Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. 3D
I watched this in 3D, despite knowing it was converted, because I thought it would feature a Wile E. Coyote-Road Runner short, which was supposed to come out with The Deathly Hallows Part 1. But since Warner Bros. didn't release that film in 3D, they just released the 3D short with Yogi Bear. Which of course I did not watch. Bummer.
Anyway, something good actually came out of watching this in converted 3D. I have realized that converted 3D isn't all that bad. Why? Because it's fake. Hold up, let me explain.
When you shoot in 3D (using two cameras), you are mimicking human binocular vision. So unless the stereographer does hyperstereo shots (meaning intense, unnatural 3D), the viewer will see the scene the way he sees real life. And after several minutes of looking at a scene which looks like real life, you'll forget you're watching a 3D flick. That is why we need hyperstereo─to jolt us out of our boring reality.
Converted 3D, on the other hand, is so fake, you know it's not real. Which is actually better, because you won't get used to it, and you'll be going, "Oh look, it's actually 3D" every couple of minutes. So it's basically like the filmmakers never want you to forget that you're watching 3D, so they show you crappy converted 3D, which actually has a better stereo effect than non-hyperstereo.
So on to the regular review.
Now that the Harry Potter franchise is over, let us take a moment of silence and remember everything we've lost.
*Some info from IMDb
pics from Pop Culture Zoo, Tumblr, Swoonworthy, Your Props, Google Search, Blogspot, J-14, and Reuters
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow: Part 2. UK/USA. 2011.
Rating: Seven out of ten.
3D-ness: Six and a half out of ten.
You may also want to check out the other reviews of Deathly Hallows: Part 2 by Sue Denim and Mary Quite Contrary.
Anyway, something good actually came out of watching this in converted 3D. I have realized that converted 3D isn't all that bad. Why? Because it's fake. Hold up, let me explain.
When you shoot in 3D (using two cameras), you are mimicking human binocular vision. So unless the stereographer does hyperstereo shots (meaning intense, unnatural 3D), the viewer will see the scene the way he sees real life. And after several minutes of looking at a scene which looks like real life, you'll forget you're watching a 3D flick. That is why we need hyperstereo─to jolt us out of our boring reality.
Converted 3D, on the other hand, is so fake, you know it's not real. Which is actually better, because you won't get used to it, and you'll be going, "Oh look, it's actually 3D" every couple of minutes. So it's basically like the filmmakers never want you to forget that you're watching 3D, so they show you crappy converted 3D, which actually has a better stereo effect than non-hyperstereo.
 |
| "You lost me at 'stereographer'." |
So on to the regular review.
Now that the Harry Potter franchise is over, let us take a moment of silence and remember everything we've lost.
Matthew Lewis' Baby Fat
The Elder Wand
The Resurrection Stone
Quidditch
Voldemort's "No Hug" Policy
Fans Lining Up For the Movie
Tom Felton's Hairline
*Some info from IMDb
pics from Pop Culture Zoo, Tumblr, Swoonworthy, Your Props, Google Search, Blogspot, J-14, and Reuters
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow: Part 2. UK/USA. 2011.
Rating: Seven out of ten.
3D-ness: Six and a half out of ten.
You may also want to check out the other reviews of Deathly Hallows: Part 2 by Sue Denim and Mary Quite Contrary.
0 comments :
Post a Comment