Real 3D vs. Conversion 3D

I saw Thor last night until early this morning (I'm just going to say it wasn't the smartest idea to see it right before midnight) in 3D. The movie itself wasn't bad. It was a great character study between Thor, his brother Loki, and their father Odin. A lot of the characters felt rather pointless and unnecessary, but the core story shined through quite strongly. The 3D wasn't bad either. It was nothing special, but it helped accentuate some of the vast locations. However, I felt that it could have looked better. There is a reason for this: the film was converted into 3D from a 2D film source. The process isn't complicated, but it is quite tedious and takes several months to get a strong image. This makes me wonder why the producers behind this didn't just use a 3D camera to begin with?

The fact of the matter is, real 3D has a stronger sense of depth to it, due to the fact that it captures images similar to the way we as people view something. It capture the image at two different angles with the ability to adjust the main plane or object of focus in the image. It is, in a sense, a complete image. With 3D conversion however, a duplicate of the image is made and warped to mimic the angular difference that would be perceived from the different eyes. There are several problems with this. First off, it doesn't look like true 3D. With real 3D recording, there isn't just depth of the plane, but there is obviously more depth with the object. With converted 3D, unless done properly, the objects are described as looking like cardboard layered on top of each other. While there is depth in plane, the objects appear rather flat. Another problem is that because of the image warping, it can result in what is basically a "squashed" image. In essence, it isn't as wide as compared to real 3D.

This makes one ask why would one prefer to use converted 3D versus the real 3D? One key reason is due to the size of the camera. The Fusion/ Pace camera system, co-developed by James Cameron and Vincent Pace, can capture a true 3D image, due to it's use of horizontal mirrors to capture an image, is considered to be a massive piece of equipment. Basically, one can only carry it at around 20 minutes at a time, due to it's size and weight. Another problem is that, because of his size, it's hard to get complex shots where one has to move around comfortably. This would be the main basis for conversion; it allows one to get more complex shots with ease. The other reason is that the cost of the equipment is rather high, costing tens of thousands. With conversion, despite it's long time, still cost less in comparison.

The idea of converted 3D vs real 3D is under hot debate. Although when used properly, converted 3D looks quite decent (specifically, Piranha 3D and Alice in Wonderland), but it still lacks the overall punch real 3D has. The quality of converted 3D is generally weaker and less pronounced, and sometimes non-existent given the situation (such as Clash of the Titans, which at some points had no 3D image whatsoever). Still, one can argue that, because the technique is relatively new, it'll evolve over time. Some looked quite decent, and upcoming movies also look promising(such as Captain America).One can assume that at some point we wouldn't need the 3D cameras at some point when it's perfected.