im getting worried because theres no news about it. is a go or not?

For the people who want a synthetic regurgitation of the classic masterpiece....Cameron did just discuss it:

"They're converting Clash of the Titans in eight weeks. But I'm guessing six months to a year to do it right. We're targeting spring of 2012 for the release (of a 3D version of Titanic), which is the 100 year anniversary of the sailing of the ship."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -cameron/1

(I think it's a waste of money, the workers' expertise, and the customers' time....but whatever.)

Cameron says something kind of interesting - and also kind of denigrating to the "3D" Titanic - later on in that interview. He's asked about the conversion process and he replies, "It's never going to be as good as if you shot it in 3D, but think of it as sort of 2.8D."

There are a couple of things worth noting here. First off, to my knowledge there have been no tests done to even prove that people like 3D more (nevermind Cameron's previously stated theory that your brain is somehow more active when watching 3D). Got that? No tests. No empirical evidence. Just faith. Secondly, and I don't mean this in a negative way, Cameron's got an inherent bias involved here because he co-owns the patent for the Fusion Camera (a patent that, in that article, he seems to zealously guard, saying that he's ready and willing to sue people who develop cameras that are like the Fusion). Finally, the owner of one of the companies that converts 2D to 3D makes a statement that is the exact opposite of Cameron's: this guy claims that 3D looks superior when it's converted, rather than shot natively in 3D. (He's obviously got an inherent bias, too.)

BARRY SANDREW (Legend 3D Company): The new feature films are going to be converted primarily because a lot of directors don't feel comfortable in 3D. Also, it's cheaper to convert 2D to 3D than shoot natively in 3D. What we offer directors is an opportunity to direct a film in the medium in which they feel most comfortable--2D typically. And then we work with the creative director and convert his/her footage from 2D to 3D.

MARKETSAW: What do you think are the pros and cons of shooting in native 3D verses converting, as the technology stands right now?

Barry Sandrew: Well, the rigs are imperfect, awkward and very tricky to use. Everything in the two cameras have to be perfectly aligned and identical in every aspect. The director then has to spend the extra time to block and frame a shot for stereo rather than 2D. With 2D to 3D conversion, nothing really changes from a traditional 2D shoot. A stereographer is typically on the set advising the director and cinematographer but for the most part, the director can comfortably shoot the way they always have.

MARKETSAW: You can't be misaligned by more than a micron...

Barry Sandrew: Yeah. And if misalignment happens in a native shoot you’ll sometimes see highlights that look a bit strange. That's because the left and right lenses are off a tiny bit. There's a lot of these kind of issues with shooting that you don't get in conversion. In fact, I contend that conversion can look better and even more natural than a native stereo shoot. Certainly in the demo material you just screened there is no way you can tell it wasn’t originally created in 3D with a traditional shoot. When you shoot natively everything has to be staged precisely for 3D. If the convergence is off, if the interocular distance is off, you're going to have issues with the image. You can fix it in post, but that's another expense. One thing people can do when they screw up a stereo shot, is they can always convert it afterwards using just one eye. With conversion, you have a lot more creative freedom. Without exception, the directors I’ve introduced to the conversion process very much appreciate the creative freedom to create stereo after their 2D shoot is completed.

MARKETSAW: Are there any disadvantages to conversion? Is there any quality or attribute to a 3D shot that you can get by shooting natively that you can't get with conversion?

Barry Sandrew: I can't think of one, but I can think of a lot of advantages as I’ve already stated.

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/l ... w-phd.html

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying here is that you have two mutually exclusive claims about converted 3D vs. native 3D. One says that it's worse and should be called "2.8 D" and the other lists informal tests and a host of reasons why converted 3D is better both for the viewer and for the filmmaker.

Well, I'm okay with it, they're not spending my money, workers usually have to work for pay and not personal satisfaction (the damn bourgeoisie eh), and the customers (us) decide if the time is wasted. I would enjoy Titanic on a massive screen, I missed the oppurtunity in '97.

I know that workers have to do whatever tasks they're given (almost by definition), I'm just saying that businesses and engineers should spend their resources on more fruitful, productive endeavors. For instance, that 3D conversion company, Legend 3D, apparently employs a small army of Indian technicians. Well, I think that those human beings' time and talents would be much more productively utilized if they were working on, for example, holograms or CAD programs or other things (which many of their skill-sets would probably translate over to). I just think that this is spending mountains of money on a molehill of information gain.

But you're right: ultimately, it all comes down to the customers. If the people want to live in the past instead of embracing the new....then that's the way things are going to be.

Going by what I read in the news today, it all depends on how well the rerelease of Avatar will do

Sounds like its a sure thing to me

Sorry for being a grouch,but I'd prefer to lay my eyes on a new storyline Titanic movie in 2012.

New titanic movie? I think the 98 one was the definitie version. By the way, there already was a newer version few years ago in a TV series format I think

James Cameron's Titanic is the definitive Titanic film. There is no need to try again. And I'm looking forward to 2012 and its 3D re-release.

Jack Dawson: "I'm the king of the 3D world. Woooooo hoooooo!!!"

Rose DeWitt Bukater: "I'm flying... in 3D!!!!!!!"

New Titanic movie? You cant get better than this one. Cameron's Titanic is the definitive version of the countlessly retold story, just like Coppola's Dracula, Branagh's Frankenstein and Nichols' Wolf.