"To enable the 3D programme to retain the highest quality throughout, a minimum of 90% must be native 3D footage," Sky states. "Where non-HD footage is utilised, it should sit within the editorial context of the programme. The 2D originated footage must be HD, be of segments not exceeding one minute, converted in a suitable manner to fit the 3D content and be of shots where there is minimal benefit from a true dual camera 3D acquisition."
Does this mean that the recent Alice in Wonderland adaptation by Tim Burton will never screen on SKY due to the fact that they film was filmed in 2D and post-processed for 3D? Who knows. I made the choice not to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D due to this fact - yes I am interested to see the difference between Alice 3D and Avatar 3D; one film being filmed specifically for 3D and the other processed after the thought. But for me I want to experience a film in the cinema the way that I feel it was meant to be viewed, with Avatar it was 3D at IMAX, Alice is 2D. Not being shot with stereoscopic camera's I feel that there may have been too much relying on the fact that they could figure out how it would look in 3D later on. Admittedly this is difficult to judge without having seen it in 3D, but the only parts of the film that I felt would benefit from 3D would have been those in the forest's of Wonderland.
I am hoping that 3D does not become a gimmick, which at the moment it is feeling like it is rapidly falling into this category. I can respect those filmmaker's who after seeing the success of Avatar decide that they do indeed want their film presented in 3D and make the effort to reshoot some of the film so that it will be as authentic 3D as is possible in the timeline (Clash of the Titans).
But to film in 2D with the intention of presenting in 3D from the beginning, but not wanting to handle the large camera's feels like a pretty weak excuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment