Comment on By technical standards were 3D TVs impressive, Why didn't they catch on back then?
remotelove@lemmy.ca 13 hours agoThe media (Blu-ray, dvd, whatever…) didn’t matter so much. Adding depth fields to existing media works, but it isn’t exactly perfect. The tech should be much better now, but it took a fuck ton of manual labor to convert films to be compatible with 3D. Back when 3D TVs were being pushed, studios had to film movies in 3D as well, which took more time and more equipment.
Here is an old pic I took during the conversion of Titanic into 3D since it wasn’t filmed in 3D from the start. Each frame needed to have depth fields mapped, by hand, in a room filled with jr level staff: Image
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
Native stereoscopic capture has massive labour costs itself, and there were many issues where one eye had corrupted footage or imperfections, so the insurance paid for the footage to be post-converted from the one good eye anyway.
Even where it went right, it more than doubled the size and weight of the camera system, and changing a lens would be a complex process taking 30 minutes instead of the minute or two normally required which significantly reduced the material that could be captured in a day. Post-production labour is far far cheaper. So post-conversion very quickly became the norm.