It's official: STAR WARS 3D Theatrical Re-Releases Coming
- Thread starter IrishJedi
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
thenammagazine
Super Freak
I don't think I've "caught" on to anything. I just think it's funny for someone to despise something so much, only to turn around and be right there on opening weekend, Goobers and Soda gearing to go.
EDIT: This has me wondering. One of the main reasons Avatar raked in so much is because they included glasses rentals into the ticket sales. Wondering if they'll do the same for Star Wars and just how much that'll bump up each film on the Gross list.
I don't think I've "caught" on to anything. I just think it's funny for someone to despise something so much, only to turn around and be right there on opening weekend, Goobers and Soda gearing to go.
I don't despise TPM or the PT with every fiber of my being. Ultimately, they were hugely disappointing to me (and remain so), but I can still appreciate some aspects of each of them. Don't confuse me with one of those black & white people who are either in the "Lucas Can Do No Wrong" camp or "Lucas Raped My Childhood" camp. I'm in neither. Some people can have depth and layers to their opinions on things.Also... I hate Goobers. Milk Duds for me!
Also, I suppose from a technical standpoint it does make sense to start with the prequels. For one, they're obviously all digital in nature already (though TPM was actually shot on Kodak film stock), which makes it a little easier to convert to the stereo-scopic elements. And the ILM guys who are working on the 3D conversion (like Knoll) were there every step of the way during the PT production. So I guess this is a good way for them to learn the process (and come up with new techniques) before they tackle the OT, which should prove much more difficult to convert properly.
Though, incidentally, it was actually a sequence from ANH that was converted to 3D that Lucas & Cameron presented to ShoWest a few years back to get theater owners to invest in 3D screens.
Though, incidentally, it was actually a sequence from ANH that was converted to 3D that Lucas & Cameron presented to ShoWest a few years back to get theater owners to invest in 3D screens.
They should be the easiest to deal with in the 3D the PT I mean. Like you and Tom said it gives them time to work with the older material. I'm kind of eager to see this. SW is a fun series (which many people take TOO seriously) so seeing it in 3D will give us and future gens to think/enjoy (hopefully).
agen_kolar
Super Freak
I remember from somewhere several years ago that they started 3D conversion on ANH first, and already had 20 minutes completed. So, I actually think they may have completed the OT first, Or, at the very least, ANH.
risingstar
Super Freak
I'm not surprised the PT is coming first as it ties directly into the CW series many kids will have grown up by the time they're re-released. It would be nice if they completely redid (since you know they're going to change things anyway) all the fully digital battles in the PT (Naboo, Geonosis, Opening Space Battle of ROTS) with 3D CGI from the ground up. Then those scenes at least could be just as immersive as what we're getting accustomed to with Avatar and the newer Pixar films.
I'm not interested in 3D as a home theater experience. But I don't them once in a while. I thought about the asteroid scene from ESB and got chills.
galactiboy
OT Preferist
I tried one of the 3D sets at Best Buy... was pretty lame. Picture quality was lower and the 3D was meh. Not to mention having to wear stupid looking glasses.
Really have no interest in owning one... I hope its a short lived fad.
Really have no interest in owning one... I hope its a short lived fad.
thenammagazine
Super Freak
It gets even better because the TVs come with one pair. So if you have family and friends, they either get to enjoy the blur or you're forking out $100 per pair.
galactiboy
OT Preferist
Same here... there are a few exceptions were 3D really adds to a movie. Honestly SW does not need 3D, but I guess if it gets it back in the theater its okay. Honestly I'd prefer they just release them as-is
It gets even better because the TVs come with one pair. So if you have family and friends, they either get to enjoy the blur or you're forking out $100 per pair.
No doubt, its a pricey gimmick... and just doesn't seem to add up.
I still don't get why you need a special TV to get 3D to work? Seems like if the image had the blur it would work... admittedly I have done no research into how this works so my thoughts are highly suspect
The way 3D works is that there's two images, one for each eye (just like in real life). The differences is how they make sure that the image that is meant for each eye is only visible by that eye.
Movie theaters use a polarizing technique where they light from the projectors have a polarizing filter on them and then the lenses of the glasses are a polarizing filter that separates them out. Those glasses are cheap.
Then there's what most 3D TV's have, which is active shutter technology--the TV switches between the two images very quickly, and the glasses are electronically synced with the TV, the glasses block one eye and switch so that when the left image is on screen, the right eye is blocked and when the right image is on screen the left eye is blocked. The reason for the 3D TV is that they have to have a high refresh rate, if the TV isn't fast enough then you end up seeing stuttering, or ghosting, also the TV has to have the hardware that wirelessly links to the shutter glasses.
Anyways, that's a short explanation of everything.
For this, I'm wondering if they'll go back to the computer files for the visual effects to recreate the 3D image. With a 3D conversion for most shots you can simply cut out elements in the shot and layer them based on where their distances should be, but in other cases a single object has parts that are close and far away from the camera (like something poking out at you) and that requires 3D recreations to create a proper 3D effect. So for the stuff that's computer generated they already have the data to make it 3D, hopefully they do that. I think that's what they did with the 3D versions of Toy Story 1 & 2
Movie theaters use a polarizing technique where they light from the projectors have a polarizing filter on them and then the lenses of the glasses are a polarizing filter that separates them out. Those glasses are cheap.
Then there's what most 3D TV's have, which is active shutter technology--the TV switches between the two images very quickly, and the glasses are electronically synced with the TV, the glasses block one eye and switch so that when the left image is on screen, the right eye is blocked and when the right image is on screen the left eye is blocked. The reason for the 3D TV is that they have to have a high refresh rate, if the TV isn't fast enough then you end up seeing stuttering, or ghosting, also the TV has to have the hardware that wirelessly links to the shutter glasses.
Anyways, that's a short explanation of everything.
For this, I'm wondering if they'll go back to the computer files for the visual effects to recreate the 3D image. With a 3D conversion for most shots you can simply cut out elements in the shot and layer them based on where their distances should be, but in other cases a single object has parts that are close and far away from the camera (like something poking out at you) and that requires 3D recreations to create a proper 3D effect. So for the stuff that's computer generated they already have the data to make it 3D, hopefully they do that. I think that's what they did with the 3D versions of Toy Story 1 & 2
It gets even better because the TVs come with one pair. So if you have family and friends, they either get to enjoy the blur or you're forking out $100 per pair.
As opposed to just keeping the glasses you get at the theater for two extra bucks?
The ones at the theater don't work on 3D TV's--completely different technology.
Similar threads
