Adding 3-D Bite to Piranha

Find out how Piranha 3D is a new twist on an old genre.
Posted In | Magazines: VFXWorld | Site Categories: 3D, CG, Films, Visual Effects

"Don took the reins of the hero animation," continues Wentworth, "and a lot of the schooling animation was done at Gradient, and some of it was also done at CIS Vancouver. I think they both used Massive. Maya was used for hero fish. Flat Earth used mental ray. Gradient and CIS are more RenderMan-based with 3Delight."

Meanwhile, 3-D proved to be the biggest challenge. Initially, the director and supervisor wanted to make it in 3-D, but budget and shooting conditions proved too daunting. So it was predominantly converted by a new company called inner-D.

"It was a little bit cheaper to convert it and it gave Alex the ability to use film and go anamorphic and have that dynamic range you get with film. And that was important because a lot of what we were filming was on water and you have a lot of reflections and highlights that cause problems with a lot of the stereo rigs through polarization. So the decision was made to post convert it.

Image
Director Alexandre Aja paid homage to everything from
Jaws to Gremlins to Porky's.
"We wanted the 3-D moments to be big: There's a sequence in a cave where we have this fish embryo that comes right out into the audience like Captain EO with a lot of negative parallax. The pet emporium scene with Christopher Lloyd where you can see the expression in the fish; the end scene is great too where the fish are jumping up and taking bites out of people on the rope and dragging some of them into the water.

"We had a lot of problems early on. It's an incredibly complicated and time- consuming process. We weren't happy with the amount of depth we were getting in the images and some adjustments needed to be made by inner-D. But, I have to say, this is one of the best examples of the converted movie to date. Some shots look better than others and there are shots that can't be converted: they have to be done in visual effects.

"We took a few shots off the plate and gave to a visual effects vendor and vice versa. The ones with big negative parallax were done with vfx."

Wentworth definitely thinks the future of live-action 3-D will be a mixture of post conversion and full CG stereo delivery by vfx companies. "Generally speaking, it's about how much you want stuff to come out of the screen. With conversion, it will start to break after a certain point because you don't have the information you need between the left and the right eye for the audience to see one or the other side of an object. The worry is that you don't want these things to become too gimmicky. But this is stuff you [definitely] haven't seen before."

Bill Desowitz is senior editor of AWN & VFXWorld.







Comments


TAxnlg (not verified) | Sun, 08/28/2011 - 22:52 | Permalink

The Post Production artists still haven't been paid for their work. They were due to be paid by the studio in April and still haven't seen a cent.

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 08/31/2010 - 00:24 | Permalink

in my opinion Avatar was the only true 3d experience,
the rest was just crap,
most of the 3d movies nowadays are just 40 % in 3d,
thats a great way to earn cash if your a studio,
i mean 6 pounds for the 2d version of the movie and 12 pounds for the 3d version,
give me a break,

in my opinion 3d is still in it's early days,

it would be great to see the Nintendo's 3d technology in theatres,
which requires no stupid glasses at all.

thank God weve got Jim Cameron, or else hollywood wouldve sucked fulltime.

Anonymous (not verified) | Mon, 08/30/2010 - 04:13 | Permalink

All the scenes were in 3D when I saw it. There are alot of factors on the projection side that can mess up the 3D - if the projector isn't setup properly, or if the bulb isn't at the right luminance it can wash out 3D. Also, I've heard there was an issue with certain theaters mistakenly projecting Pirahna movie in 16:9 instead of 2.35 aspect ratio, which means they were zooming in on the frame and that it was screwing up the 3D or completely flattening it out.

Anonymous (not verified) | Fri, 08/27/2010 - 16:08 | Permalink

My friends all complained of sub-standard 3D in this movie - one referred to it as "More post conversion 3D crap!" adding that it appeared some shots were't even bothered with for 3D convert. WHAT IS HAPPENING? If you're going to do 3D, for christssakes do it well, or forget! Why do a lousy conversion in post & then charge theatergoers extra money for a half-hearted job? It's becoming readily apparrent the if a 3D movie hasn't been made by Jim Cameron - then the 3D aspects will be rough, cheap & poor.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of the process due to the abuse of it by the studios. To use a phrase - "Hollywood is giving 3D a bad name."

Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 08/26/2010 - 17:03 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.