Jurassic Park 3-D

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
Looks like the original is getting the 3-D retrofit treatment. Yeah, 3D is a gimmick...blah blah blah...Might be one of the films it makes sense for though. Curious how some of the CGI will hold up. A lot of scenes in that film are perfection as far as CG goes and still haven't been equaled IMO. Others, look a little dated. Maybe they'll get a facelift, although it's probably best to leave well enough alone.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/uni...original-jurassic-park-in-3d-to-july-19-2013/
 
Saw it earlier today. A pretty great 3D conversion job. Dean Cundey used alot of shafts of light in this movie and they look pretty cool in 3D. As for the movie, it still holds up, in that I still think it's a movie with many great scenes, some bad scenes, and a weak climax. I've always found the 45 minute setup to be pretty interminable once you've already seen it. Seeing it in 3D this time at least kept me visually interested. Where the 3D really shines is in the centerpiece t-rex attack and the raptors in the kitchen. Being able to feel the spatial relationships ratchets up the suspense even more. Only bummer for me was that the sound in the theater wasn't the greatest. I think it was one of the first films I saw with a DTS soundtrack and I remember the t-rex shriek rattled me to the bone. Maybe my hearing is just going.
 
I"m a fan of 3d that comes out of the screen into the theater. 3d that goes into the screen making it like a theater stage doesn't add to the movie for me, and in fact I find it discomforting on my eyes and not worth wearing the glasses.
 
Just on general principle, this is like colorizing black and white. No, thanks. I plan to have my own Jurassic Park 20th anniversary commemoration in 2D bliss.
 
I'm typically never a fan of 3D, but my buddy drug me to this on Sunday, and I have to say, I really enjoyed the 3D on this film - wasn't too obnoxious or 'gimmicky'
 
Whaa? How do you make a 2D movie into a 3D movie? I dont get how they do that. Ive never seen one in 3D that was originally 2D before, so I dont know if it is as good as normal 3D movies or not. But i always feel skeptic about it
 
DDirector said:
Whaa? How do you make a 2D movie into a 3D movie? I dont get how they do that. Ive never seen one in 3D that was originally 2D before, so I dont know if it is as good as normal 3D movies or not. But i always feel skeptic about it
Click to expand...

From what I know, first they do a software pass that roughly analyzes the image and extracts 3d information from it. This usually gets things in the ballpark. Then it's a tedious process of roto and 3d modeling on a shot by shot basis. This gives them the information to render out a 3d image. There were some quick conversions done in the early days that were poor (Clash of the Titans), but they have gotten really good at it. With enough time, it's indistinguishable from stuff shot in 3d natively.
 
Batutta said:
With enough time, it's indistinguishable from stuff shot in 3d natively.
Click to expand...

I don't find that to be the case at all. With natively shot 3D, the dimensional effect can be seen everywhere. With post converted imagery, there's still quite a bit of flatness to the background.
 
Gary Huff said:
I don't find that to be the case at all. With natively shot 3D, the dimensional effect can be seen everywhere. With post converted imagery, there's still quite a bit of flatness to the background.
Click to expand...

If you say so. I can't tell the difference on the latest conversions. Maybe I'm stupid.
 
Thor was lousy. But I felt Titanic and Jurassic Park were very good, with none of that cardboard cut out feeling. Jurassic Park was one of the most pleasing 3D experiences I've had, I think a lot of that due to Spielberg's well composed, pre shaky-cam era shot selections and perfectly paced edits.
 
Apparently, they made some cuts to the 3D version of this, although I swear I saw the throat ripping in the theater. This was from the 3D blu-ray--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top