How's the 3D in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'?

Background

The fifth Spider-Man film in 15 years, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is also Spidey’s second 3D film. We were reasonably underwhelmed by the 'original' The Amazing Spider-Man, despite it being shot in native 3D. How does the most recent sequel fare in comparison? Read on for all the details on the film’s post-converted 3D, its depth, effects and whether or not we should save the 2D or 3D versions for archival purposes.

Post-Converted 3D

Unlike its immediate predecessor, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was largely shot on film, and post-converted to 3D. This task fell to Legend 3D, and Stereo Supervisor Ed W. Marsh. The company has a mixed record with its stereo conversions. Some of their earlier work left much to be desired (eg: Alice In Wonderland and Green Hornet). Like much of the conversion industry, they've upped their game in recent years (eg: Top Gun, Man Of Steel). The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is another  massive step forward for them; average viewers won't realise this film was post-converted 3D.

A film, made on film!

That's a misleading sentence though, because much of the film is not 'post-converted' in the truest sense. Due to the web-slinging nature of the film, large sequences of the film feature hundreds of composite effects shots, most of which would have been digitally rendered directly to stereo by the effects studio in charge. Consequently, most of the action scenes you see in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are 'rendered 3D', and are therefore as 'native' as the computer generated character they feature.

The movie is a warm looking one, perhaps afforded a softer image by filming on film. Of course, even in 2D you can tell the difference between a digitally shot image and one filmed on celluloid. We mention the film's warmth here primarily because it makes for a nice change, amongst many of its contemporaries. The scenes with Peter & Gwen are radiant, in a way that is as much about the leads' performances as the technical goings-on behind the camera.

 How's the depth of the 3D?

The Amazing Spider-Man from a few years ago had a depth problem. The action scenes were vibrant, but the dialogue scenes were not. Its sequel has learned a few things from this. Half of the dialogue scenes are just as boring as they were last time around, but the other half are staged in locations that emphasize depth. For example, Peter Parker catches up with a - rich - old school friend, and they spend a few minutes talking in a room, separated by an oppressively large stairwell. They then go to a river's side to continue their discussion, which is staged fairly traditionally. But the boys then begin a stone-throwing competition. Each stone thrown goes further and further, and eventually Peter's powers let rip and his stone is seen skipping across a hundred foot of water. These are slights of the hand, allowing for an engaging image while also getting through truckloads of exposition nad 'character development'.

Then, of course, there's the action scenes. When 'Spidey Sense' is triggered, the viewer is allowed to see the world as Spider-Man sees it; the camera can roam in and out of space and time to focus on what's important. As time slows down, and the camera speeds up, the action takes on a balletic quality. This is the most nimble and agile Spider-Man we've seen on screen yet, and his contortionist nature is all the more miraculous in 'bullet-time'. These scenes frequently use focus, color and camera movements to convey geography and choreography. For example (this requires bullet-points to communicate the progression, sorry):

• Spider-Man might begin a shot in mid-air in the foreground,
• the camera then whips over to a falling pedestrian, 
• the camera zooms in on something that endangers that pedestrian (eg: an electrified handrail),
• the focus then is pulled again and we see Spider-Man, now in the background, engineer his web slinging perfectly,
• his web then reaches out and prevents a death in the foreground.

This type of sequence repeats itself in key moments throughout the film. Each iteration shows more and more variety of depth, building towards a pivotal showdown between the hero and his adversaries. The showdown, high above the ground, uses stereo-emphasised depth to communicate the peril our hero faces. When a web misses its target, we feel as pained as the hero does. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 uses the bullet-time technique to make for a more engaging 3D image, while enhancing the narrative too. The slow motion allows our eyes to take a rest from camera blur and post-converted characters, and when 'real time' comes back the shock of reality is sometimes made intentionally jarring. Its an overtly manipulative technique, and it works well in 3D.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

The 3D in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is largely in keeping with the modern stereo aesthetic; aggressive negative parallax is used sparingly. This seems like a missed opportunity. Electro's sparks could certainly have flown into the audience, and Spider-Man could have swung over our heads a few times. That gimmick was essentially what made people pay to see Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark and it would work well in this series too. It's not fashionable to have this opinion, but in 3Defence's view, this series has a 'dork' of a main character, and it'd be in keeping with his nature to make a visual joke or two using negative parallax.

Did it make sense to add 3D to The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

It absolutely made sense to distribute The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 3D. The primary villain is bright blue neon coloured, and he fights with startling blue blasts of electricity that illuminate any night time scene. The primary hero is primary coloured himself, and - when he's not battling Electro - is often shot in daylight, in broad and open exteriors. When he's web slinging, there's a deliberately vertigo inducing quality, as we focus on our hero in the foreground while a busy background of skyscrapers rapidly pass behind him. This is the most '3D appropriate' entry in the series so far.

The film itself

The Amazing Spider-Man 2's tagline was "his greatest battle begins". The issue 3Defence has with this film is that "his greatest battle" should have been split into more movies. There's so much going on in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - much of it interesting and of worth - that the film feels rushed and chaotic. Perhaps if an extra half hour were added to its running time, it would have allowed things to settle. Perhaps rogue story elements like Peter Parker's parents' research could have been eliminated to free up more character development. In any case, the film is highly engaging, it just feels like a second draft; bloated with great ideas and poorly cut down for coherency. The "greatest" thing we could say for the film is that it is the closest we've come since Sam Raimi's own Spider-Man 2 to perfect web-slinging action. If you've ever read a Spidey comic, you owe it to yourself to check the film out, just for that alone.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

The 3D version of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the definitive version to archive. Unlike its predecessor, the film-makers made great decisions here, and designed an engaging 3D experience that you'll remember long after you leave the theatre. The depth of field afforded, and emphasised, by stereo gives the audience a reason to watch the film with glasses on. Legend3D should be proud of their work.

How's The 3D In 'Gravity'?

Background:

The best 3D film of the year? Ordinarily conservative critics have fallen over themselves to proclaim Gravity a landmark cinematic event, ranking it amongst distinguished 3D peers like Avatar, Hugo and Life Of Pi. James Cameron, the king of commercially successful 3D films, told Variety "I think it's the best space photography ever done, I think it’s the best space film ever done, and it's the movie I've been hungry to see for an awful long time." Riding a wave of breathless hype, Gravity broke US October box-office records, and is fast becoming the 'word of mouth' hit of the year. So... does it live up to the praise? Is Gravity a ground-breaking achievement in 3D film-making?

Post-converted / Natively Rendered 3D:

Modern-day 3D films are produced through three broadly classifiable means; 'native 3D' (where the majority of the movie was shot with stereoscopically capable cameras that have two lenses to capture the information in 'true' 3D), 'post-converted 3D' (where the film was shot largely in 2D by a camera that had one lens, and then later converted into stereo by a company that separates out layers of the 2D footage digitally) or what we at 3Defence call 'rendered 3D'. Often the latter might be a film like Toy Story 3; a digital construction where animated characters exist inside a virtual environment that has mathematically accurate axes, horizons and depth. Wall-E or Up's 3D effects are not automated by any means, but their film-makers do have a geographical point of reference when applying stereo to their rendered footage. Pixar's reconstruction team re-made Finding Nemo 3D in this way, modifying source elements to render out to stereo footage in a way that made sense physically... but in actuality differed from its 2D predecessor. It's all a little bit confusing, and is not nearly as straight-forward as you'd think!

Anyway, that's a gigantic tangent, but we bring it up because Gravity defies classification. The very concept of "post" production is moot; nearly every shot is a 'special effect' stitched together by talented rotoscopers, artists and technicians. When you see a shot of George Clooney's face, it was shot in 'mono' using a 2D camera rig, then post-converted into 3D by Prime Focus World. Complicating definition though is that this face was then superimposed inside a digital spacesuit, which was then placed into a virtual environment, such as the Hubble telescope or the exterior of the ISS. The resulting face is thus just another layer of a natively rendered output. Closer to one of Pixar's rendered 3D films than the post-converted 3D of World War Z. As fiendishly complex as it is to explain this, it must have been doubly more so to actually film it! Gravity was originally due for a November 2012 release date, but the film was granted another half a year to get its effects 'just right', and we can safely say you won't believe your eyes.

The only comparison in modern cinema, as best as we know, is Avatar. While Avatar is famed for being a 'native 3D' film, and indeed much of it was filmed with real 3D cameras on real sound-stages with real humans, a large portion of that movie was rendered through Weta Digital's server farms, with animated characters interacting with filmed ones, creating an 'informed' 3D post-conversion. Gravity, it seems, was made with a similar approach. We can therefore label Gravity as something of a 3D anomaly; a post-converted / natively rendered 3D film.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

Despite the title, there sure are a lot of scenes set in a zero-gravity environment. The possibility of things floating out towards the audience is endless, and doubly so because Gravity is a largely digital creation. The only thing stopping this from happening ad nauseam is Oscar-nominated director Alfonso Cuarón's curative tastes. Negative parallax effects in Gravity are used sparingly, but when they are used they are at optimum points in the narrative, with a pre-determined purpose. Cuarón deploys such 'popping out at the audience' moments in the same way that a master roller-coaster designer might give their riders a brief moment of respite... before then flinging them into an unforeseen and terrifying corkscrew. In Gravity, these 3D effects are therefore used as some sort of appropriately inverse cliffhanger; a second or two of levity before a new and even more dire situation is revealed. The overt manipulation of the audience's emotions is stunning in its simplicity. Cuarón giveth and Cuarón taketh away our movie-going delight in a way that hasn't been seen since the heydays of Kubrick or Spielberg.

How's the depth of the 3D?

The great thing about space is that it's infinite. The terrifying thing about it is also... that it's infinite. From a cinematic perspective, we've never seen that scale conveyed before. We've all seen space-walks on-screen, but we've never felt like one wrong move by an astronaut might send our favourite character spinning into an endless purgatory of relentless high-speed rotation. Space has never been as dangerous as it is in Gravity. Very quickly, you learn to fear "the blind" that exists outside of Earth's orbit, where stars stretch out into a distant blanket of darkness. Of course, you'll also learn to fear what lurks within Earth's orbit, hurtling around the planet at many thousands of miles per hour, approaching far too rapidly from a distant horizon. And you'll appreciate too that a hasty descent to Earth could kill a rogue traveller in their spacesuit, as the continents of our world loom discomfortingly large. Ordinary "Sci-Fi" genre pictures usually rely on exposition to explain all this to their audience, but in Gravity these chilling facts are often conveyed visually; we innately understand the primal fear of our heroes plight, by layers of depth masterfully created by Cuarón and his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Gravity?

In the '90s and early 2000s, directors were ramping up excitement levels by shaking the camera and rapidy cutting from one high octane shot to the next. Gravity proves that cinema is able to move beyond such gimmicks, with its long, steady, shots and fluid choreography. Perhaps it might not have seemed the 'perfect' candidate for 3D a few years ago, but coming at the end of a Hollywood blockbuster season stuffed to the gills of shaky-cam 3D epics, Gravity's deliberate pacing and meticulous camera-work seem positively inspired. 3Defence was reminded (as we learned from The Wizard Of Oz recently) that audience's eyes crave the ability to rove around a stereo frame. There is a noticeable feeling of "immersion" when we are allowed to choose what to focus on within a deep-focus shot. More than anything, Gravity showed us that a new language of film-making is possibly still to come for "the best" 3D experience. This is a modern medium that is still finding its feet, and Gravity can rightly be considered a new touchstone for future directors to build upon.

The film itself

Gravity, at the time of writing, has an average rating of 96% on Metacritic. That's not to say the film is "perfect", but it does mean that hardened reviewers are imploring their readers to see Gravity on the biggest screen possible, at their soonest convenience. If it's not clear already, we at 3Defence consider this more of a 'thrill ride' than a cerebral and thought-provoking epic. We don't mean to diminish Gravity's impact in saying that though. We just want to warn you that this has more in common with Sandra Bullock's Speed than it does with Cuarón's thinking-man's sci-fi epic Children Of Men. From our perspective, that's a good thing. Provided you go in with those expectations, you'll have a white-knuckle thrill-ride, the likes of which you can usually only find in a theme park.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

It's hard to know right now if the hype for this film will last into the next few decades or not. It's unlikely that people in 3013 will look back at Gravity in the same way as they do for 2001: A Space Odyssey or Voyage Dans La Lune. But as of this moment in time, Gravity is a monumental success as much because of its usage of 3D as its taught plot or excellent casting choices. The 3D version is the definitive version as best as we can see, and - if for no other reason than an eventual curio in the ongoing development of modern stereoscopic cinema - the 3D version of Gravity is the one we'd advocate be archived. It's hopefully going to show the way forward for other directors who will build on the lessons taught to them by Cuarón and his team. It certainly looks like another 3D film that will reap Oscars and Golden Globes come early 2014!

How's the 3D in Pacific Rim?

Background:

Pacific Rim is Guillermo Del Toro's first film in 5 years. Much ink has already been spilled about his near-misses directing The Hobbit film trilogy and the potential James Cameron / Tom Cruise adaptation of At The Mountains Of Madness. Thwarted project after thwarted project, it seemed Del Toro just couldn't catch a break. Luckily, the big man had a big plan: direct a big film about big robots fighting big monsters. For all Pacific Rim's high-minded intentions, the movie's essentially Del Toro's love letter to the likes of Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla; his long-simmering kaiju vs mecha tale. So, how'd he fare? Was his 'boyhood dream' picture better than Peter Jackson's King Kong, or Spielberg's Jurassic Park? More pressingly for 3Defence, is its 3D any good?

Post-Converted 3D:

For a long time, Del Toro voiced a hedged opinion towards adding 3D to his films. In pre-production for his version of The Hobbit he started with a firm "NO" and ended with a potential 'maybe'. Likewise, in Pacific Rim's pre-production, he originally stated "I didn't want to make the movie 3D because when you have things that big… the thing that happens naturally, you’re looking at two buildings lets say at 300 feet [away], if you move there is no parallax." Later in the piece though, we eventually learned the film would be post-converted into 3D by ILM (who composited their own CGI shots) and Stereo D. The latter has been busy this Northern-hemisphere Summer, with Iron Man 3, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Jurassic Park 3D and many more titles on the way.

Pacific Rim was lensed by Del Toro regular cinematographer, the Oscar-winning (and similarly-named) Guillermo Navarro. The pair have had a long-standing relationship that has provided audiences with some of cinema's most enduring images. 3Defence is glad to see any work by Navarro on the big screen, and we were interested in seeing his first 3D film, regardless of how it came to get there. In the shooting of Pacific Rim, Navarro reluctantly shot digitally for the first time. He's been a celluloid hold-out, and his departure from 35mm is significant. The pair of Guillermo's shot using Steadicam-rigged 15 RED EPIC cameras, and they took advantage of that camera's colour-saturation to produce the images that Stereo D and ILM later post-converted. Apparently Del Toro then asked for an unusually long post-conversion period, so he could personally supervise the shots and get them looking as great as possible.

Does Pacific Rim's 3D 'pop'?

Frequently. Very early on, a fish swims out in front of the audience. It's one of those moments where kids and young-at-heart adults alike reach out to 'touch' a 3D creation. The effect is Del Toro's open invitation into his futuristic world. This is one of those 3D films you want to bring youngsters to, because they'll appreciate the pure visual magic on offer. Aside from fish, you'll see swords, sparks, dust, ash, snow, rain, fire, steam, tentacles and rockets breaking the 'fifth wall' of the screen. It's a loud-and-proud 3D that is refreshing to see embraced in blockbuster fare.

How's the depth of the 3D?

Kaiju have historically hated bridges

3D at the size of Pacific Rim's kaiju can sometimes leave us feeling like an image is oddly '2D'. To counteract this sensation, Del Toro usually places a dozen human-sized objects around the jaegers: helicopters dwarfed by the structures, a giant hand picking up a fishing trawler, or - more impressively - an oil tanker used as a baseball bat. So the 3D-added 'depth' is a sleight of hand. Just like the man-in-suit monster movies of old, your eye will be aware of a monster's size purely by what is small around it. Still, we've come a long way...

Did it make sense to add 3D to Pacific Rim?

This is where the wheels come off the giant robot-carried wagon. Pacific Rim features a couple of daylight moments in the jaegers, but the vast majority of the fight scenes are either set at night in the rain, or they're set in the Mariana Trench. Readers of 3Defence know the drill, but in case you're a newbie let's spell it out again: 3D (with glasses) usually makes the projected image darker. So, if a 3D film's set largely at night, the darkness gets really dark, and there's a possibility audiences will suffer some eye strain. 

Even in 2D, as a GIF, it's hard to make out what's happening here

Presumably Del Toro set Pacific Rim at night to save money in his effects budget. It's easier to fudge CGI if effects are obscured by noise-elements like rain, and artists can round off dodgy corners by cranking up the shadows. As far as 3D goes, Del Toro achieved a 'brightness compromise' by setting much of the nocturnal action scenes amid the bright neon lights of Hong Kong. He went above and beyond in other areas to add light to the frame too: there's approximately two million shots of holograms in Pacific Rim, and there's a lot of brightly-lit fire, lava, steam and sparks to compensate for the evils of wearing glasses in the cinema.

The film itself

A stunning character-focused flashback

It's a hoot. A good-natured, well-intentioned lark of a film that has moments of subtlety and warmth amongst a whole lot of monster vs robot carnage. It's hard to take seriously, but it's very easy to take as a jolt of big-budget Summer blockbuster fun. As per usual for 2013's tent-pole flicks, the third-act is a nonsensical race to the finish line, without much in the way of surprises or meaningful character development. We only mention it because, like Iron Man 3 and Man Of Steel before it, Pacific Rim gives you a great Act 1 and 2 before clobbering its way to the end credits in Act 3. Hopefully Hollywood will learn from this Summer's successes and mistakes. In the meantime, Pacific Rim is your most sure-fire ticket of fun right now.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

This is a hard call. Pacific Rim's post-conversion was a great job. Stereo D and ILM exceeded their mandate by a kaiju-sized mile. Their work added visual depth that was thematically appropriate to the film, and added to the experience of watching it. Del Toro wasn't afraid to embrace the hokey aspects of 'fifth wall' breaking 3D either, and that also seemed appropriate given the fantastical nature of the film's visuals. But. Whoever it was in the studio that demanded Pacific Rim be converted into 3D should have been told "sure, if we get a few extra million to change the script to be set at day time." 3Defence can't abide a 3D film this aesthetically noisy (seriously, there's not a frame without sparks or rain) set at night, especially if there are hard-to-comprehend CGI creations running amock. Pacific Rim is a feast for the eyes, and you should see it in 2D, with as few layers as possible between you and Guillermo Del Toro's marvellous creations.

How's the 3D in World War Z?

Background:

World War Z is (loosely) based on a 2006 novel by Max Brooks. The book is a cracking read, and we were hoping the film would be just as outstanding as its source-material. The production of the film encountered multiple woes, all of which are well documented, but the first few trailers successfully dispelled most audience's doubts about the film. Indeed, in its first weekend, World War Z mightily exceeded all box-office expectations. Critics are divided on the film, while audiences are more generally positive towards horror and action pictures, so have dished out a healthy B+ CinemaScore.

Post-Converted 3D:

World War Z was shot in 2D, using Alexa cameras, and later post-converted into 3D by Prime Focus World. The firm delivered 2076 converted shots, assisted by 400 artists. The firm's website goes into great detail about the conversion, and when stereo firms rave about their own work we tend to listen. We've seen several projects recently where there has been next-to-nothing released officially about the post-conversion process. In contrast, the team involved with World War Z are proud to show off the collaboration they had with the film's creators, and they're glad to talk about their unique approach to 3D film-making. They need not talk too much about their work though, because the proof of it is in the theatre, where their work looked absolutely stunning.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

Like 28 Days Later and the Dawn Of The Dead remake before it, World War Z features fast-moving zombies. They're relentless in their pursuit of human flesh, and the undead have a nasty habit of popping at the living. The film-makers make full use of these jump scares, with teeth and clawed hands leaping out at their audience. The 3D effects used don't linger long enough to be hokey; instead they're employed to give you a good fright before the effects are dialled back down to 'classy' again. Between zombie attacks, 'noise elements' like lens flares or ash particles are layered enough to give the audience the perception they're really in the room with Brad Pitt.

How's the depth of the 3D?

Fantastic! The film is deceptively small-scale, and is focused (literally) on Brad Pitt's character throughout. Prime Focus World went above and beyond to map out Pitt's face in elaborate detail, so his character feels absolutely 'real' in terms of depth, even in close-ups. Their efforts pay off the most in dialogue scenes, where spatial integrity is maintained perfectly, to the point we'd swear some scenes were filmed in Native 3D. Often an 'over-the-shoulder' shot - where there are three planes of depth caused by an out of focus shoulder at the front of the shot - causes issues for post-conversion teams, sometimes resulting in obviously 'layered' visuals that feel artificial. In World War Z, this pitfall is avoided masterfully.

But you don't care about dialogue when it comes to a zombie film, do you? No. You care about the apocalypse! The damage wrought upon Israel, Korea and Philadelphia in World War Z is expertly staged by the film-makers, and their set-pieces are well designed to emphasise the magnitude of the unfolding disasters.  In 3D, the cataclysmic events seem that much more devastating, thanks to a large number of helicopter-based shots that help the audience contextualise and comprehend the undead chaos.

Did it make sense to add 3D to World War Z?

Not in the slightest. The major set-pieces are set in either cramped and dark areas, or dusty and monochromatic landscapes. The characters mostly wear plain looking clothes (which helps sell the realism of the situation) and the undead wear the same clothes too. Even the blood is neutered to be a digitally-altered black colour; presumably to reduce the rating to a PG-13 one that could help boost ticket sales. So, at face-value, this wouldn't be an obvious choice for a 3D film for us. We're happy the team at Prime Focus World proved us wrong though. Perhaps we'll have to revise what our criteria for a '3D-appropriate' film is. There are scenes set in pitch-black rain that work great here, with zero eye strain, and perfect visual clarity achieved. There are others that allow us to focus on one tiny detail amongst a sprawling mass of creatures. It's a great example of what 2013's 3D technology is capable of, and it's another film that proves that post-conversions are capable of standing toe-to-toe with Native 3D works now.

The film itself

Fans of the book's non-linear timeline and documentary style will probably hate World War Z. Likewise, true zombie genre fans. And it's possible those who wanted to see a 'world war' will be disappointed they're instead given a film about a UN health inspector... ha. For one final caveat, it's possible that Palestinian sympathisers will find images in the film unsettling, but then again the film deals with that issue directly and it's therefore hard to argue a sub-textual agenda. With all these caveats out of the way, we found World War Z a perfectly executed Hollywood disaster picture. This isn't a zombie film. Instead, it deserves to be compared to the likes of 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, Armageddon and Deep Impact. In company like that, Z shines. It's far smarter than it deserves to be.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

In case it's not been obvious enough yet, we'd recommend archiving the 3D version of World War Z. It's a great post-conversion, and you only gain appreciation for the film by seeing it in 3D.

List of 3Defence's Reviews

This is a compilation of 3Defence's 3D film reviews. Hopefully the table below provides a quick resource to see all of our reviews at a glance, and also shows we're not overtly biased in one direction or the other between 2D and 3D versions of films*. Enjoy!

Film Title	What type of 3D?	Which version to preserve?
Edge Of Tomorrow	Post-Converted 3D	2D
X-Men: Days Of Future Past	Native 3D	3D
Godzilla	Post-Converted 3D	3D
The Amazing Spider-Man 2	Post-Converted 3D	3D
Captain America: The Winter Soldier	Post-Converted 3D	2D
Gravity	Rendered 3D	3D
The Wizard Of Oz	Post-Converted 3D	3D
Pacific Rim	Post-Converted 3D	2D
World War Z	Post-Converted 3D	3D
Iron Man 3	Post-Converted 3D	2D
Man Of Steel	Post-Converted 3D	3D
Jurassic Park 3D	Post-Converted 3D	2D
Oz The Great And Powerful	Native 3D	2D
Life Of Pi	Native 3D	3D
Bait 3D	Native 3D	2D
Frankenweenie	Post-Converted 3D	3D
Dredd	Native 3D	3D
Katy Perry: Part Of Me	Both	2D
The Amazing Spider-Man	Native 3D	2D
Men In Black 3	Post-Converted 3D	3D
Prometheus	Native 3D	2D
The Avengers	Post-Converted 3D	3D

And here's a visual representation of whether we came down in favour of the 2D or 3D versions:

*Worth mentioning though, we tend to avoid writing reviews that explicitly urge you to spend your money in one way or another. Instead, we've preferred to opine on whether the 3D or 2D version of a film is the 'definitive' version that should be archived and preserved. After all, most critics and audiences would agree that the 3D version of Avatar projected in cinemas in 2009 is the version with the most historic significance. Likewise, most would agree Alice In Wonderland's post-converted 3D should never be seen again, and if we needed to archive anything we should archive the 2D version. If nothing else, we're hoping that this site can be a resource for future scholars, documenting what audiences responded to in the modern 3D era, and what we didn't.

How's the 3D in 'Iron Man 3'?

Background

Obviously the third film in the series, Iron Man 3 is actually the fifth time we've seen Robert Downey Jr. play the role of Tony Stark. It's also the second time he's collaborated with the film's director, Shane Black. For the latest Stark instalment, the pair have conspired to chop the titular hero's ego down to size, perhaps hoping to provide a more likeable character arc than what Iron Man 2 offered us. We'll discuss plot points later though, for now, let's have a look at the third film's usage of 3D! How was it? Should you see it in 2D or 3D? We'll investigate below in our usual template-driven style, in the hopes you'll be able to make an informed movie-going decision.

Post-Converted 3D

Like The Avengers and Thor before it, Iron Man 3 was shot digitally, and post-converted into 3D. 3Defence's view of The Avengers was that the film greatly benefited from an extra dimension, and the movie-going public appeared to agree. Have you ever wondered why Disney & Marvel have been so gung-ho to post-convert their films to 3D? Maybe it's because they're hiring directors like Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon; veterans, but rusty or inexperienced when it comes to helming A-list, tent-pole, action blockbusters. In Shane Black's case, his sophomore directing gig is also the follow-up to the third biggest film ever! To make the film's production relatively smooth-sailing, we can understand why you'd want to film in 2D. The firm StereoD was brought in to pick up the slack.

StereoD are quickly carving out a reputation as the 'benchmark' firm when it comes to post-conversion. They've handled other well-respected conversions like the ones from The Avengers and Titanic 3D, and they no doubt put in a lot of effort to the work done for Iron Man 3. We've had uncharacteristically bad luck when it comes to researching the "hows" and "whys" the production took for the 3D used, so we're left to suppose a bit of conjecture here. Perhaps Mavel/Disney still think that post-conversion is frowned upon by audiences, and were loathe to reveal how the 3D was added afterwards? Is it possible they're burying news of post-conversions? That's definitely speculation, but the total radio silence on this conversion rang alarm bells for us.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

As is becoming a theme for superhero films, 'noise elements' like dust, snow, debris and sparks happily fly out of the screen. There's a lot of holographic images that buzz around the screen too. Characters don't break this 'fifth wall' of the screen though, they stay safely behind it. The mantra in Hollywood continues to be "classy" instead of using overt 3D effects on actors.

If I had a dollar for every comic franchise to use holographic 3D effects...

How's the depth of the 3D?

Iron Man 3 shines when it comes to depth. By far the most effective 3D sequence is a prolonged aerial free-fall, where Stark attempts to save several people plummeting to earth. Thanks to the stunning usage of stereo depth employed, we're constantly aware of how fast the ground is approaching. This sense of impending doom heightens (pun intended) the tension of the scene significantly, and will likely give viewers a real sense of vertigo. It probably helps that, for this scene at least, the crew filmed dozens of real-life skydiving jumps to capture the kinetic feeling of a free-fall. The 3D effects added in post-production enhance the feelings of immediacy for the viewer, so we'd consider them worthwhile and consistent with the story being told. It's a stunning piece of action, and fantastic 3D cinema.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Iron Man 3?

Superheroes and 3D generally seem a natural fit. Iron Man 3 is no Man Of Steel though. Take a look at the posters: they're set at nightfall, grimly lit and generally projecting more darkness than we'd like from a 3D film. Indeed, most of the pivotal action scenes are set at night or indoors, in dull offices and neutral corridors. The film's villain, The Mandarin, is lit and dressed like an Al Qaeda-issued video: shot in a cave, wearing camouflaged clothing - hardly the type of footage we'd normally advocate for in a 3D film. Even Iron Man's various Mark suits have had their colour vibrancy dialled down, and that's before 3D glasses added another 'muting' layer! The final image is muddy and, it would seem, poorly conceived for the 3D medium.

Dimly lit, boring background, neutral colours... not a good 3D mix

The film itself

Make no mistake about it: Iron Man 3 is a muddled mess. The first two acts are great fun, while the third act is a hastened and bombastic explosion of nonsense. The stakes are significantly lowered by the reveal that Stark owns autonomous suits that can do his bidding. This has the same effect that the droid army did in the Star Wars prequels - we have no emotional investment in the robots, so our engagement is significantly dialled back. To some extent, Marvel has been guilty of this for some time. They've regularly provided literal cannon fodder for their heroes and villains to dispatch without requiring a harsher rating. The Chitauri, the Frost Giants, the HYDRA agents, and now the spare suits of Tony Stark... all relatively faceless fodder for CGI-laden battles.

I have no idea what's going on here, even in 2D

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

In this case, we're going to side with the 2D. With glasses on, you'll spend much of the last act wondering what the hell is going on. There's so many dark-coloured suits flying around, at night-time, for some reason in a shipyard, that your eyes will struggle to decipher meaning from the noise. Save some money and save your eyes the effort.

How's the 3D in 'Man Of Steel'?

Background:

To date, despite owning DC Comics' entire catalogue of superheroes, Warner Brothers have taken a small-scale - or at least self-contained - approach to their big-screen adaptations. Certainly their DC films have not been as far-reaching or synergistic as anything from Disney's Marvel-verse. Warners, seeing Marvel's successes - and perhaps fearing a time when The Hobbit can't be split into any further films - promptly commissioned another blockbuster series from Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight team. Taking on the Man Of Steel himself is no small challenge. The brief Warners likely gave was that the film needed to broadly introduce aliens to Earth, show Superman punching bad guys, and earn big Dark Knight-sized blockbuster grosses. Some challenge! Nolan promptly recruited 300 and Watchmen "visionary" director Zack Snyder to helm the mayhem. The resulting film was released yesterday and 3Defence was there in a packed auditorium on opening night. How'd they do? How was Man Of Steel's 3D? Should you see it in 3D or 2D? Read on for the answer!

Post-Converted 3D:

Here's the thing with a tent-pole superhero film these days; unless it's directed by the 3D-averse Christopher Nolan, you'd best believe it will be released in 3D somehow. That's one cinematic trend you can literally bank on for the next few years, especially after the 3D-grosses were tallied up for The Avengers. Why then is Man Of Steel - from Nolan himself - being released with a post-converted 3D option? If they had to release the film in 3D at all, you'd think the picky creative team would've preferred to go 'all in' with a native-3D shoot, right?

In fact, they originally wanted to do just that. In an interview with Collider Snyder said, "we spent quite a while talking about shooting the movie in [native] 3D and we tested a bunch of rigs.  I said, 'Look, the movie’s handheld.  If you guys can give me a handheld grade that I think is viable, I’m happy to talk about it.' No one could find me a rig." Essentially, the shoot could take much longer than planned, or Snyder would have to film on a tripod; a total change of the visual language he needed for this fast-paced film. It's an interesting conundrum, that we've not heard articulated by other A-list directors yet. So, Man Of Steel is post-converted into 3D because native-3D rigs weren't ready yet to accommodate this particular director's pace. Adding to the intrigue, Snyder eventually shot on film - remember 35mm?

Does the 3D pop?

If anything comes beyond the confides of the screen in Man Of Steel, it's a few 'noise' elements; stuff like debris, sparks, steam and flames. Interestingly, we didn't notice the effect's absence while watching the film. Historically, we've criticised some superhero films (looking at you The Amazing Spider-Man) for being too timid with their usage of 3D's most outrageous effect. Man Of Steel though is no ordinary superhero film; it's borderline apocalyptic in tone. With the fate of multiple worlds at stake, and villains who can move at supersonic speeds, we're actually appreciative there's a clearly defined boundary between 'the film' and 'the audience'. The action on offer is laden with such an overwhelming surplus of visual information too much immersion would have been a bad thing!

How's the depth of the 3D?

Stunning. The depth effects used on Man Of Steel work on two levels (pun intended). On the one hand, the depth of the background adds visual clarity to the viewer. Because of the way the parallax effects are used, we're able to see how insanely fast Superman is moving, and how that might contrast to the speed of his adversaries. On the other hand, and in open contradiction to our earlier point, the depth employed adds a ton of chaos to the action. This chaos is consistent with the film's plot though and, we would argue, assists the audience's comprehension of the ridiculously high-stakes at play throughout the movie. You'll see vistas stretch into the distant horizon, and then be blasted to the limits of that horizon  in seconds, before being catapulted into space, and then back down into a suburban diner and then back into the skies again. This is easily the fastest-paced superhero film we've ever seen, and the depth added by the 3D here left us, entirely appropriately, reeling.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Man Of Steel?

Superman, brightly-coloured boy scout that he is, is a natural hero to cast in a 3D film. He's certainly not the brooding and nocturnal type that Batman is. So, on the surface, Man Of Steel's a dictionary-definition of a "3D appropriate" movie. However... 3Defence had a concern: all that motion-blur, and that aforementioned handheld camera. 3D films have yet to overcome the historic associations with nausea and headaches that were often caused by an unsteady stereoscopic image. Seemingly aware of this, the post-conversion team dial back the 3D effects frequently, to give your eyes a 'breather' in the more unruly scenes. There are broad stretches where you could take your glasses off without missing anything. This is one of the most focused and sensitive conversions we've ever seen, precisely because the handheld camera work was not an issue at all. The team involved has proven 3D projection is ready for any visual challenge.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 3D or the 2D?

From our perspective, Man Of Steel's 3D version is the definitive version. It's refreshing to say that too, because we've favoured the 2D version in several recent 3D films (so don't be accusing of bias, yo). Man Of Steel is a ground-breaking step forward for the movie business, seemingly decades ahead of 2005's staid and plodding Superman Returns. The flight scenes, with Superman soaring over Africa and the Arctic, are superbly executed and are light-years beyond anything offered from Marvel's stable. The fact the post-conversion team handled the handheld camera work so well is a giant evolutionary step forward for the 3D effects industry, and this arguably makes the film a landmark work in its own right. If you watch Man Of Steel in 2D, you're missing out on a chance to see history in the making.

The film itself

There's a funny critical reaction to this movie. The sort of reaction that is common when two generations are divided. If you grew up reading Silver Age Superman comics, or if your only memory of the hero is the Christopher Reeve movies, then you're going to be surprised by the angry Man Of Steel offered here. If you read the comics from the 80s onwards though, you know Supes is capable of being a Big-Brother-esque government lackie, or a vengeful God ready to wreak havoc if it suits his dogmatic needs. Hell, he even surrendered his American citizenship recently; he's not exactly the jingoistic patriot he once was. Man Of Steel embraces this newer, more nuanced, version of DC Comics' flagship character. 

This isn't a mid-20th Century version of a superhero film. This is a film that fully embraces the genre's Roman and Greek roots: when Gods and Earth mix, the results can be disastrous. The collateral damage is enormous. We at 3Defence have clamoured for years to see the full extent of Superman's powers on-screen and, for better or worse, Zack Snyder has delivered that with Man Of Steel. This is a case where fans should be careful what they wish for though, because the resulting film is essentially a chaotically paced and very long fight scene. There's not much room for character development. So, if you're pining for a world-leading Christopher Reeve-styled Superman, you'll be bitterly disappointed by the worldly and weary version Snyder has cooked up for you. Even if that's your take on the film though, you might forgive Man Of Steel's flaws, given its absurdly gigantic scope and ambition.

Looked at as a late-comer to the big-screen comic-book adaptation game, Man Of Steel could be described as a mash-up. It combines Batman Begins' franchise foundations, Iron Man's handheld effects and Thor's intergalactic derring-do. Cynics might go further, saying Man Of Steel feels like the dregs of those films, swilled together in a putrid and overblown mess. Our opinion though? Man Of Steel wildly exceeds the type of fight-scenes any child has ever dreamed up while clutching a Superman figurine. The film treats its modern comic-book fans with respect, and forces a different era of Superman fans to come to terms with a God who is capable of vast collateral damage if you get in his way. Man Of Steel delivers a full-on bombast unlike any other film ever made and, given the titular character's super-sized abilities, that seems entirely appropriate.

Man Of Steel 3D - Behind The Scenes

UPDATE - we've now reviewed Man Of Steel's post-converted 3D.

In the lead-up to June 14th, we're getting more and more footage released for the upcoming film, Man Of Steel. The Superman flick is being post-converted into 3D (which we can't imagine producer Christopher Nolan is very happy about). Perhaps proving how forgettable Superman Returns was, many news agencies and bloggers have incorrectly reported that Man Of Steel is the caped boy scout's first 3D outing. It's fair to say that Steel's director, Zac Snyder, is wary of Returns' luke-warm reception. The 3D footage used in that film was intermittent, with long periods of time passing in 2D. Snyder has upped the stakes by saying, "anticipating how audiences today embrace 3D, we designed and photographed the movie in a way that would allow Man of Steel to captivate those movie goers." Indeed, Man Of Steel is actually Zac Snyder's second 3D film; the first being the atrociously-titled Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. That movie certainly had its 'visual moments', with Snyder employing fantastic depth in some of its flying scenes. Steel looks like it will build on his work in that area, and some of the footage we've viewed in theatres looks absolutely stunning. 

So, what do you make of the footage being released of the new superhero epic? Will it improve on Ga'Hoole and Returns' 3D?

How's the 3D in 'Jurassic Park 3D'?

Background:

You know the story of Jurassic Park's 1993 release. It was "An Adventure 65 Million Years In The Making." It busted all blocks there were to be busted; it claimed the title of #1 Highest Grossing Film of All Time (until Titanic came along); it seared words like "CGI" and "Digital Sound" into the public consciousness; it inspired two sequels and then... never really got old. Two decades on, the effects in Jurassic Park are still held as a benchmark by many. Either the experience of watching it was so seminal for a generation of blown-away moviegoers, or - shockingly - the film has aged like a fine wine and improved with time. Universal is celebrating the film's 20th birthday (we feel old just typing that) with a 3D re-release. Audiences are slowly warying of these 3D retrospectives, but Jurassic Park 3D's launch looks to have reversed a downward trend in re-release box-office grosses. Perhaps that's because Jurassic Park is best seen with friends, or maybe, people of all generations just really wanted to see big-ass dinosaurs romping and stomping over Isla Nublar on the big screen one more time. Let's have a look at how its 3D turned out.

Post-Converted 3D:

Steven Spielberg, and his cinematographer Dean Cundey, originally shot Jurassic Park on 35mm film, on location in Hawaii. While most audiences remember Jurassic Park as the true dawn of CGI effects, in truth there are only a few shots in the movie that feature computer animated dinosaurs. The majority of the action was completed using massive animatronic puppets created by Stan Winston Studio. Take a look at this video created by the team who made the Velociraptors if you need convincing! So, while most of the CGI was rendered at a much lower resolution than is standard today, the rest of the in-camera filmed dino-footage still looks as good as it did in 1993. When rain bounces off the T-Rex's nose... that's because that snout was really on set. The size of the dinosaurs no doubt completely terrified the actors who were there with them.

Anyway, long story short, this on-screen realism makes Jurassic Park a reasonable candidate for the post-conversion process. Apparently Spielberg was blown away by the team who converted Titanic's 3D re-release (saying the Cameron film "looked like it had been shot originally in 3D") that he hired the same team to look after Jurassic Park's conversion. Word on the street is that Spielberg's supervision of the process lasted more than a year, and the conversion cost somewhere around $10 million to pull off. Apparently the conversion was 'manipulated' slightly, to include elements that were added especially for this version of the film (those who've seen ET's 20th Anniversary Edition might not be surprised by this...) stuff like more digital rain in the T-Rex attack scene, to add a more 'native 3D' feeling to certain shots.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

Yes, but not as often as you'd expect, and rarely very far beyond the confines of the screen. Mostly these moments are jump-scares - the famous one where a 'raptor leaps upwards at our heroes stands out - but the best shots are ones where dinosaur features like a tail or a jaw are extended just enough to make you appreciate the enormity of these creatures.

How's the depth of the 3D?

Things start to go off-the-rails with Jurassic Park's conversion when we start looking at its emulation of depth. Imagine a shot filled with ferns, where a few are digitally brought further forwards than their peers. This is an eminently reasonable thing to do if you need to create the illusion of 'depth' from a 2D image. Unfortunately for Jurassic Park, this sort of trick seems to back-fire quite a bit: the fern that's been brought forward is grainy and filled with noisy artefacts that betray the illusion. The deep background and the majority of the midground look fine, because they're either at 100% of their size, or they've been shrunk and blurred, but the foreground frequently appears detached from the rest of the image. If you can get over the harshness of the film grain though, you'll definitely enjoy the range of depths offered, particularly in scenes featuring the (apparently free-roaming) Brachiosaurs.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Jurassic Park?
The answer to that question is a bit mixed. You have to look at three factors here: audience perception, commercial necessity, and then - more boringly - the perspective of keen stereographic fanboys like ourselves at 3Defence. Let's start with the audience pereception. Anecdotally, most people consider these dinosaurs the best looking ones ever put to film, and everyone wants to see gigantic dinosaurs eating people... right? Seeing them in 3D is a bonus, if it further helps sell the illusion these creatures are real.

Looked at purely commercially though... next year, for better or worse, we get to see Jurassic Park 4. This re-release was likely motivated by a need to conjure up 'brand awareness' and 'relevancy' again. For all we know, the $10 million conversion costs were attributed to the marketing budget of JP4, particularly because it helps put that sequel on surer footing. There's no word yet on whether JP4 will be in 3D (shooting starts in July, so details in general are hazy) but it's safe to assume it'll have a stereoscopic version of some kind released. In the meantime, these are the best dinosaurs on offer at a multiplex.

Looked at from a more practical (and geeky) perspective though, 3Defence always had some reservations about this conversion. The main set-pieces don't lend themselves to "the 3D experience" at all. For example, the T-Rex and Dilophaurus attacks occur in dimly lit night-time scenes; the 'raptor attack is largely contained to a dimly lit kitchens, hallways and offices; while the sick triceratops scene has dull looking colours in it throughout. Even the film's producer, Kathleen Kennedy, says "so many of the big, iconic, moments are in relatively small spaces." Thinking about it, we'd actually argue The Lost World's brightly lit, almost harsh, vibrantly coloured palette might have been better suited to 3D projection. We went to this film cautiously optimistic, but we came out convinced our gut instinct was right all along: Jurassic Park was a tough film to get right in 3D, and never really lent itself to the conversion process.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

The appeal of Jurassic Park has always been that it felt like someone somehow made a 'B-Movie' into an 'A-Movie'. Despite its blockbusting reputation, it's actually quite a small film, cobbled together with focused set-pieces in small spaces, wonderful character actors and a mere $63 million budget. In 2012, 3Defence had the pleasure of watching a 2D digital remaster of Jurassic Park and the film felt more honest, visually. The 2013 version's 3D effects change your perception of the film from being an 'over-performing B-Movie' to one where you come away thinking "that's a pretty strange A-Movie." The 3D layering is done reasonably well, but they sometimes add grain where there shouldn't be, and they darken the image in the few moments of levity and light. Ultimately, this 3D conversion was one we couldn't get behind.

The film itself

It is that rarity in modern cinema: a blockbuster that has barely aged a day, maybe even improving since its release. That's probably because Spielberg surrounded himself with amazing collaborators: John Williams still at the peak of his powers, Stan Winston's studio literally firing on all cylinders, ILM completely re-writing the rulebook for digital effects, and - of course - Jeff Goldblum in all his glory. Jurassic Park remains a fantastically fun film, whether you view it with glasses on or not. In this case though, we recommend the 2D version, to experience JP in all its uninhibited glory.