Nevertheless,

”...While this means they don’t have to guess or estimate depth, humans still need to painstakingly assist the software in adding depth information to hundreds of thousands of frames. This is no doubt where many of the 450 people who worked on the Titanic 3D conversion for over a year spent their time.”

Also ”...software is excellent at tracking objects through a scene once they’re defined, but human help is required to ensure each one is accurately positioned when it first appears. Cameron [called] the process ‘mind-numbing, like mowing your lawn with a toenail clipper.’”

Then, finally, the ”...technical process of creating a stereoscopic image of each frame can begin. Filmmakers use expensive special-purpose tools, but for everyday use the process is as simple as using the Displace filter in Photoshop or the ‘Convert to 3D’ script in the G’MIC plug-in for GIMP.”

Problem is, when you displace an object sideways to create parallax, ”...objects which aren’t in the original scene suddenly appear, and others have additional surfaces revealed. They need to be filled in or estimated somehow during the conversion.” To make matters worse, “Even allowing for multiple layers in the scene doesn’t guarantee that the resulting image will appear natural. Part of why Cameron had to look at every frame more than once is the subjective way we all perceive reality and decide for ourselves what looks real.”

Given my general view of 3D movies as gimmicky, this conversion seems to be a solution in search of a problem. In the end I suppose the marketplace will decide if it’s worth such a labor-intensive effort. The Turner colorization of black&white classics a generation ago was also wasted effort, in many people’s view.
—-
@syz Filming in 3D means two cameras recording separate images for each eye, so none of the above steps are necessary.

@janbb, I figured it was done with computer software, but I had to Google it myself for an, er, IN-DEPTH EXPLANATION. Thanks for a great question, @syz.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room Glad you discovered all of its dimensions.

Besides the remakes, I have seen the new 3D movies, and they are terrible! There just isn’t enough dimension to hardly even notice. The old 3D movies really popped out there, but the technology they are using on the new ones is lame. I didn’t even bother to see Oz in 3D for that reason. And the glasses are uncomfortable.

@Skaggfacemutt Oz was terrible enough in 2D.

The only 3D film in which the 3D effect was not noticable and yet contributed to my immersion into the story was when I saw Avatar at an IMAX theater.

It’s easy, @janbb, once I get focused.

I’m not a big fan of 3D. Sure, it’s fun to look at when done well (I liked its use in “Avatar”), but it’s too gimmacky for me. I prefer good dialogue, well-developed characters and a good plot over CGI and 3D. Too often, the technology detracts from all that.

IF it’s shot in 3D and well produced it can be very good. (e.g. Cave of Dreams)
But the additional information needed to do that well simply won’t be around for older films, it was not shot with that in mind.
I find the synthesized renderings of 3D from old stock to be distractingly phony.

Ive noticed for me to enjoy a 3d movie these requirements must he met:

(1) must be in a IMAX or similar mega-large screen theater.
(2) movie must be filmed in 3d with 3d cameras.

I’m told that 3D movies are made in either of two formats: “Active” (better) and “passive” (....meh). A Best Buy sales guy said the simplest way to explain the difference is that with active, the 3D “comes out” of the screen, and with passive, it “goes in”.

I think this is why some movies released new in 3D have some “oh wow” moments while with others the 3D effect barely registers with the viewer, leading to the assumption that “passive” 3D movies are cheaper to produce (although…of course…all of us are still charged full 3D freight for the tickets).

Only my guess, but maybe these older movies re-released in 3D are done in the “passive” format, and therefore never very impressive….
.