
Real 3D or Fake 3D - fortran77
https://realorfake3d.com/
======
classichasclass
And yet the 3D upconversion of Terminator 2 was incredibly well done. Like
anything else, the quality is based on the effort and money you put into it.
(Compare with the 3D Jurassic Park, which varies from adequate to terrible.)

That said, the best native 3D movie I've ever seen is Dredd. The few
upconverted scenes stick out like sore thumbs because they're so planar.

~~~
knolan
Dredd, while an excellent movie in general, really was a very good example of
3D cinema. I attribute it to the way the slo-mo effect reset the 3D perception
in my mind.

I remember going to see one of the Abrams Star Trek movies in 3D and at the
start on some technicolour planet someone throws a spear at the screen and I’d
say most of the audience tried to physically dodge it. Thereafter I forgot
about the 3D effect and my brain adjusted.

In Dredd, every time there is a scene where someone inhales the slow-mo drug
the brightness of the scene increases dramatically. It restarted that part of
the brain that made me want to dodge that spear.

~~~
classichasclass
Yes, the Slo-Mo effects were mesmerizing. In 2D they were pretty (despite
depicting sometimes extraordinarily violent scenes, though I think this was a
deliberate commentary by the filmmakers). But in 3D they had the uncommon
quality of being hyperreal and hyperunreal at the same time, some weird appeal
to your addled occiptal lobe - case in point where Dredd flings Ma-Ma out a
window and the shards of glass twinkle like a gentle rain of thousands of
diamonds. If someone watched those scenes purely in 2D they missed that
experience entirely.

------
chrisseaton
> If you only have one eye's worth of content, you can't just make up the
> content for the second eye

Has this person heard of computer graphics?

Most of these movies contain a huge amount of imagery that is 'made up' in
various ways, even before you start thinking about the 3D.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Yes, but I assume the “fake 3D” films don't do their CG effects in
stereoscopy.

~~~
chrisseaton
But I mean you can 'make up' new content. That's literally what they do for
'fake 3d'! They 'make up' new background content for areas uncovered by the
shift needed to create the parallax, using either machine estimation or manual
drawing. How else did people think this worked?

~~~
gowld
You need a depth map to compute parallax.

~~~
chrisseaton
Yes they make one using simple models that roughly fit the geometry on screen.
Then transform for parallax. That may reveal hidden areas so they fill them in
either using an algorithm from surrounding areas and recent frames or
manually.

------
lonelappde
2 movies last year. Is the website dead or is the 3D fad dead?

~~~
vernie
It's certainly waining but I had the misfortune of seeing Gemini Man in 3D so
they're still doing stereo releases.

~~~
muststopmyths
I don't get the hate for that movie. It was a perfectly adequate action movie
and I loved the HFR (60fps, unfortunately missed out on the 120) 3D. The CGI
face at the end was horrendous though.

~~~
djmips
The misfortune might be at seeing it in 3D.

------
swsieber
We'll, I guess I'm easy to please because I loved Dr. Strange in 3D even
though it's on the fake page.

~~~
classichasclass
I think the Marvel movies do okay upconverted because some consideration is
given during 2D filming to how the upconversion can be facilitated. The trippy
3D in Doctor Strange, though, is one of my favourites as well.

------
GJR
Even 'Real 3D' is a misnomer. I work in the industry and we call it 'stereo'
for a reason: it generates a feeling of depth but your eyes never have to
converge so, via either route, your brain always knows that it isn't reality.

