How's the 3D in Edge Of Tomorrow?

Background:

Following hot on the heels of Top Gun's 3D re-release, Edge Of Tomorrow gives audiences another change to see Tom Cruise's million-watt smile in 3D. The film is based on a Japanese novel called All You Need Is Kill, though it deviates somewhat from the story's plot. The tale itself is a hodgepodge between Groundhog Day, Looper and director Doug Liman's own The Bourne Identity, while also calling to mind the rewards-based repetition that modern video games offer their players. More importantly than all that though, how is the 3D in Edge Of Tomorrow? Read on in our 3D-focused review to find out all you need to know!

Post-Converted 3D:

Edge Of Tomorrow was post-converted from 2D to 3D by Prime Focus World. Their approach to this film seems to be unique in 2014's crowded slate of post-converted films. Rather than hide the technique with a 'native lite' approach, they appear to have been directed to dial up the stereo at pivotal moments and dial it down in others. The beginning sequence is seemingly intentionally dull, before the visuals are dramatically opened up in a chaotic battle scene. We've seen visual 'kicks' before (think of the difference in The Wizard Of Oz between Kansas' monochromatic colours and the Technicolor world of Oz) but this is the first time we can recall one being initiated by a post-conversion team so strikingly.

The beginning sequence of Edge Of Tomorrow has 'flat' feeling 3D

The key to their success appears to be, perversely, how much of the opening sequence is kept close to its native 2D source. This lulls the audience's eyes into a relaxed state, before the post-conversion team shockingly uses scaled negative parallax to literally yo-yo soldiers in and out of the frame. It's a refreshingly brazen technique, and serves the narrative well; our anti-hero is being thrown from a comfortable world into a stark and gruesome reality. The shock is appropriate, and not as gaudy as it could have been in other contexts. The post-conversion team served the narrative well here, and it's likely the shock they were able to convey could not have been achieved if the film were shot in native 3D.

How's the depth of the 3D?

The depth varies wildly throughout the film. The battle scenes opt for a 'deep focus' that allows you to see for miles into the distance. Or, at least, you could if the camera kept still for long enough. The battle scenes are the most interesting visually, in that they provide an arresting focal point for each of Tom Cruise's character's (Cage) loops. One character dies as an object drops from the sky on him, and then in Cage's next iteration through the loop Cage saves the man before the object drops, and then the next loop Cage doesn't bother. Knowing the exact geography of the scene is important for Cage, and it's incredibly important the audience knows the impact of a character standing even a metre from their 'usual' position.

The film-makers attempt to show Cage's growing confidence grow with each new iteration. The camerawork is shaky and chaotic in his first few attempts at battle, and then slowly grows more steady and assured as he begins to learn the ropes. Unfortunately, this also means that the audiences eyes are expected to context-shift with each new iteration of Cage's battle. Your perception shifts from loop to loop; progressing from only seeing a few feet of depth behind Cage in his first loop, through to being eventually able to see for miles behind him as his skills develop. After enough rapid-fire edits and changes to the way the action is filmed, your eyes might wary and tire from all this visual change.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

As mentioned earlier, the opening battle scene is the primary example of negative parallax being used. Soldiers are thrown from a moving plane into a battle field below them, and some are accidentally suspended to the plane by rope. As the plane descends, they're flung at the audience in a yo-yo like technique that we wished had been included in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The remainder of the film uses this type of technique relatively rarely, with the only 'popping' elements usually being restricted to debris and out of focus guns aimed at the camera. Again, this kind of inconsistency can contribute to some amount of eye strain, as audiences eyes attempt to process the inconsistently applied visuals.

Dull night-time visuals, with a lack of background contrast

Did it make sense to add 3D to Edge Of Tomorrow?

The film-makers made a lot of good choices when considering the idea of Edge Of Tomorrow as a 3D film. The action is largely set in daylight, and the characters contrast well against their backgrounds. However, they made a few missteps once the second act is over. The climactic set piece is largely set in the evening, and it's very hard to differentiate the dark-suited soldiers from their background. Their enemy is cloaked in shadow and similarly hard to pick out visually. Without the kind of bright neon offered in films like Prometheus or Tron: Legacy, these night-time scenes suffer visually, particularly if your local multiplex hasn't adjusted the brightness of their projector to accommodate 3D projection's light loss. Just in case you hadn't noticed a recurring theme in our review; this narrative and visual choice can also lead to eye strain in audiences.

The film itself

Edge Of Tomorrow is one of the most arresting and relentlessly entertaining blockbusters to have been released in recent years. Simply put, it's a gem of a sci-fi/action film. If you're a fan of shoot 'em up video games, this is the film for you. If you're a fan of the enigmatic and interesting stars, then this is further proof that they're A-list talent. If you've ever bemoaned the influx of comic book movies and sequels in the American Summer movie-going season, then you'll find Edge Of Tomorrow's originality refreshing. If you ever watched an action film and wished the female lead were tougher and more heroic than the male, then Emily Blunt's steely performance is going to make you feel better about Hollywood. It's a joy of a movie, let down only by a somewhat anti-climactic final minute of footage. If there were Oscars for crowd-pleasing films, this would be nominated in several categories.

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

If you have the choice, see Edge Of Tomorrow in 2D. Buy the 2D Blu-Ray. Avoid the 3D version unless you're really curious. It's disappointing for us to say, but the 3D version is a noble failure. There's a bunch of great examples of stereo on display, but the eyestrain we suffered while watching can be traced back to several poor visual choices that other film-makers would do well to learn from. Just because you can post-convert from 2D to 3D, doesn't mean you should.

How's The 3D in Godzilla?

Background:

Godzilla has been around for 50 years. He's been in almost as many movies. 2014's Godzilla is Hollywood's second attempt at bringing the monster to life. Thankfully, this version was guided to the big screen by Gareth Edwards, whose 2010 film Monsters went a long way with a very low budget. His skills behind the camera have been recognised already, with Disney shoulder-tapping him to helm the next stand-alone Star Wars film. So, how did his transition from micro-budget to massive-budget film-making go? More importantly, how is the 3D in Godzilla?

 Post-Converted 3D:

Godzilla was shot in 2D on Arri Alexa Studio 4:3 cameras, using Panavision C Series anamorphic lenses. Effects studios like Weta Digital, Moving Picture Co., and Double Negative provided the CGI, and The Avengers' cinematographer Seamus McGarvey lensed the action. The film was later post-converted to 3D by two studios, Vancouver-based Gener8 and Stereo D. Their work here is subtle, but effective. Where Godzilla's post-conversion really shines is in the interior dialogue scenes. Rather than flatten out the stereo in such scenes, the stereo compositors add several layers of depth. For example, a doorway might frame a shot, with a concerned child layered in front of it, while a distraught parent paces several feet away in an adjoining room. In fact, doorways are used repeatedly to block characters from one another, and the motif afforded the post-conversion team a great way to separate actors from one another in three dimensions. A lot of the film has a naturalistic 'hand-held' approach, which can't have made the post-conversion easy in shots like this (the doorways would be constantly moving, which requires a lot of rotoscoping). The teams did a great job.

Bryan Cranston's character, behind a door

How's the depth?

Godzilla is the second big-budget 3D monster movie we've seen from Warner Brothers & Legendary Pictures. The difference in approach between Guillermo Del Toro's Pacific Rim and Gareth Edwards' is interesting. It's hard to know if Edwards was explicitly guided by the studio to avoid a similar aesthetic to Guillermo Del Toro's picture, or if he just followed his nose towards a different approach. Perhaps answering that question, Legendary employed their own 'stereoscopic consultant' (though that might have been a supervisory role between the two conversion studios). Del Toro was at pains to show the scale of his monsters, from the monsters' perspective; rearing above skyscrapers, shot from phenomenal heights.

Edwards instead shoots his monsters from the perspective of the panicked humans below them. He communicates this scale in several interesting ways. He places humans on top of tall objects like skyscrapers or bridges. He throws humans out of planes, wearing parachutes. He has awestruck humans at ground-level, craning their heads to see the monsters towering above them. He has humans descend into deep caves, and lean over the edge of craters. The effect achieved is that we feel engaged in each shot. The depth of field is appropriately massive, but with a human in the near foreground and a disaster in the distant background we are invited to feel 'like we were there', and wonder 'what would I do in this situation?'

 

Does the 3D 'pop'?

There are several inventive usages of negative parallax in Godzilla. The title sequence is a series of military records being redacted, over the top of World War 2-era footage that has been aged and scuffed. The redaction process reveals the names of actors and crew members, and occurs in the deep foreground, in front of the action below. Eventually, the title card of 'GODZILLA' disperses into ashes, and the debris floats out towards the audience. It's a nice way of breaking the 'wall' of the cinema screen, without also breaking the audience's attention from the narrative of the film.

There are other memorable moments where the 3D 'pops'. In the crowded theatre 3Defence saw Godzilla, several audience members ducked and flinched when objects hurled towards the screen. As buildings are toppled, a cloud of dust and debris inevitably follows, roaring from several hundred feet of the way to eventually engulf the audience and their movie theatre. This effect is used to particularly strong effect in a nuclear power plant's meltdown, where a group of scientists attempt to outrun a cloud of radioactive material.

 

Did it make sense to add 3D to Godzilla?

A post-converted movie, filmed hand-held, set largely in evening scenes, where the monsters are often off-camera? No, it didn't make much sense to convert this film into 3D. This film challenges a lot of our traditional definitions of what is 'appropriate' for 3D distribution. We're glad that the studio took the risk though, and that Gener8/Stereo D pulled off such interesting interior scenes.

The film itself

Your reaction to Godzilla will depend on the history you bring to the theatre with you. If you're a longtime fan, you'll spend the first half of the movie frustrated you're not given much monster action, but then love the last 30 minutes. If you're a casual fan, you'll chuckle at a few references and generally have a good time. If you're a novice to the world of Godzilla, the performances of the humans might grate, and the episodic nature of the film might wear at your attention span. Hopefully you're somewhere in the middle of these perspectives, but it's not likely that any one person will be entirely satisfied by their experience. We hope there's a sequel, and that it addresses a few of these concerns.

 

Should we archive the 2D or the 3D version?

This is a tricky question. 3Defence is going to side with the 3D version in this case, but after much consternation. The literal framing devices used - where doorways or humans are in the close foreground, separating us from the action far away - demand to be watched in stereo. In 2D, they look like the action is being obstructed. In 3D, they look purposeful, giving us a sense of scale. The actors have been positioned, just like they were in the original Godzilla films of olde, as proxies for ourselves. In 3D, this effect works. In 2D, it's annoying. See the 3D version if you can, on the biggest screen you can find.

How's The 3D In 'The Wizard Of Oz 3D'?

Background:

Ask anyone of Generation Y "what's the oldest film you've ever seen?" and there's a very good chance that (after some prodding) the answer is The Wizard Of Oz. The Victor Fleming film was released in 1939, with World War II a month away from breaking out in Europe. Bizarrely - considering its legacy nowadays - Oz was something of a commercial misfire for MGM at the time. One of the studio's most lavish and expensive productions, it took a few re-releases for The Wizard Of Oz to fully recoup its costs and, more importantly, to be seen by subsequent generations as a landmark event in cinema. The better part of a century later, Warner Brothers now owns the film's rights, and Dorothy's had more "special anniversary box-sets" released than 3Defence cares to count. Warners probably figured out that, after fans have already bought the film on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray in 2009, they needed to do something particularly special this time around. So, for a limited time only, viewers get to see the film on IMAX screens around the world, in post-converted 3D. How'd they do with the stereo? Is this re-release worth the trip to the big screen?

Post-Converted 3D:

This is actually the second 3D trip to Oz viewers get this year; Sam Raimi's native-3D Oz The Great And Powerful underwhelmed us in April. The Wizard Of Oz is a different beast entirely, because it's the oldest live-action feature film to be converted into 3D. It's much older than the likes of Titanic 3D or Jurassic Park, which both benefited from being originally filmed with cutting-edge 1990s technology. Put simply, getting any version of Oz onto the big-screen in a format that discerning audiences would find tolerable is hard enough; and getting a 3D version looking good seems nigh-on impossible. So, let's take a moment to discuss the restoration of the film, and then we can take a closer look at the technical feat of the stereo-conversion.

Filmed with a mixture of three-strip Technicolor and sepia-toned black & white footage, The Wizard Of Oz conformed to the original Academy aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (aka "4:3"). This means it fits better on the screen of your square-looking 1990s CRT TV than it does to your rectangular 16:9 LED TV from the mid-2000s. Likewise, if you project it correctly on a modern-day big-screen, the film will leave vertical 'letter-boxing' lines to the left and right of the image. It's unusual for 3D films to deal with this framing, though we've seen varieties of the square look in Katy Perry's 3D backstage footage and the Raimi Oz film's opening sequence.

The aspect ratio's reasonably easy to accommodate though. The real challenge for any team restoring Wizard Of Oz is the Technicolor negatives. The version you're familiar with of the film is actually an amazing combination of three strips of differently coloured images, layered on top of one another to form an image that makes sense visually as 'realistic colour'. Most Wizard Of Oz re-releases to date have been restorations of that 'end product': the original combination print. What makes the 2013 restoration different though, is that the studio restored and scanned each of the original three colourized layers again (cyan, magenta and yellow) then combined them again into a fresh combination print. The restoration team had a further challenge too - some of these negatives had shrunk to different sizes from one another! What was once "35mm" film was now 34mm in some cases! The team had their work cut out for them. Because of such quirks in this process, you're effectively watching a different film than audiences did in 1939. You're watching a sharper image than the original audiences ever had the chance to; processing these images digitally allowed the restoration team to precisely align each layer on top of one another, and removed the chance of accidental blurring occurring if a strip of film was misaligned.

After months of work, Warner Brothers were able to give Prime Focus World a 4K print that looked more crisp and detailed than any print of the film to date. As the firm's CEO put it, "to be trusted with one of the best known films of all time – an important part of American popular culture – is truly humbling." One challenge unique to this conversion is the average length of each shot in the film; being a 1930s MGM musical, the cuts from one shot to another are purposeful and at a much slower pace than the rapid-fire edits of a modern-day musical like Les Misérables or Chicago. As a consequence, Prime Focus World had to be just as purposeful with how they chose to use 3D in a shot that might run upwards of 30 seconds, lest audience's eyes wander about the frame and find gaps or errors in the chosen stereo effects. All up, the conversion took around 16 months to complete, which possibly makes it the longest conversion in film history.

Does The Wizard Of Oz's 3D 'pop'?

Warner Brothers' Chief Preservation Officer, Ned Price said to Variety “I don’t like 3D unless it’s really good 3D ... so I was probably a good pick to rein in the people we worked with. They’re very good people over at Prime Focus but I think I kept them honest.” Needless to say, Price largely avoided having flying monkeys pop out of the screen, or fireballs thrown at the audience. The few elements of the film that extend towards the screen are usually associated with the Wicked Witch, whose angular nose, fingers and hat occasionally venture outwards. However, the film is largely free of any "gimmicky" popping effects, and the 3D effects used are as conservative as Price's tastes allowed.

How's the depth of the 3D?

Until now, the backgrounds of The Wizard Of Oz looked either like very obvious matte paintings, or they looked like giant hand-painted backdrops that had reasonably obvious lines to the floor. Children might not notice, but adults surely did. In the 3D conversion process, Prime Focus World had to choose whether they made the backdrop look more 'flat' or if they enhance the suggested depth within it. They chose the latter, so the rolling green hills of Oz now look like they exist in three-dimensional space, albeit that they don't look like the pastures back home in Kansas. The effect of this is that the world of Oz feels more stylized than it did in previous versions, and now looks like a particularly fantastical land that feels effortlessly part-animated and part-photo-real. The effect is startling and breathes new life into each image. The haunted forests now stretch out for miles and you feel like lions-and-tigers-and-bears might actually lurk there. The witch's castle looms large over the landscape, as foreboding and terrifying as anything from The Two Towers. Munchkinland now seems brimming with more munchkins than ever before, because you can see how many dozens of characters are moving in the deep background of the wonderful sets there. The tornadoes in Kansas will seem more threatening than you remembered them, and more perilously close to the house Dorothy escapes to. Oz, for the first time in years, feels alive.

Did it make sense to add 3D to The Wizard Of Oz?

With its bright lights, vivid colours, inventive choreography, fantastical settings and varying planes of action (the Munchkins hiding in bushes when Dorothy first arrived were a real treat), The Wizard Of Oz is a natural fit with 3D. Many of the medium's current limitations are avoided thanks to the slow paced editing, locked-down camera work and artificially-lit studio sets. The only reason we can think of avoiding the conversion is that it would be very hard to pull off, and could seriously risk ruining the reputation of a beloved classic if done badly.

The film itself

3Defence has seen The Wizard Of Oz on the big-screen several times over the years, projected in 2D using 35mm. We've obviously all seen the film on TV sets throughout the past few decades, in varying quality of restoration or bastardization of the film's ratios or technical set-up. Throughout every permutation though, the unmistakable genius of the music, acting, set design, costumes, make-up and directing shine through. It doesn't matter what mood you're in, you'll be hooked by the episodic nature of the film's plot, and constantly be surprised at how breezy the narrative is. It's hard to define, but The Wizard Of Oz is one of those films that can hook in viewers of all ages, at any time of day, at any time in film history since its release. It truly is a magical piece of cinema.

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

This question is one we ask for each 3Defence film review. Normally it's an easy enough one to answer, and we tend to side with the 2D version as often as we side with its 3D counterpart. Today though, we are asked to judge the nostalgic memory of a 2D cinematic classic, against the cold hard reality that no version of it exists that looks as detailed or as 'clear' as the 2013's version's remaster. This particular 3Defence reviewer has seen the film dozens of times, but has never seen it in such startling clarity as he did yesterday in IMAX 3D. The film's soundtrack and visuals have never been so lively, and you'll see details that enhance (rather than detract, like say the Star Wars Special Editions) a film that is already a masterpiece. The Scarecrow's makeup alone is worth the price of admission. In 3D, you'll pick up every texture available to be seen, and each detail adds to a more positive impression of the whole film. We're going to say "archive the 3D!" in this case, and we reserve the right to this opinion until an 8K (or suitably ludicrous) 2D remaster release is unveiled for the film's 80th Anniversary!

New Wizard Of Oz IMAX 3D trailer

In September, for better or worse, we get our second 3D trip to Oz for the year. Warner Brothers and IMAX have teamed up to re-release The Wizard of Oz in post-converted 3D for a limited one week release. It's hard to know how big an audience there is for this type of retrospective; Jurassic Park and Titanic 3D re-releases have been doing fine business at the box-office, but no-one's attempted a post-conversion job on a classic this old. In fact, most kids' grandparents weren't even born when Wizard Of Oz was originally released, so if there's a nostalgia ticket to be sold then it's likely on the basis of a VHS copy or TV re-runs! For many, it will be the first time they've seen Dorothy's ruby slippers on the big screen. Check out the trailer for an insight into how Warners are pitching their marketing:

With its school-choir revision of Somewhere Over The Rainbow, it would appear Warner Brothers are borrowing a play from the The Social Network's marketing play-book. It's no mistake that they've done this. Both trailers capitalise on a 'global' feeling of connection to the material, and they work hard to captivate as many generations as they can. Whatever your original connections are to the source material though, it's hard to avoid the feeling this trailer was whipped together on-the-cheap, with trite fonts in front of stock footage backgrounds feeling all a little 'straight to video'.

Of course, the impact of this trailer is dramatically reduced in 2D. It's easy to imagine that this footage pops off the screen in an IMAX theatre. The trailer labours how expansive the film's backgrounds feel (most were achieved with the help of some stunning matte paintings) and how vivid the Technicolor is. If the 3D post-conversion has been handled tastefully, we think the Wizard Of Oz re-release could look better than some of the other 3D product being shifted around multiplexes this year. What do you think? Are you tired of these re-releases, or do you relish the opportunity to see a beloved classic on the big screen again?