The final list of Oscar Nominations just came in. For visual effects there are 3 stereoscopic 3D movies (Hobbit, Life of Pi, Prometheus), one 2D-to-3D converted film (Avengers) and one Flatty (Snow White and the Huntsman). That’s 80% 3D or 60% S3D. For best movie, only Life of Pi made it into the list of final nominees (1 out of 10).
UPDATE 1: As some of you have pointed out on Twitter / Comments: All 5 of the Animation Feature Nominations are 3D Films.
UPDATE 2: Just realized that there are only 9 (not 10) Best Movie nominations this year. Does anyone know why?
Don’t forget Frankenweenie, up for best animated feature. A stunning conversion by Prime Focus
related post: http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2013/01/3d-imax-movies-get-few-oscar-noms/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
So if converted 3D movies are not “stereoscopic”, then what are they? A 3D movie that was not filmed with a stereoscopic camera is still stereoscopic, if it is converted into stereoscopic 3D. And if it’s done well (which sadly, often it isn’t), nobody could ever even tell a difference.
From a blog that specializes in 3D, I would have expected a little bit more correctness in the wording, but it seems that there is a bandwagon that equates “converted” with “not real 3D” and everyone has to jump on that bandwagon.
What does it even matter if a movie was filmed with 3D cameras if 50% of the content in the movie is computer-generated? The most 3D-interesting scenes in Avengers are the special effects, and they are just as “real 3D” as the special effects in “Life of Pi”, because both were “filmed” with the same camera: a CG rendering engine.
Hi Marc,
you make a good point. The better term is ‘native’ versus ‘converted’. It is also right to point out that a lot of CGI/Special Effects in native 3D films are first done in 2D and then converted into 3D in post. I also think that most of our readers here, do understand the difference, and I am quite sure that noone objects to high quality conversions, especially for re-releases of older films.
However I think it is important to make the distinction: which film was created in 3D and which was was not . One of the main purposes of this blog is to show filmmakers that nowadays it is becoming increasingly cheaper and easier to produce in native 3D.
Even though conversion software and techniques will become better and cheaper, I think there is no alternative to widespread adoption of native 3D production. Just like today color, HD, digital, … are the de-facto default for 99% of all content created.
Best, Torsten