›

Back to the future in 3d

yoman45135yoman45135
edited February 2012 in Back to the Future
Ok so bob gale wont let anyway convert back to the future into 3d which is a shame because I think it would of been epic but im sure some people would be angry anywhere heres a link to prove it: http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/25/back-to-the-future-bob-gale-interview/

would you guys like a 3d conversion?

Comments

  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited November 2011
    Nahhh. 3D is okay when a movie is shot in 3D, but post-conversion is a lame process. BTTF's special effects and action sequences are cool largely because they keep them somewhat simple and minimal, so the majority of the film wouldn't gain much from 3D, and even the sequences that would be cool in 3D are basically cool enough already.
  • Shadowknight1Shadowknight1
    edited November 2011
    LuigiHann wrote: »
    Nahhh. 3D is okay when a movie is shot in 3D, but post-conversion is a lame process. BTTF's special effects and action sequences are cool largely because they keep them somewhat simple and minimal, so the majority of the film wouldn't gain much from 3D, and even the sequences that would be cool in 3D are basically cool enough already.

    This
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited November 2011
    Thank you again, Bob Gale.

    I seriously never warmed up for 3D. It's pretty OK for some of the lesser inspired action movies I guess, but I just don't like what it does to cinematography. If something in 3D is in the foreground, people LOOK AT IT. No traditional picture composition technique gets in the way. And more and more directors work with that as their only trick up their sleeve, because it beats everything else hands down. Besides, I hate the glasses as they really don't fit over my own glasses well. I seriously hope it's just a fashion.

    Now I really hope I haven't offended anyone.
  • LogicDeLuxeLogicDeLuxe
    edited November 2011
    Converting to 3d is like converting to color. It never will take off as people usually like movies the way they were made in the first place.

    Much more appreciated would be a high quality transfer to HD. As you can see on some screenshots in various forums, there were TV transmissions without excessive edge enhancement and noise reduction, which put the Blu-Ray to shame. There is no cheap filter which can enhance the movies. Only a higher quality transfer can do this.
  • PatchmolchPatchmolch
    edited November 2011
    "Jaws" still looks fake...
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited November 2011
    LogicDeLuxe wrote: »
    Much more appreciated would be a high quality transfer to HD.

    I second that!
  • SpykesSpykes
    edited November 2011
    BttF wouldn't convert to 3d well. As others have brought out, port-conversion 3d is generally quite bad and doesn't add much to movies. On top of that, BttF just doesn't seem like it would work with the 3d format. There aren't many parts of it where things are coming toward the screen or any scenes that involve large depth.
  • bobber56bobber56
    edited November 2011
    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • FaceslasherFaceslasher
    edited November 2011
    WHERE IS THE PERFECT SHOT FOR THIS TO BE IN 3D!

    Why the HELL do we need to mess with films that should be LEFT ALONE!
  • BlankCanvasDJBlankCanvasDJ
    edited November 2011
    Honestly? If it meant putting Back to the Future on the big screen again, I wouldn't really mind it. We've all got the original versions at home, they're not going anywhere, they're not changing. A 3D version wouldn't be my preferred version but it'd still be fun. Hell, I'd go see it just for the novelty of seeing Back to the Future in a movie theater again.
  • TornreaperTornreaper
    edited November 2011
    BlankCanvasDJ wrote: »
    Honestly? If it meant putting Back to the Future on the big screen again, I wouldn't really mind it. We've all got the original versions at home, they're not going anywhere, they're not changing. A 3D version wouldn't be my preferred version but it'd still be fun. Hell, I'd go see it just for the novelty of seeing Back to the Future in a movie theater again.

    I hate how movies are only in theaters for the first month or two. They do reruns on TV so why don't they do it with theaters. You can't really say you get a better experience with a movie at home than the theater.
  • OzGirl1985OzGirl1985
    edited February 2012
    Even though I don't like #3 as much - Back To The Future is, by and far, my absolute FAVORITE trilogy. I would LOVE to see it in 3D!
  • deleted_kyxc7lde962932deleted_kyxc7lde962932
    edited February 2012
    No. Screw that.
  • yoman45135yoman45135
    edited February 2012
    I dont mind the idea of 3d besides the scene where doc tests the Delorean and its back left wheel flys towards the camera would be epic in 3d.
  • TornreaperTornreaper
    edited February 2012
    Bad idea. You want to know why. Unless the film was originally shot with a 3D camera (Which didn't even exist back then) the quality would drop massively. This happens when 2D content is converter to 3D. My guess is that it's because it requires a shit ton of encoding (I hear that lowers the quality from the original video). In order for these 3D films to work properly then need to completely reshoot the movie with new 3D technology. I read that a 1080p video game that was converted to 3D dropped to 720p. Another 720p game was playing at 480p on a 3D display screen with 3D enabled.

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong however.
  • gamer247gamer247
    edited February 2012
    Tornreaper wrote: »
    Bad idea. You want to know why. Unless the film was originally shot with a 3D camera (Which didn't even exist back then) the quality would drop massively. This happens when 2D content is converter to 3D. My guess is that it's because it requires a shit ton of encoding (I hear that lowers the quality from the original video). In order for these 3D films to work properly then need to completely reshoot the movie with new 3D technology. I read that a 1080p video game that was converted to 3D dropped to 720p. Another 720p game was playing at 480p on a 3D display screen with 3D enabled.

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong however.
    Not if you're playing the game on a pc.
  • TornreaperTornreaper
    edited February 2012
    gamer247 wrote: »
    Not if you're playing the game on a pc.

    How does that change anything? If it's not redone for 3D the 3D display screen will need to do a 3D conversion and 3D requires encoding. I don't see how PC games will make a difference.
  • yoman45135yoman45135
    edited February 2012
    Tornreaper wrote: »
    Bad idea. You want to know why. Unless the film was originally shot with a 3D camera (Which didn't even exist back then) the quality would drop massively. This happens when 2D content is converter to 3D. My guess is that it's because it requires a shit ton of encoding (I hear that lowers the quality from the original video). In order for these 3D films to work properly then need to completely reshoot the movie with new 3D technology. I read that a 1080p video game that was converted to 3D dropped to 720p. Another 720p game was playing at 480p on a 3D display screen with 3D enabled.

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong however.

    Well I have seen the lion king in 3d I did notice any drop in quality :confused:
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited February 2012
    Video games and films are going to have to be completely separate discussions when it comes to 3D conversion... Video games are rendered in real time, so the drop in resolution is do deal with the amount of processing power that it takes to render each frame twice. It's also worth noting that because games are rendered in real-time 3D, there's no real "conversion" to speak of, aside from design changes to accommodate the 3D effect.

    If an individual or a small studio were doing 3D conversion of an existing 2D film, then I can see how reencoding the video could cause a drop in quality, but I would think that a big film studio would be able to use higher resolution source images and they'd have powerful enough computer banks that the quality drop from reencoding wouldn't be obvious. The real issue is that with a film shot in 2D, there's only one image for each frame, so the second image in the stereo pair has to be approximated by a computer filling in information that wasn't in the original frame, which is bound to look like crap more often than not. I assume it's got to take a ton of hand tweaking to fill in that missing information... it boggles my mind that they're able to get them to look even as decent as they currently do.

    To say nothing of the fact that they weren't shot with 3D in mind
Sign in to comment in this discussion.