Last night I saw Titanic 3D at the IMAX and -- surprisingly -- the 3D is actually pretty good.
Why is that surprising? Because Titanic wasn't filmed using 3D cameras. Back in 1997 we were perfectly content to watch Leo and Kate legging it around the sinking ship in the usual two dimensions.
Filming a 3D movie using proper 3D cameras means that the depth of the extra dimension in every scene is exactly as it should be. If you embark upon a 2D-to-3D conversion, however, you'll need to use software that makes a guess at exactly how deep each object on screen should appear to be.
It often ends badly, with on-screen characters coming out of the post-conversion process looking lumpen and horrifying, while action scenes prove impossible to follow because your eyes can't make sense of what's behind what.
But Titanic 3D did an excellent job of proving the conversion tech isn't a complete write-off. Depth effects were subtle, accurate and -- most importantly -- not distracting. The film itself didn't look too dark, and the action scenes were impressive, with no gimmicky poking-out-of-the-screen bits.
Of particular note were the scenes of the underwater wreck, which is pushed subtly to the background, while the bubbles and tiny bits of detritus in the water are brought to the foreground. It gave a great sense of moving through the water, even if it was highly reminiscent of this classic screensaver.
There were a couple of moments in the three-and-a-half-hour long epic where some on-screen objects looked slightly out of whack with their surroundings, but for the most part I was able to forget about the 3D completely, and focus on wondering how Jack and Rose have ended up below decks again.
The conversion reportedly took 60 weeks, costing $18m (about £11m), perhaps signalling that the best way to convert a 2D movie to three dimensions is to spend a truckload of money on it.
I'm still sceptical when it comes to 3D. But if you're looking for an example of the technique handled well (and don't mind enduring over three hours of emotional exhaustion), Titanic 3D is worth a look.
Have you seen a shockingly poor 3D conversion? Or an example of 3D tech used correctly? Tell me in the comments or on our Facebook wall.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 8
Add your comment
Jaffo 13 April, 2012 11:54
I'm more amazed by the fact that the screensaver video has over 20k views! :O
Luke Westaway 13 April, 2012 13:20
Clearly I'm not the only one who has fond memories!
anonymous 13 April, 2012 14:02
When watching this film, I noticed no poking-out-of-the-screen bits either. But there was a ******-out-of-my-***** bit during the painting scene.
rboekee 13 April, 2012 15:04
Starting to wonder if James Cameron is the only man capable of doing 3D well, Avatar (filmed in 3D) and Titanic (a conversion) are two of the best examples of 3D I've seen!
anonymous 13 April, 2012 17:17
This sentence makes me really frustrated "with no gimmicky poking-out-of-the-screen bits". I love films and been a home cinema enthusiast for the past 15 years. I see nothing wrong with bits coming out when its done right. Whats wrong with that? More likely you dont like 3D in general and hence the result appearing in your review.
I am watching films on 120in screen (3d projection) and those moments when something pops out of the screen are rare gems and everyone loves it to the bits. But whenever I read some self important "critic" writing reviews they slam this effect in pieces. How come? What about surround sound when steps are heard somewhere behind you? In that case it is gimmicks too. In my opinion surround and 3d (incl pop outs!!!) only to add to the entertainment value and every single extra giggle is a million worth. Well, sure you'll say thats just for giggles... of course, thats why we watch movies in the first place - TO ENTERTAIN.
billfred 14 April, 2012 12:55
@anon, 3D doesn't entertain (anyone over the age of 6), it only infuriates!
moroboshi 14 April, 2012 14:07
I'm with Mark Kermode on 3D, it's a pointless gimmick which doesn't work and never has, and is rapidly on it's way back out. It'll be back for another attempt in 30 years or so.
As for converting movies to 3D, it's akin to converting black and white movies into colour, only even more pointless. At least 3D HDTVs never took off, which I find amusing given the amount of money poured into pushing them.
anonymous 1 May, 2012 12:45
Hi Luke,
Glad you liked the 3D conversion of Titanic and think 3D, and maybe even conversions, techniques may have future ...
The fact is that there is a huge market for 3D and a huge number of people who want 3D - that ship sailed about 2 years ago. The vested business interest of studios, cinemas and TV/Blu-ray/telephone/tablet manufacturers mean that 3D is here to stay with one estimate putting the 3D content + technology at $227bn by 2016. Not bad growth in 6 or so years.
Figures today say that 3DTVs in 2012 will rise 122% - outperforming Smart TVs by a ratio of 3:1
Everyone wants 3D to be of a high quality and the paying public doesn't care how it is achieved - just as long as it is good. To pretend one way of achieving 3D is better than another is nonsense ... as Titanic has demonstrated.
But we didn't really need to wait for Titanic because Avatar was full of conversions - where do you thing the animals, plants, floating islands and indeed the entire planet came from?
The fact that all 3D films use conversion techniques whether they admit it or not - just ask any post-production house that is doing 3D films.
Good conversions are everywhere but people - by definition - don't notice the good ones. Transformers Dark of the Moon pointed the way ahead and proudly let everyone know that it was 50% shot and 50% converted. It was a huge success.