Post by Thomas Miller on Mar 16, 2016 18:19:18 GMT -8
By no means am I an expert in 3D technology. And of course, when calibrating my TV (or projector), I choose settings that are comfortable for me specifically.
That said, I have a nice one-year-old Sharp 3D 70-inch TV and an ordinary Sony 3D Blu-ray player. As you all know, these days such TVs claim to instantaneously convert 2D movies into 3D. The end results are usually problematic at best, as you'd expect. For example, none of the digital 2D Star Wars prequels come through the process adequately. They, as most 2D films that are so processed, still seem flat with the dimensions often "inside-out" There is one major exception, though. My copy of the all-region British 2D Blu-ray of ZULU, when converted inside the TV to 3D, is breath-taking. I never tire of immersing myself into that South African terrain of the early 60s. So much so that I include the disc in my 3D collection.
Has anyone any idea why this one disc is rendered so splendidly (relatively speaking, of course) against all odds? Is it Director of Photography Stephan Dade's awesome photographic vividness? Or, perhaps, the skill of the 3D conversion process was transcendent? Or maybe it is no more than happenstance?
That said, before making this post, I played the film again in 3D to be sure of my observations. Yes, in fact, the 2D-->3D conversion process is definitely wonderful, at least to my taste. (Naturally some of you may very well disagree with me.) But this time I noticed a couple of factors that may contribute to this successful (unprecedented?) conversion: (1) First of all, the film was photographed in Super Technirama 70, which required special film stock, special cameras, uncommonly strong lighting, and so forth, and (2) I couldn't help but see this time around (as I was paying special attention) that the COMPOSITION of nearly every shot includes foreground objects, and then "layers" of objects, each successively further from the camera, but not random. It's as if Director Cy Endfield and DP Dade set up each shot as though they were in fact filming a 3D movie. Shot after shot includes a solitary object in the foreground, like a wagon wheel, a tree stump, a rifle, a fence, or a person, behind which were layered phalanxes of soldiers or Zulus or uneven terrain such as hills and mountains. Also, most of the film was seemingly shot at standard ground height, which would accentuate the layered appearance. The only other Blu-ray I have of a film originally shot in Super Technirama 70 is Samuel Bronston/Nicholas Ray's 1961 King of Kings. I tried it out using the Sharp's 2D-->3D conversion process, and it wasn't nearly as successful. But I noticed three things, (1) much of the film is shot from aerial points of views with cameras on cranes or in closeup, and (2) most outdoor scenes, including crowd scenes, were pretty much an amorphous jumble, yet (3) when occasionally an object appeared in the foreground, instantly the sense of depth increased dramatically.
If anyone can add to these observations, offer more expert opinions, or share similar experiences, I'd be appreciative.
That said, I have a nice one-year-old Sharp 3D 70-inch TV and an ordinary Sony 3D Blu-ray player. As you all know, these days such TVs claim to instantaneously convert 2D movies into 3D. The end results are usually problematic at best, as you'd expect. For example, none of the digital 2D Star Wars prequels come through the process adequately. They, as most 2D films that are so processed, still seem flat with the dimensions often "inside-out" There is one major exception, though. My copy of the all-region British 2D Blu-ray of ZULU, when converted inside the TV to 3D, is breath-taking. I never tire of immersing myself into that South African terrain of the early 60s. So much so that I include the disc in my 3D collection.
Has anyone any idea why this one disc is rendered so splendidly (relatively speaking, of course) against all odds? Is it Director of Photography Stephan Dade's awesome photographic vividness? Or, perhaps, the skill of the 3D conversion process was transcendent? Or maybe it is no more than happenstance?
That said, before making this post, I played the film again in 3D to be sure of my observations. Yes, in fact, the 2D-->3D conversion process is definitely wonderful, at least to my taste. (Naturally some of you may very well disagree with me.) But this time I noticed a couple of factors that may contribute to this successful (unprecedented?) conversion: (1) First of all, the film was photographed in Super Technirama 70, which required special film stock, special cameras, uncommonly strong lighting, and so forth, and (2) I couldn't help but see this time around (as I was paying special attention) that the COMPOSITION of nearly every shot includes foreground objects, and then "layers" of objects, each successively further from the camera, but not random. It's as if Director Cy Endfield and DP Dade set up each shot as though they were in fact filming a 3D movie. Shot after shot includes a solitary object in the foreground, like a wagon wheel, a tree stump, a rifle, a fence, or a person, behind which were layered phalanxes of soldiers or Zulus or uneven terrain such as hills and mountains. Also, most of the film was seemingly shot at standard ground height, which would accentuate the layered appearance. The only other Blu-ray I have of a film originally shot in Super Technirama 70 is Samuel Bronston/Nicholas Ray's 1961 King of Kings. I tried it out using the Sharp's 2D-->3D conversion process, and it wasn't nearly as successful. But I noticed three things, (1) much of the film is shot from aerial points of views with cameras on cranes or in closeup, and (2) most outdoor scenes, including crowd scenes, were pretty much an amorphous jumble, yet (3) when occasionally an object appeared in the foreground, instantly the sense of depth increased dramatically.
If anyone can add to these observations, offer more expert opinions, or share similar experiences, I'd be appreciative.