Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows(part one) NOT to be in 3D

Thank God.

Warner Bros. has announced that they are not going to release part 1 of the Deathly Hallows in 3D because they could not finish the conversion in time and wanted to make their release date and maintain the quality of the films.

I hope this is at least a little bit of the beginning of the end of this stupid 3D trend.

Movies made with regular “2D” cameras should NOT be converted. However, it looks like they are still planning to release part 2 in both 2D and 3D.

Read about it here.

This means they can:

  1. take their time finishing the 3D conversion on part 1 so that they can…
  2. re-release part 1 in theaters in 3D shortly before they release part 2.
  3. Profit!

Or a killer “double showing”

All I can say is… GOOD!

Nothing can ever top The Greatest 3D Movie Ever Made


Can we drive a stake through 3D’s heart now?

Agreed. And that’s coming from some one who actually likes 3D movies.

While I’m fascinated with 3D images as a hobby it has been a visual failure on the big screen IMO. Director’s such as Cameron don’t have a clue about how to use it. I’m thoroughly pleased they aren’t mucking up this movie with it.

Really? He seemed to have a better grasp than anyone else. Cameron used it like a window looking out at the 3D, rather than floating in front of the screen, and it helped augment the planet of Pandora into being more real and believable.

How should it be done?

Obviously it should only be used for Porn. :stuck_out_tongue:

Good news. I’m really getting tired of everything I might want to see being 3D.

It’s best to start by looking at how we see in 3D and how it’s applied to photography. We see in 3D because we have 2 eyes and the brain interprets the difference in images as depth. Because of the distance between our eyes we are limited as to how far we can perceive depth. For arguments sake, lets say it’s 300 feet. Anything farther and we are essentially looking at a flat image.

A 3D photograph is, and I’m not sure I’ll explain this well, a single plane interpretation of the view from the perspective of the camera. We can move our head and gain a slighter sense of depth but essentially the image is locked to the view of the camera. In real life, when we move our heads we perceive everything in 3D even as our perspective changes.

This is crucial to understand when applying the concept to a moving picture. As movie patrons we are stuck with the perspective of the camera. The director should take into account the limitations of a 3D picture when applying it to motion.

Without going through the whole movie scene by scene I’ll pick out 2 that were under-utilized. The scene when they walk through the control center there were curved holographic monitors that made excellent focal points. Had they moved in an arc around them they would have stuck out as 3D objects because they were impressive special effects to begin with and they were close to the camera’s eye. Another scene that was lost to the viewer was the flying scenes. Had the perspective been from the person flying and not as a panoramic of the person the viewer would have been treated to close up views of objects passing by and not a far off view of the flight. Motion and proximity would enhance the feeling of 3D.

If you’re thinking to yourself that the effects could be enhanced by spacing out the lenses that is true except that our brains decode information based on how far apart our eyes are. If that is changed radically we will see 3D further away but the brain will interpret the objects in the image as being smaller. Something the size of a car will be perceived as a toy.