3D Vision Blog

A normal user's look into the world of 3D Stereo Technologies

3D Vision Blog header image 2

Did You Already Watch Clash of the Titans in 2D or Converted in 3D?

April 5th, 2010 · 24 Comments · 3D Movies & Videos


Clash of the Titans is the latest just released movie to be shown in 3D, but it was not actually shot in stereo 3D, but instead was converted to 3D after being shot with normal 2D film cameras… just like in the case of Alice in Wonderland. It is interesting to note that the lead role of Perseus is being taken by Sam Worthington whom we all know from Avatar, but no blue aliens here, just some Greek Gods and Monsters. Clash of the Titans was launched in time for the Easter Holidays and in its first boxoffice weekend in USA it has managed to generated about $61 million which is a good start, but lets see how things will continue with the international results and in the next few weeks.

As with other 3D movies this one also has a 2D version being shown, but in much less theaters compared to the 3D conversion of the movie. It is interesting to note that the director of the movie did not intend it to be presented in 3D, the decision to go for 3D conversion came from the studio… they wanted to catch the stereo 3D craze going around lately and make more profit. Still this is a double sided edge as with not so good conversion from 2D to 3D the long term results can be bad as the viewers may not like what they see or not be impressed by it at all. There is already a lot of controversy regarding conversion to 3D, especially if not done right and a lot of people are complaining they did not like the conversion done in the Clash of the Titans.

Have you already watched the movie in 2D or maybe in 3D? If so please share your comments below – if you liked it, how was the conversion, did you like the 3D effect, did it help you get deeper in the story or just the opposite.? You can also mention in what 3D cinema you’ve watched if you know the technology they used – IMAX 3D, Real D, Dolby 3D or any other…

Tags: ·······


24 responses so far ↓

  • 1 ChrisL // Apr 5, 2010 at 18:11

    I saw this over the weekend and the conversion was much better than Alice in Wonderland. For Alice I found the 2d to 3d conversion had so many glitches that it was unwatchable at times but with Clash of the Titans i only saw a couple glitches throughout the film.

  • 2 Alejandro // Apr 5, 2010 at 18:23

    I saw in 3D (or better 2.5D?) I think is a bad conversion, because is a film thinked and filmed for 2D not 3d… in some scenes is there too many dof in first term. and in others the 3d is too flat to fell it.

  • 3 Kevin // Apr 5, 2010 at 18:37

    Ah ha! So that explains why the 3D was so weak in Alice. I now know to steer clear of all post processed 3D movies. At least in the near term.

    Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon were both phenomenally well done. The 3D composition really added something to the movie, that a post process can never duplicate.

    Alice, and I suspect Titans really should not have been presented in 3D if they were not shot that way to begin with. It’s more of a distraction, and definitely a disappointment.

  • 4 Bloody // Apr 5, 2010 at 18:51

    The conversion process from 2D to 3D can also be done much better, but it requires more time than it was allocated for both Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans. And if you have to allocate half an year or even more for conversion it will be much more expensive than lets say just 2 months. Not to mention that you can also take this extra time into consideration for when shooting the movie and actually go and shoot it in 3D… ;)

    2D to 3D conversion (if properly done) will be great for some old classic movies that you cannot just go and reshoot now, but for new movies it is probably not the best idea… at least not the way we see it done lately – in a hurry and done over the shooting vision and ideas of the director that were meant for 2D shooting.

  • 5 Herbinator // Apr 5, 2010 at 19:04

    Watched this last night 3D version i thought it was absolutely awful i hope no one judges 3D from this rubbish there was more 3D in the trailer for some upcoming streetdance film.
    I was seriously considering asking for my money back the dark scenes were just not suitable for 3D either.Just as well ive had some great 3d experiences namely Avataar and beyowulf,Coraline just ordered an Acer H5360 and a pair of nvidia vision glasses whens that bloody gtx 470 out holding up everything daamn an expensive week but after being charged £20 for 2 tickets i think ill win out at home with my set up in the long run!!!

  • 6 Zerofool // Apr 5, 2010 at 19:47

    Alice in Wonderland is not completely 2D->3D converted. Yes, it’s shot in 2D, and all this is then converted to 3D, but all that’s CGI (the whole wonderland part of the movie) is rendered in real Stereo-3D (2 versions actually – one for IMAX, and the other for the rest of the 3D theaters), only the real actors being converted to 3D. Read that article about it:
    http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/Editing-for-3D-on-Alice-in-Wonderland_11957.html
    I watched the IMAX version and it was not that bad, I wish there were an automated conversion method that gives that kind of results :p.

    As far as I know Clash is finished in 2D, along with all CG fx, and all of this is then converted to 3D. So in theory the result should be worse. I may be wrong and some thing could be re-rendered in 3D, I have no info about that. I personally don’t even plan to watch it, a waste of time and money imo. I’m waiting for Hubble 3D, Resident Evil: Afterlife and Tron, I really hope they will offer very nice 3D.

  • 7 Opti // Apr 5, 2010 at 23:02

    I just read this on BBC News.

    Leterrier wanted to use 3D cameras to shoot his Greek mythology epic.

    But the technology was so new the only ones in existence had been booked by James Cameron for Avatar, now the biggest-grossing film to date.

    Leterrier had to settle for the conversion of his movie to 3D during post-production.

    “Warner Brothers came to me and said, ‘We have a new technology called View D and you’ll be able to convert this movie into 3D, would you like to try it?'” he says.

    “I said, ‘I’ve seen conversions before and it doesn’t work, everyone looks flat.’ They said, ‘No, let us show you what it is,’ and they converted it in 10 minutes.

    “It was absolutely amazing, just the amount of detail. It doesn’t look like cut-out people on flat backgrounds – everything was absolutely realistic.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8596933.stm

  • 8 InsertNameHere // Apr 5, 2010 at 23:19

    Unrelated to the post, but to the comments:
    Do someone know, if “Monsters vs Aliens” is real 3d or converted?
    I’m talking about the version bundled with Samsung 3d Starter Kit.

  • 9 Bloody // Apr 6, 2010 at 00:32

    Monsters vs Aliens is a true stereoscopic 3D movie (I’m talking about the the S3D version ). Generally it is much easier for completely animated movies to be remade in stereo 3D… no need for conversion, just a bit more rendering for the second camera and maybe some additional work after that… :)

  • 10 brando // Apr 6, 2010 at 02:33

    I just saw this on Sunday in 3D and was very dissapointed. The effect was so bad it distracted from the movie. Especially with Hades, the back of his head would appear detached from the front of his head?? It looked to me like an expensive popup book.

  • 11 3dpo // Apr 6, 2010 at 05:39

    I saw it opening night in RealD. The 3d effect looked like cardboard cutouts that popped out a bit from the background. They tried to give characters faces some depth but just ended up making them distorted.

    There were many instances where your focus was drawn to the side of the screen where objects would be 1/2 on 1/2 off giving a flickering effect.

    On top of all that, the movie just sucked in general and had a poor plot, bad acting, and lame action sequences and special effects.

    Go see How to Train your Dragon. It was 1,000x better.

  • 12 Philip Heggie // Apr 6, 2010 at 08:21

    Yeah shouldn’t encourage them to do 3d on the cheap

  • 13 Rhialto // Apr 6, 2010 at 17:48

    Just like I wish Anaglyph should never be shown to all the 3D new comers, I think someone should stand up and clearly explain the difference in 3D converted from 2D versus 3D original content.

    A class name should be defined so people know what was converted from 2D and was was shot originally in 3D. Just like people can now differenciate FULL HD and HD Ready.

    Myself I didn’t knew that Alice was converted and I was about to go watch it because I’m a 3D fan and was wondering why all the bad reviews. Now I know why, the conversion is far from true stereoscopic filming.

    Would FULL 3D and 3D READY for converted content works to differenciate and identify content?

  • 14 Philip Heggie // Apr 6, 2010 at 19:11

    I think Genuine 3d, and Converted 3d would be better tags.

  • 15 Bloody // Apr 6, 2010 at 19:39

    I doubt that they will agree on a standard to specify the type of 3D as at the moment the just the addition of the “3D” to a movie is equal to more money for the movie companies. And you can say that they don’t think in the long term, because with the production of lower quality 2D to 3D conversions and labeling them as being “3D” and at the same time increasing the cost for tickets in 3D theaters might as well lead to driving more people away from 3D at least int he cinemas in the long term.

    On a side note I can’t wait for the new Resident Evil: Afterlife after watching the trailer and learning it will be shot in 3D ;)

  • 16 Luora // Apr 7, 2010 at 04:45

    Clash in 3d
    One: The conversion was obviously a rush job – nuff said.
    Two: I didn’t like the seeming smallness of the screen – probably an optical illusion due to the style of glasses frame.

    I prefer the look-n-feel of the big 2d screen and let my brain fill in the depth. I kept thinking, “I can get this size screen at home. Cheaper.” Didn’t even notice any sound benefits cuz of the vid imperfections.

  • 17 Philip Heggie // Apr 7, 2010 at 12:06

    I saw it in RealD today and thought the 3d was better than I expected. It didn’t look like cardboard cutouts to me. I think in spite of the
    quick conversion they got away with it fairly well, but it didn’t blow me away like How to Train Your Dragon which brought me to tears.

  • 18 Laura // Apr 7, 2010 at 21:08

    I saw it in 3D yesterday. I thought it was technologically horrible. I actually liked the movie a lot, but I missed just about the first 10 minutes because I was fuming about the bad 3D. I didn’t know that it was a conversion, so I couldn’t understand what was wrong with it. My full analysis is on my blog.

  • 19 Damian // Apr 7, 2010 at 21:28

    Aha!!! THAT’S why the 3D looked odd at times (things behind the characters looked like they were in front etc). Saw in in REALD3D, did wonder why it didn’t look great… saw alice at the imax, that seemed a bit better.

  • 20 Charlie // Apr 29, 2010 at 12:03

    Went to see Clash of the Titans in 3D last night. It took me ages to actually convince my partner to take me, I said it would be brilliant in 3D we have to see it. And its the first film we have both seen in 3D at the cinema so really excited.
    The trailers before the film started were really good the 3D was amazing and then the film started, personally im not so sure there was any 3D action at all. The characters seemed to stand out from the screen a little bit but that was it. There was so many scenes in the film that would have been amazing in 3D but were not. There was not even any 3D parts with Pegasus the flying horse i mean come on its a flying horse of course it should be flying out the screen at you. Basically the 3D was rubbish a huge let down and a waste of money. I cant see the 2D version being any better because the film its self was a let down. The film was rushed, Bad effects, boring, and rubbish acting.
    I advise anyone thinking about going to see this film in 3D or 2D not to bother. Done waste your money wait til it comes out on TV to be disappointed.

  • 21 vinodsreehari // May 1, 2010 at 10:33

    very disapponited with the 3D effects. .. The third dimension sometimes felt ofcourse, but overall most part of the films felt like a normal 2D movie. I checked it taking off the glassess and I felt little difference. Only some wide shot scenes gave 3D effect ,but that too, unlike the other original 3D films , the depth was like beginning from the screen inwards. In 3D movies, we usually wont be aware of the theater screen because of the third dimension and the images of third dimension would be always out of the screen.That was completely missing in the movie.

  • 22 cybermax // May 2, 2010 at 04:02

    I Went to see Clash of the Titans in 3D last night…and might as well have seen the 2D version and saved some cash. All the effects failed to have any +z axis (depth) beyond the screen; any effect went *into* the screen. This effectively supplements the 2D perspective, but is not equivalent to a film shot with stereoscopic cameras, or rendered via computer with an intrinsic +/-z axis. These films should be marked as ‘3D upconversions’ and not marketed as 3D. This is false advertizing in my book! It is just like upconverting a DVD (480p) to HDTV (1080p) and selling the resulting film as a hig definition film, instead of properly rescanning the source material at high-resolution. I’m never wasting my money on this so called ‘3D’ process film again.

  • 23 Jimmy Limo in Vegas // May 5, 2010 at 11:07

    Saw Titans last night in 3D (seemed more like 2 1/2 D)…
    It’s easier to convert a movie like “Alice” to 3D because so much of the foregrounds and backgrounds were CG and can be perfectly manipulated in the computer, but in “Titans” there were so many shots filmed “live” in the real world you could see some marked raggedness around the edges of the main characters in each shot, especially facial close-ups and fast action scenes (the battle with the scorpions). After shelling out $14 for a ticket, $8 for popcorn and $6.75 for a Coke I felt quite ripped off… Thank goodness I smuggled in a half-pint of Bacardi 151… didn’t help much, though… ;-) … Shrek 4 should be a lot better…

  • 24 DONC // Sep 17, 2010 at 05:21

    I just checked out a few things about 3D TVs at Best Buy. They had a Samsung TV with a built in 3D converter and were providing a signal from a 3D disk in a Blue Ray 3D VCR. It looked good with a pair of high priced glasses. However, since this TV had a built in 3D converter, all the standard TV stations could also be shown in 3D by switching to the 3D mode. Since the US Open Tennis Tournament was being BROADCAST IN 3D at that time, I ask them to turn it the special channel (108) to see what it looked like. It also looked great with a pair of glasses. Now, here is the interesting part. I also asked them to turn to CBS channel 5 that was also showing the tennis tournament in HD and then switch the TV to the converted 3D mode. This so-called converted 3D was terrible. None of the objects, like the tennis ball or players, stood out on the screen like the Broadcast 3D that was showing on the special channel. The bottom line is that the only good 3D is the Broadcast 3D that is filmed using special 3D equipment like you see in the movies. If you want to buy a 3D TV, just get the cheap one (about $600 less for 46” TV) with a 3D ready unit that will only play Broadcast Cast 3D programs from the cable or a 3D disk player. Maybe in a few years they might improve the converted 3D, but I doubt it. Check it out and see for yourself.

Leave a Comment