Dr. NO 3-D conversion tested in Taiwan

Richard--W

A 3-D conversion of DR. NO has been completed by EON:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/02/17/looks-like-james-bond-is-finally-going-3d-this-year-and-dr-no-imax-re-release-planned/

with an Imax release planned followed by a blu-ray.

The 3-D blu-ray is already being sold in Taiwan:

http://dvd.jsdvd.com/product_info.php?products_id=30699

boundlessrogue

"Film in the history of the first 007 film!" Got to love that broken English.

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this trend of re-releasing movies in 3-D. Are you for it or against it? I think it's the modern day equivalent of when they started colorizing old black and white films. Which was kind of controversial at the time.

Introducing it to a new age? Or messing with a classic?

Moore Than

There is another topic related to this which can be found at the link below.

Dr. No IMAX 3D?
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/40676/dr-no-imax-3d/

Napoleon Plural

Bet they still can't make that dragon tank look scary... )

Charmed & Dangerous

Yeah but I bet a Ursula coming out of the ocean in 3D (or 33 DD) looks sensational :x

TonyDP

Is this an EON sanctioned product or an unlicensed quick and dirty cash grab? I recall Wilson and Broccoli being very cool to 3D photography and not really displaying any understanding or appreciation of the medium at all.

While Dr. No wouldn't be my first choice as an experiment in post-converting a Bond movie it does have a couple of advantages in that the cinematography is fairly static without any significant panning shots and much of the film occurs in fairly bright areas devoid of fog, smoke and other effects that would flatten out the image.

Personally, if you're going to do a 3D conversion of a Bond movie, Moonraker would seem a more obvious choice to me as the imagery would lend itself to a 3D presentation, especially the commando raid in outer space. Skyfall would be another interesting choice since the movie was shot digitally and much of the presentation already has a strong sense of stereoscopy in terms of the placement of objects in the foreground and background as well as characters often moving forward towards the camera.

The technology for 3D post-conversions has improved dramatically. James Cameron's work on Titanic's 3D conversion was first rate and most reviewers commented on how natural and convincing the 3D looked. Of course, Cameron also spent a ton of money on the conversion. 20th Century Fox partnered with JVC to come up with a less expensive 3D post-conversion system which automates much of the process. Their first release with this system was a post-conversion of the Will Smith action vehicle I Robot and the results, while mixed, did manage to yield quite a few nice 3D moments that exhibited good depth and even limited pop out of the screen.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a few of the Bond films converted to 3D as long as they are planned properly and the money is spent to get it done right.

Silhouette Man

boundlessrogue wrote:

"Film in the history of the first 007 film!" Got to love that broken English.

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this trend of re-releasing movies in 3-D. Are you for it or against it? I think it's the modern day equivalent of when they started colorizing old black and white films. Which was kind of controversial at the time.

Introducing it to a new age? Or messing with a classic?

Well, with these sorts of things, there's always both camps of opinion. I'd be in the messing with a classic camp, though!

Napoleon Plural

I've got a real dumb question for TonyDP, our visual audio expert.

3D tellies - you you wear glasses so it's like watching it at the cinema? Or does the effect take hold within the TV, so to speak? Some TVs I've seen in shop windows, Bang & Olufsen for instance, seem to have this effect anyway, but my eyes could be playing tricks.

ChromeJob

I'm in the "putting teats on a boar" camp.

The old films are fine. 3D doesn't add anything but a technical distraction IMHO.

TonyDP

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I've got a real dumb question for TonyDP, our visual audio expert.

3D tellies - you you wear glasses so it's like watching it at the cinema? Or does the effect take hold within the TV, so to speak? Some TVs I've seen in shop windows, Bang & Olufsen for instance, seem to have this effect anyway, but my eyes could be playing tricks.

Glasses-free 3DTVs are still very much in the experimental phase and not yet commercially available. What you saw was probably a TV running at a very high refresh rate - maybe 240hz - using a process called interpolation to create additional video frames. By projecting the image at a higher frame rate you get what is commonly referred to as the "soap opera" effect, which makes everything look like it was shot on video rather than film and the added, artificial smoothness can also yield a 3D like effect, especially for the first few minutes until your eyes adjust.

Current 3DTVs do require you to wear glasses to see the 3D effect. There are two kinds of 3D TVs: those with active shutter glasses where lenses for the left and right eyes quickly flicker on and off in synchronization with the images on the TV to produce a 3D effect; and passive 3DTVs, which use polarized glasses like the ones at the movies to essentially allow the TV to display a different image for each eye. Watching a movie on a 3DTV will give you the same effect as watching it at the movie theater. In other words, 3DTVs work both at showing depth into the screen as well as objects appearing to pop out of the screen (providing of course that such scenes are in the movie to begin with).

Napoleon Plural

Thanks TonyDP! Interesting - I wasn't sure what I was seeing. Personally I don't like those TVs which take a while to adjust to, it's great for amazing scenery but can be stressful for everyday telly that's not worth the candle. If it looks like it was shot on video, not film, I take it that's not really a rcommendation is it? ?:)

StraightUpWithATwist

Meh. It's like when they released Phantom Menace in 3D, I would probably go and see it just so I can see the film in an actual cinema regardless of the bells and whistles attached.

Higgins

I'd like to see it at first before doing a judgement.

I guess, that we had a similar discussion when the first digital transfers and HD transfers came out - pretty sure this is only the beginning of the technical development.