 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appreciate the writeups as well Bob, one minor note; "My Soul to Take" was not shot in 3D, apparently it was post-converted. It's one of the few Craven's I've still to see and I was looking to get the blu-ray because of the alternate footage and Craven commentary, and couldn't find a 3D one. That's when I found out the film was not shot natively.
The vast majority of today's 3D films are post-converted. It's just easier to do, apparently, than shooting natively. I assumed, because Craven was a co-producer of the film, that he was aware during shooting that the film would be converted to 3D, and therefore as director he would set up his shots accordingly, to take advantage of the process where he could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 2, 2015 - 2:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
Appreciate the writeups as well Bob, one minor note; "My Soul to Take" was not shot in 3D, apparently it was post-converted. It's one of the few Craven's I've still to see and I was looking to get the blu-ray because of the alternate footage and Craven commentary, and couldn't find a 3D one. That's when I found out the film was not shot natively.
The vast majority of today's 3D films are post-converted. It's just easier to do, apparently, than shooting natively. I assumed that, because Craven was a co-producer of the film, that he was aware during shooting that the film would be converted to 3D, and therefore as director he would set up his shots accordingly, to take advantage of the process where he could.
Perhaps, but the film was shot in 2008 and apparently suffered from rewrites and reshoots before it eventually got released, and from the reviews I've read there's little to none shots where it actually benefits from 3D. Perhaps he'll address it in the audio commentary, which given these post-production issues will probably prove interesting! Again, it's on my wish list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
