We actually have a couple of folks who warrant a shout out by name -- Zach and Becca at Aren't We Clever, Joe who helped with set-ups, and, of course, Rebecca, whose name appears to have disappeared between drafts even though her spot in the article remained (that happens a lot when I play around too much with a sentence)! Thanks for the catch Chris, the article's been updated!
Thank you, hope to keep them coming!
Thanks for the kind words, Gabriel. Good luck with your feature!
Check out the fxguide article, it goes into some of the details of what they did. Also, another great post about the partial 2D-3D conversion done on Transformers 3 can be found here: http://effectscorner.blogspot.com/2011/08/2d-to-3d-conversions.html
It's a really interesting read in itself, as that author worked on the process, and gives his thoughts on the pros and cons of doing 3D after the fact vs in-camera.
Awesome! i wish I could have been there, it sounds like it was a great event.
I hear ya on the fix-it-in-post mentality. To be fair though, the article points out that there are certain situations where it's not feasible to do it stereo in-camera (i.e you're shooting on film ((maybe the camera size is an issue??)), or using anamorphic lenses). For example, John Carter had that double-whammy. Even though they had always planned on releasing it in stereo, they still shot it anamorphic on 35mm film. Personally, I like watching my films in 2D, so I appreciate filmmakers who still put the 2D image ahead of 3D concerns (which is what I feel Stanton did in that case). All the same, I'm looking forward to watching The Hobbit in 3D, I think 48fps might actually help 3D. I'm still waiting for that 3D movie that really takes me somewhere I can't go with 2D. I guess we'll see!