Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Walter Murch on 3d. Let's chat.
- Thread starter PatC
- Start date
Ketch Rossi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,041
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Sardinia, Italy
- Website
- www.afroditefilms.com
Just an other Opinion 
Edit: Far from the truth might I add..
Edit: Far from the truth might I add..
Noah Kadner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,804
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.callboxlive.com
He makes some valid (and well-known) points from a technical POV. But from a box office perspective, let's face it audiences are eating up 3D. And at the end of the day that's the thing that matters to career filmmakers.
Noah
Noah
Steven-Marc C.
Well-known member
Isn't the problem lessened through the use of (mostly) positive convergence (ie. behind the screen)?
Charlie Anderson
Active member
I know that the green hornet was shot 2d and converted to 3d, saw it last night (not in 3d though, will only see a movie in 3d if it's shot in 3d) and noticed that at the end. So when he talks about a review of the green hornet in 3d that might be throwing some of the issues there. I would have to say though, after seeing 3D work in the field, especially with the guys from OH, I could see a difference in the quality of 3D when it is shot 3D as opposed to making it an after thought. if any of that made sense haha
Francesco Bonomo
Well-known member
Just an other Opinion
Absolutely, but an opinion expressed by one of the greatest film editors of all time is not really "just another opinion", wouldn't you agree?
Could you please tell me where in his letter Mr. Murch is saying something false?
Well, that's not entirely true. Actually, the studios are getting more money per screen (and per movie) when it comes to 3D because of the premium on tickets, but 3D hasn't caused more people to go to theaters.
I believe what matters to filmmakers is to tell their stories the best way they can and possibly make a living out of it, not just to make huge amounts of money (besides, I don't think it's the filmmakers who benefit economically from 3D, it's the studios).
Ketch Rossi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,041
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Sardinia, Italy
- Website
- www.afroditefilms.com
I only agree with his well known factors and technical aspects of 2D Monoscopic Cinematography, but I absolutely
disagreed on his entire opinion on 3D, no matter how great of an Editor He is BIAS, what it is in concern?
The need to re-learn the art?
Just saying, don't pay too much attention to me, I'm just expressing my Opinion as well and I'm really a NO body
But the Love for the Arts in my point is that I love everything about it, and I love every single tool at my Disposal to
express it, 3D is yet and other, POWERFUL tool i the Bag, some see it some don't some love it some hate it, but it is
in there and it will not be thrown away any time soon no matter how much some oppose to it, they need to get over it!!
3D today, is in the same place as Sound, Color, HD, and many other Technological advancements that we
will see in the near or far feature, HOLOGRAM CINEMA??
Thing is that all that is new takes time to adjust to, some more the others, but adjust we will, especially when the
Economics derived form far out pass those of other technologies available, and 3D now does surpass more then 3 to 1
any and all its 2D Monoscopic sales per each individual Title, despite of the large difference in lower numbers of Cinema
were 3D can be currently showed in, vs. 2D Monoscopic.
Peter Matthes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,071
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 55
- Location
- New York City
- Website
- www.penandincfilms.com
I think he is the greatest film editor of all time.
Francesco Bonomo
Well-known member
I was about to write that, Peter, but I thought it would've focused the conversation on different things
Fair enough. I think things are pretty simple, he doesn't like it and was voicing his opinion, I don't really believe he has a secret agenda or he's scared by something "new". After all, as the article points out, he's the only editor who has been nominated for movies shot on 4 different editing system, from the moviola to FC.
Just saying, don't pay too much attention to me, I'm just expressing my Opinion as well and I'm really a NO body
You see, I asked that question because I like to hear everyone's opinion, Murch, Rossi, everyone, even more so from people who have a different point of view from mine
As for 3D being another tool, I do agree with you, although I don't like it at all and won't see another movie in 3D no matter what, but that's me, a matter of personal preference, I guess. As I've written many times before here and elsewhere, I'm sure it's perfect for some things, and wrong for others, and in the end it's always great to have different tools to choose from.
Felix K.
Well-known member
And I agree with him, sorry Ketch. I experience exactly what he says and even if I didn't, the eluding "Brechtian" element of 3D movies is exactly the opposite of what made the art-form "film" successful. Otherwise, we'd still rather go and see a play (that is real 3D by the way).
Sure, some movies take you on a ride; a setting like the new TRON movie is perfekt for 3D. I wouldn't want to have 3D in a drama or lovestory though. Not even a thriller or a comedy film.
Still, this is also coming from a nobody, much more "no" then Ketch is for sure, the humble man!
Sure, some movies take you on a ride; a setting like the new TRON movie is perfekt for 3D. I wouldn't want to have 3D in a drama or lovestory though. Not even a thriller or a comedy film.
Still, this is also coming from a nobody, much more "no" then Ketch is for sure, the humble man!
Ketch Rossi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,041
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Sardinia, Italy
- Website
- www.afroditefilms.com
Thing is that I have been studying in to 3D for since 10 years ago, and every one I talked to, saying I was nuts, to think that I could revived 3D,
yet here we are 10 years later, and even so off course it was not surely thanks to me, since i have yet to produce anything in 3D, but 3D it is
here once again stronger then ever was, and better then ever was, and it is getting better by as we speak with companies bringing to market
new cameras and 3D rigs ever more capable.
Now successfully controlling the elements presented in the Production of a 3D Film, is a different story, as every one it is experimenting here,
and with the launch of our new Studios in Italy as a State of The Art 3D facility with 3Atom 3D rig on the way we will sure also Experiment on,
but I hope to be given the opportunity to show what I mean, and what I see, as 3D must be taken as a True Art, and a story told form the
very beginning of development with 3D in mind, even so I absolutely Love Cameron's work I also disagreed with him about shooting a
3D movie as if it was a 2D movie, a 3D movie in my STRONG Opinion, must be written with a Depth Budget that will design each scene with
that ion mind, to allow for what ever desired effect either the action been inside the screen or outside, the Depth needs to be considered,
adjusted and illuminated accordingly, as well as the use of the angles and camera position vs. the BG the main subjects and the FG.
Thing is that when something come s form the mouth of a well know individual then it gets taken in a different way then when it is told from
some one that has yet to show what He can do, but time will come
Off course I am known for my Extreme Passion and Arrogance when it comes to my Opinion, so again, must excuse me
But at the end of the Day, what every Professional in any Industry should do is Welcome any changes and or New ways of doing things,
not put them down based on their life time achievement in an entirely different thing.
Most changes and regulations here must come also form the Cinema showing 3D, wee they need to be really in the Know how to and have the right tools to present
their Patrons with 3D, as I have seen more then one Sorry excuse of a 3D Cinema presentation, were Projector, screen and just about everything including the
Glasses were just NOT acceptable.
yet here we are 10 years later, and even so off course it was not surely thanks to me, since i have yet to produce anything in 3D, but 3D it is
here once again stronger then ever was, and better then ever was, and it is getting better by as we speak with companies bringing to market
new cameras and 3D rigs ever more capable.
Now successfully controlling the elements presented in the Production of a 3D Film, is a different story, as every one it is experimenting here,
and with the launch of our new Studios in Italy as a State of The Art 3D facility with 3Atom 3D rig on the way we will sure also Experiment on,
but I hope to be given the opportunity to show what I mean, and what I see, as 3D must be taken as a True Art, and a story told form the
very beginning of development with 3D in mind, even so I absolutely Love Cameron's work I also disagreed with him about shooting a
3D movie as if it was a 2D movie, a 3D movie in my STRONG Opinion, must be written with a Depth Budget that will design each scene with
that ion mind, to allow for what ever desired effect either the action been inside the screen or outside, the Depth needs to be considered,
adjusted and illuminated accordingly, as well as the use of the angles and camera position vs. the BG the main subjects and the FG.
Thing is that when something come s form the mouth of a well know individual then it gets taken in a different way then when it is told from
some one that has yet to show what He can do, but time will come
Off course I am known for my Extreme Passion and Arrogance when it comes to my Opinion, so again, must excuse me
But at the end of the Day, what every Professional in any Industry should do is Welcome any changes and or New ways of doing things,
not put them down based on their life time achievement in an entirely different thing.
Most changes and regulations here must come also form the Cinema showing 3D, wee they need to be really in the Know how to and have the right tools to present
their Patrons with 3D, as I have seen more then one Sorry excuse of a 3D Cinema presentation, were Projector, screen and just about everything including the
Glasses were just NOT acceptable.
Frank Glencairn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 650
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Germany
- Website
- frankglencairn.wordpress.com
David Battistella
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 10,003
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
Ravi Kiran
Well-known member
Frank, I don't think that graph takes into account the number of 3D screens vs. the number of 3D films available. When Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were in theaters, there were far fewer films competing for 3D screens. That could affect percentages of 3D vs. 2D ticket sales.
Sanjin Jukic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,929
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Vienna, Austria
- Website
- www.sanjinjukic.com
Also I totally agree with Walter Murch and I quoted his early interview about 3D stereoscopic movies year or two ago here.
At the moment is a sort of "cash cow" for big Hollywood studios but obviously is not a future of cinema.
For example with today state-of-art 3D stereoscopic technology you can't make any other genre
or serious artistic quality movie except those expensive VFX driven fantasy but story-wise cheap action movies...
At the moment is a sort of "cash cow" for big Hollywood studios but obviously is not a future of cinema.
For example with today state-of-art 3D stereoscopic technology you can't make any other genre
or serious artistic quality movie except those expensive VFX driven fantasy but story-wise cheap action movies...
Peter Salvia
Well-known member
I think the point that Mr. Murch makes, that "...if the film story has really gripped an audience they are 'in' the picture in a kind of dreamlike 'spaceless' space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with" is one of the most informed observations I've read concerning 2D or 3D storytelling. And I believe at the heart of his letter is an emphatic critique of 3D storytelling, not on the technical aptitude of the filmmaker or the perceptive capabilities of the audience.
What a 3D filmmaker might take away from this significant observation is that Mr. Murch believes the audience is most comfortable when it's convergence point is fixed for the duration of the film and then to let themselves be surrounded by the story. Perhaps 3D could be most successfully deployed as a storytelling tool in films like Cube or maybe an adaptation of the video game Portal: stories where the sets are repetitive, inherently three dimensional in design and fundamentally understood by the audience. Stories where the concept of watching action unfold in a shoebox, stage, auditorium or what have you is easily understood from the offset. Then the story that happens inside the established 3D space engrosses them; the 3D becomes a feature of the story, not a distraction or technical achievement with no direct contribution to the story's telling.
Again, to quote Mr. Murch, "...the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to 'get' what the space of each shot is and adjust." So as 3D storytellers, if we limit the need for these constant adjustments in the brains of the audience, then we allow them to be more fully enveloped by the dimensionality of the story within the 3D space of the film. Therefore, limiting set changes and quick cuts between multiple camera angles would be a must. Revealing a three dimensional set to an audience should be done politely, perhaps with a simple fade from black or jump cut. And pacing should allow for plenty of time for their brains to (literally) adjust and understand the new three dimensional space.
Additionally, 3D depth should be matched from cut to cut. We're no longer interacting with a 2D plane, depth of field and focus are combining with 3D depth. The audience's brain is literally more attuned to specific areas and depths of the screen. Is anyone else out there deaffened by the sucking sound a lack of a sophisticated NLE with built in 3D tools in our current market? Shouldn't it be the job of the editor to make cuts based on convergence points, to tweak convergence as necessary, etc? Final Cut Studio 3D anyone? But, I digress.
At the end of the day, would I have gone to see Avatar if it hadn't been in 3D? Yes. Did seeing it in 3D fundamentally change my understanding of the story? No. And I think that concept is at the heart of Mr. Murch's critique: until 3D comfortably enhances the audience's understanding and appreciation of a story it will continue to be perceived as a gimmicky marketing tactic bundled with a hot technical mess by established Hollywood storytellers like Mr. Murch.
Obviously, 3D is a viable production quality studios are happy to build in to a budget so that they can market the added value and increase a film's revenue. As 3D storytellers it should be our mission to write or find stories that 3D production will fundamentally enhance the audience's appreciation of the film and the story it is sharing with them.
A storytelling success combined with a box office hit is what it will take for 3D to finally arrive. IMHO.
What a 3D filmmaker might take away from this significant observation is that Mr. Murch believes the audience is most comfortable when it's convergence point is fixed for the duration of the film and then to let themselves be surrounded by the story. Perhaps 3D could be most successfully deployed as a storytelling tool in films like Cube or maybe an adaptation of the video game Portal: stories where the sets are repetitive, inherently three dimensional in design and fundamentally understood by the audience. Stories where the concept of watching action unfold in a shoebox, stage, auditorium or what have you is easily understood from the offset. Then the story that happens inside the established 3D space engrosses them; the 3D becomes a feature of the story, not a distraction or technical achievement with no direct contribution to the story's telling.
Again, to quote Mr. Murch, "...the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to 'get' what the space of each shot is and adjust." So as 3D storytellers, if we limit the need for these constant adjustments in the brains of the audience, then we allow them to be more fully enveloped by the dimensionality of the story within the 3D space of the film. Therefore, limiting set changes and quick cuts between multiple camera angles would be a must. Revealing a three dimensional set to an audience should be done politely, perhaps with a simple fade from black or jump cut. And pacing should allow for plenty of time for their brains to (literally) adjust and understand the new three dimensional space.
Additionally, 3D depth should be matched from cut to cut. We're no longer interacting with a 2D plane, depth of field and focus are combining with 3D depth. The audience's brain is literally more attuned to specific areas and depths of the screen. Is anyone else out there deaffened by the sucking sound a lack of a sophisticated NLE with built in 3D tools in our current market? Shouldn't it be the job of the editor to make cuts based on convergence points, to tweak convergence as necessary, etc? Final Cut Studio 3D anyone? But, I digress.
At the end of the day, would I have gone to see Avatar if it hadn't been in 3D? Yes. Did seeing it in 3D fundamentally change my understanding of the story? No. And I think that concept is at the heart of Mr. Murch's critique: until 3D comfortably enhances the audience's understanding and appreciation of a story it will continue to be perceived as a gimmicky marketing tactic bundled with a hot technical mess by established Hollywood storytellers like Mr. Murch.
Obviously, 3D is a viable production quality studios are happy to build in to a budget so that they can market the added value and increase a film's revenue. As 3D storytellers it should be our mission to write or find stories that 3D production will fundamentally enhance the audience's appreciation of the film and the story it is sharing with them.
A storytelling success combined with a box office hit is what it will take for 3D to finally arrive. IMHO.
Tim Hole
Well-known member
In my opinion Murch is the best editor of all time in the same way that Tolkien is the best fantasy writer of all time. What I mean by that is the Tolkien is perceived as the best for a lot of reasons, his depth of storyworld, character design and even down to description. Having said that. I don't believe Tolkien to be the best. I don't believe Murch to be the best. I don't believe that Murch's films to be the best edited films in history. In fact my one of the best edited films of all time is City of God. Just because someone has been doing it for a long time, is exceptionally good at something, is considered the cream of the crop, and has made some of the most important movements to help the world craft of editing does not make him the best editor of all time. Murch's work on The Conversation is probably his best and is probably some of the best there has been. Despite loving Tolkien's works he is too over-descriptive.
I have issues with any one person, being the best of anything, of all time.
As an editor I would have thought though that he would have said more about cutting and the issues towards the way that 3D films should be cut and directed differently to 2D films. The biggest problem, is like he mentioned briefly, is the MTV style fast cutting that has found its way into a lot of contemporary cinema. Sharp cutting from wide to close up will seriously affect the viewer. We definitely need to look into more organic movements and transitions to ease the viewers experience.
My 2cents on the matter.
Besides studios are only interested in 3D to get people in the cinema, make a bit more money and combat piracy. The indie on the other hand wins a little because it has helped to encourage the roll out of digital cinema quicker than it might have otherwise.
BTW, athough I have not been a fan of dimensionalisation, Green Hornet is a great feather in their bow. Very nicely done. True it was elevated by CG/VFX elements that really helped helped to sell it. - Despite the horrible stuttering pans.
I have issues with any one person, being the best of anything, of all time.
As an editor I would have thought though that he would have said more about cutting and the issues towards the way that 3D films should be cut and directed differently to 2D films. The biggest problem, is like he mentioned briefly, is the MTV style fast cutting that has found its way into a lot of contemporary cinema. Sharp cutting from wide to close up will seriously affect the viewer. We definitely need to look into more organic movements and transitions to ease the viewers experience.
My 2cents on the matter.
Besides studios are only interested in 3D to get people in the cinema, make a bit more money and combat piracy. The indie on the other hand wins a little because it has helped to encourage the roll out of digital cinema quicker than it might have otherwise.
BTW, athough I have not been a fan of dimensionalisation, Green Hornet is a great feather in their bow. Very nicely done. True it was elevated by CG/VFX elements that really helped helped to sell it. - Despite the horrible stuttering pans.
Peter Matthes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,071
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 55
- Location
- New York City
- Website
- www.penandincfilms.com
You can say that again.
Here is a nice interview along those lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_py6jVyOqUY
A bunch of kids got this unique seven minute interview with him at his home.
http://roadtripnation.com/WalterMurch
Fuck ... Can you imagine going to film school with Walter, Lucas and John Milius?
Pat ... I'm sorry that I am only addressing half of this thread. I am just a really really big Walter Murch fan.
Wait ... Okay ... I am not very fond of 3D ... except for animation. :smiley:
Barend Onneweer
Well-known member
I had written an elaborate comment on Eberts page but it seems Ebert is not letting comments come through so here's a rewrite.
I find it somewhat disappointing that a man of Murch's stature came up with these weak arguments:
1) "The 3D image is dark". True. The current generation of projectors doesn't have the light output to project a brighter image. A couple of years from now this will be solved so this hardly a convincing argument for 3D to 'never work'.
2) "...horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D..." Yes and 24fps film will strobe sooner than a 60i sports broadcast... Higher framerates would solve that so this is more of an argument in favour of 48fps than against 3D in general. Until then we need to pan slower. Again, hardly valid argument to dismiss 3D completely.
3) "The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue." This is the only fundamental argument Murch presents. But decoupling convergence and focus happens all the time, when staring. There are lots of people who don't have problems watching S3D. But 3D may not be for everyone. Hardly a solid case against 3D. I for one thoroughly enjoyed the 3D in Avatar so for Murch to state that it doesn't work somewhat puts me off.
4) "Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D film"... Again - how is this an argument against 3D in its entirety? So cut slower.
5) "...Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with..." This seems like it could be a good argument for reading (good) books versus cinema in general.
Apart from the third argument Murch mostly points out some limitations of S3D cinema. 3D is different from monoscopic film for sure. But it is a bit surreal to see smart people speak up against it with so much passion. Stereo is just another way to show images and for some projects it may really add something to the experience.
There is a lot of really bad stereo in the theaters at the moment. But to be honest, most films are crap anyway. Hardly a reason to dismiss the medium in its entirety. I would think most of you will agree with me on that one.
I find it somewhat disappointing that a man of Murch's stature came up with these weak arguments:
1) "The 3D image is dark". True. The current generation of projectors doesn't have the light output to project a brighter image. A couple of years from now this will be solved so this hardly a convincing argument for 3D to 'never work'.
2) "...horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D..." Yes and 24fps film will strobe sooner than a 60i sports broadcast... Higher framerates would solve that so this is more of an argument in favour of 48fps than against 3D in general. Until then we need to pan slower. Again, hardly valid argument to dismiss 3D completely.
3) "The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue." This is the only fundamental argument Murch presents. But decoupling convergence and focus happens all the time, when staring. There are lots of people who don't have problems watching S3D. But 3D may not be for everyone. Hardly a solid case against 3D. I for one thoroughly enjoyed the 3D in Avatar so for Murch to state that it doesn't work somewhat puts me off.
4) "Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D film"... Again - how is this an argument against 3D in its entirety? So cut slower.
5) "...Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with..." This seems like it could be a good argument for reading (good) books versus cinema in general.
Apart from the third argument Murch mostly points out some limitations of S3D cinema. 3D is different from monoscopic film for sure. But it is a bit surreal to see smart people speak up against it with so much passion. Stereo is just another way to show images and for some projects it may really add something to the experience.
There is a lot of really bad stereo in the theaters at the moment. But to be honest, most films are crap anyway. Hardly a reason to dismiss the medium in its entirety. I would think most of you will agree with me on that one.
Tim Hole
Well-known member
I agree with your points apart from a slight disagreement with this one. This is an infuriating in-house argument at the moment. The projectors do have the ability to output the correct amount of light. They are rated far beyond what the lamps are generally set to. Coupled with the other issue of the fast installs and lack of time for set-up is a constant problem. Hopefully this will be overcome in time.