Originally Posted by Lee Stewart
Yes it is. And you have described it below*
But not this part of your post. You can't "re-render" images that were shot with a camera - only those that were created using a computer.
That is not a factual statement at all. You are failing to understand the difference between a 2D to 3D conversion algorithum and re-rendering 100% CGI material. They are not the same.
*That is correct. Now you finally understand.
You obviously don't understand and are only trying to move my words around to make it seem like you know what you're talking about... I said COMPLETELY CGI shots from The Phantom Menace and you changed those words in my supposed "quote". By your logic, if they're "100% CG" and they're converted into 3D via the usual live action conversion process, then that means that they're fully "re-rendered in 3D". My point is that Shrek 1, 2 and 3 and Hoodwinked Too! were converted in the same manner in which a live action movie is converted. There was no, I repeat NO re-rendering of anything for any of those 3D releases.
How this is difficult to understand is beyond me...
Obviously live action can't be "re-rendered" and 2d-to-3d is nowhere close to actual 3D content... I'm just trying to use flawed logic as an analog to the flawed logic you're using regarding these supposed "native 3D" releases. I don't fail to see the difference between conversion algorithms and re-rendering... I just happen to know the difference between a 2d-to-3d conversion (the kind done by people, not an algorithm) and an actual CGI re-render.
I especially don't know how my mentioning Pixar at the end has anything to do with proving your argument... Pixar does things the RIGHT WAY. Toy Story 1 and 2 were actually re-rendered and they look great!
Dreamworks, the people who make the Shrek films, have done things the right way for a 3D conversion, but only with Kung Fu Panda... that's a film that's *actually* been re-rendered.