Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is 3-D Dead? Slate article

They should have a look at Werner Herzog's latest film.
In good hands, 3D really can bring cinema to a further step.
 
I'll believe 3D is dead when they just plain stop making 3D movies. I don't think they have any intention of doing so for at least another few years, if this article is correct.
 
I'm pretty confident that Red will revolutionize 3D acquisition and presentation (and genuine kudos to Red for continuing to lead the way with innovation).

That said, I personally don't feel that 3D adds to my cinema experience. It's cool for the first few minutes, and then the effect is forgotten until the filmmaker puts an "in your face" 3D effect up to remind you that you're watching 3D. The story and performance are what audiences will always be focused on; I think 3D was a fad spurred by Avatar as one cool example of how to push the boundries with modern CGI. Given that a meaningful portion of the audience gets headaches and/or nausea, add to that number their friends/significant others who accompany them, next add all the people who don't want to pay a premium for the theoretical "benefit" of 3D, and you get a recipe for a shrinking market.

3D has been around for a LONG time. Polarized glasses and CGI don't add so much to the experience that it was a reasonable expectation for 3D to take over cinema, IMO. Taking over the living room seems even more far-fetched to me.

Obviously just one person's perspective, so take it for what it's worth... (stepping off my soap box)

- Tim
 
I disagree in general.

3D is best when ignored.

3D isn't going to make talking heads much more interesting.

Now, there is a scene in the latest Transformers flick. There is a helicopter above a ground vehicle and something stupid is going on, like people trying to get down to the vehicle or up from it ... whatever. The camera appears to be on another helicopter above and to the left of the one in scene. Details aren't important ... just hoping to help identify the scene I am talking about.

That choice of camera position would give a good sense of perspective & dimension to a 2D shot. Using the same set up for 3D is awesome. Everything that makes it work in 2D is amplified and the shot is even better. Nothing pokes out of the screen at the audience, there is no gimmickry.

Like any good bit of cinematography it doesn't stick out at you and scream "hey I am shooting 3D" in the same way you don't want your cinematography to scream out, "look ma! I gots a dolly!"

That ladies and gentlemen is well done 3D in a nutshell.

Subtle and amplifying the 2D photography and the story ... just like any other element of good cinematography.
 
I hate 3d. Every single film I watch I find myself taking off the glasses so I can see an IMAGE, a FRAME, a piece of ART but you can't see shit it's "3d" LOL. god I hate it.
 
You can lay this one at the feet of the exhibitors, IMHO. Shitty glasses, value engineered to minimal performance specs and costs. Its as if they said: "Hey Movie Lovers! Get out of your houses and come see this great cinematic experience with these nifty low cost, narrow field of vision, scratched, dark, uncomfortable glasses that we will overcharge you for!"

Quality content is another argument- but IMO, since you can't account for taste, you must factor in the shitty user experience....
 
I think ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION 3D is just the BEGINNING in a new world of digital image capture and presentation.

Filmmaking will always be a story tellers medium... be it commerical, theatrical or eng... the more tools our great artists have to tell interesting stories, the better.

I just hope somebody invents this crystal technology for real - because can you imagine managing all of the MEDIA created by DUAL 5K S3D @48FPS!

norm-4c44319d73b7c-Superman+Returns+(2006).jpeg


Meantime, thank Graeme "Jor El" Nattress for Redcode - now if Deanan can just figure how to crystalize the digital information :)

this is a good place to start http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110627151724.htm

Just remember Superman needed a castle in the Arctic (cooling I imagine) to store his planet's digital library.

2461821933_03ebc594bc_b.jpg


I would LOVE to see this scene in 3D

 
It really doesn't matter what this filmmaker or that filmmaker can do with 3D. It doesn't matter that this film or that film is technically better at using 3D technology. What matters is that every time you go to the movies, you have a comfortable, high quality immersive experience no matter where you see it. The exhibitors have turned it into russian roulette- sometimes its good- most of the time its shitty. Its the stuff that audiences have to do before they even get to the movie part of the equation that kills 3D. People are killing themselves to create better cameras, better rigs, they're shoveling tons of cash into the tent-pole franchises to create a compelling experience-- and all that money and effort gets tossed out the window because the exhibitors haven't stepped up to ensure that the experience is worth what they're charging for it.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
True 4k screening far exceeds anything I've seen in 3D.
Click to expand...

I think you better hang on to your hat for 4K 48fps 3D screenings then.

Cause 4K rocks, 48fps will rock and 3D will do what it does.
 
The personal taste of few, and the writing work on of even fewer, does matter very little in an industry that is ever growing and committed to the better results of S3D material,
both on the acquisition end as well as on the distribution's end.

It is easy to see graphs, yet we continue to miss an important point, the current Global ECONOMY, and this trust me it is a Huge if not the single handed largest part of why the numbers
have fallen in some 3D showing, apart the bad films in it self and the silly copy cuts want to be 3D post mastered.

I have said it form the beginning to al those that I talked to on high positions in the market place, when asked an opinion of were I see S3D in the years to come, Movie tickets were too high of a premium,
too big of a jump all of a sudden , and instead of encourage people to go see a movie in S3D they discourage it, classical of Hollywood to try and cash in at the expense of others.

S3D in fact it is here to stay a while, trust me on this one, just make sure before you form an opinion to be , well... informed... ;)

There is sure a small percentage of the population which simply can not enjoy S3D because they just can't for physical reasons and those should just simply stay out of it, period, as they have no say in the matter.

Then there are those that simply hate it because to brings a new tool to market to be learned, and it happens to be not even an easy one to learn, so they hate it,
I say, get over it, and go learn a new tool, if you care, if you don't stay aside and let those that care work, just keep making your great 2D movies and let others do what they want to do.


Does S3D acquisition and distribution needs improvement? Yes of course it does, are this improvements coming? Of course they are, as dozen of major companies research and develop new tools
S3D will continue to become easier and better, and will offer Filmmakers better ways of expressing their Stories.

What needs to happen is of course a STOP at the distribution of BAD S3D, which also has given a bad reputation from the stat, again here was Hollywood ready to cash in at the expense of the people,
with bad replicas in post of material simply not fit for S3D viewing, and of course there is the need to insure that those that produce S3D form acquisition do it well.

Bottom line there is the strong need to have a S3D RATING system, to insure that those movies that go out in S3D are fit to be distributed, period, till then we will continue to see bad S3D movies.

The content of it is an other story, as if the story is bad will be bad both in 2D as it will be in S3D.


Is 3D Dead? He he I don't think see, not by a long Defilibration shot... Again look around at what is happening in the world of Broadcast, not just Movie making, see also Sports, and see
the Brute force assembled by some of the biggest names in the industries, and see what are they bringing to market, then see that S3D is continuing to have support at levels never seen in the industry before.

4K projection systems wil yet again reinforce S3D viewing , as it is here were the weakest link lies, in Distribution... But not for long... ;)
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
The personal taste of few, and the writing work on of even fewer, does matter very little in an industry that is ever growing and committed to the better results of S3D material,
both on the acquisition end as well as on the distribution's end.

It is easy to see graphs, yet we continue to miss an important point, the current Global ECONOMY, and this trust me it is a Huge if not the single handed largest part of why the numbers
have fallen in some 3D showing, apart the bad films in it self and the silly copy cuts want to be 3D post mastered.

I have said it form the beginning to al those that I talked to on high positions in the market place, when asked an opinion of were I see S3D in the years to come, Movie tickets were too high of a premium,
too big of a jump all of a sudden , and instead of encourage people to go see a movie in S3D they discourage it, classical of Hollywood to try and cash in at the expense of others.

S3D in fact it is here to stay a while, trust me on this one, just make sure before you form an opinion to be , well... informed... ;)

There is sure a small percentage of the population which simply can not enjoy S3D because they just can't for physical reasons and those should just simply stay out of it, period, as they have no say in the matter.

Then there are those that simply hate it because to brings a new tool to market to be learned, and it happens to be not even an easy one to learn, so they hate it,
I say, get over it, and go learn a new tool, if you care, if you don't stay aside and let those that care work, just keep making your great 2D movies and let others do what they want to do.


Does S3D acquisition and distribution needs improvement? Yes of course it does, are this improvements coming? Of course they are, as dozen of major companies research and develop new tools
S3D will continue to become easier and better, and will offer Filmmakers better ways of expressing their Stories.

What needs to happen is of course a STOP at the distribution of BAD S3D, which also has given a bad reputation from the stat, again here was Hollywood ready to cash in at the expense of the people,
with bad replicas in post of material simply not fit for S3D viewing, and of course there is the need to insure that those that produce S3D form acquisition do it well.

Bottom line there is the strong need to have a S3D RATING system, to insure that those movies that go out in S3D are fit to be distributed, period, till then we will continue to see bad S3D movies.

The content of it is an other story, as if the story is bad will be bad both in 2D as it will be in S3D.


Is 3D Dead? He he I don't think see, not by a long Defilibration shot... Again look around at what is happening in the world of Broadcast, not just Movie making, see also Sports, and see
the Brute force assembled by some of the biggest names in the industries, and see what are they bringing to market, then see that S3D is continuing to have support at levels never seen in the industry before.

4K projection systems wil yet again reinforce S3D viewing , as it is here were the weakest link lies, in Distribution... But not for long... ;)
Click to expand...

Here here well said Ketch I totally agree!!!
 
Jeff Coatney said:
It really doesn't matter what this filmmaker or that filmmaker can do with 3D. It doesn't matter that this film or that film is technically better at using 3D technology. What matters is that every time you go to the movies, you have a comfortable, high quality immersive experience no matter where you see it. The exhibitors have turned it into russian roulette- sometimes its good- most of the time its shitty. Its the stuff that audiences have to do before they even get to the movie part of the equation that kills 3D. People are killing themselves to create better cameras, better rigs, they're shoveling tons of cash into the tent-pole franchises to create a compelling experience-- and all that money and effort gets tossed out the window because the exhibitors haven't stepped up to ensure that the experience is worth what they're charging for it.
Click to expand...

A-fuckin-men mate. and I think everyone would agree. but Ketch and Mark P. are correct. 3-D is viable for quite some time. It's only just begun. But you nailed it on the head DISTRO is weak. Glasses are KEY. The new congolmerate vote for active is VOMITOUS.

Our humble studio is betting on RED RAY 4K distribution and Oakely-esque goggles, glasses, etc.... OR what I REALLY HOPE FOR? Re-engineered theaters with 40' x 60 ' polarizers, placed 30' in front of the sourced dual 4K projection - a deep lens dual theater screen is the answer - but adding that much square footage to existing Theaters may be impossible in many locations without taking away seats. I think a massive-passive linear polarizer paced 30 feet in front of the screens is the answer. the glasses need to go
 
Michael Lindsay said:
Why not?

Regards

Michael L
Click to expand...

I think you are pulling my leg, but I'll bite.

Because for the most part the typical back and forth dramatic conversation doesn't have a real dynamic spatial relationship. There is nothing interesting happening usually, and the story must be carried at that point by performance ... so anything that distracts from performance hurts the story.

Now ... some conversations are dynamic by nature, particularly two swordsmen about to face off trading quips ... but that isn't exactly talking heads is it?

So if you are shooting a film in 3D and you get to some portion that is a typical two shot devolving into alternating OTS medium closes with the occasional CU/XCU, then your best bet is to back the camera off and let the lenses compress the perspective, and let the distance from subject neutralize the 3D effect at the subject.

You have to learn how to use 3D if you want do have it help tell your story.

Just like DoF ... you don't want hypershallow DoF in every scene right? You don't want t/16 in every scene either ... you have to find the balance and that balance shifts as your story changes.

Same for 3D. When there is action and the spatial relationships are changing quickly you want to take the camera close ... very subjective inside the circle of action. One of the best 2D examples is the Normandy landing scene in Saving Private Ryan.

When subjects are static ... let the camera be more distant, a fly on the wall. 3D isn't hugely important until something dynamic occurs.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
So if you are shooting a film in 3D and you get to some portion that is a typical two shot devolving into alternating OTS medium closes with the occasional CU/XCU, then your best bet is to back the camera off and let the lenses compress the perspective, and let the distance from subject neutralize the 3D effect at the subject.
Click to expand...

That's a very broad statement - derived from how movies are typically shot in 2D - how we are accustomed to seeing movies. I'd change your statement from "your best bet" to "your safest bet".

The thing that most people miss about shooting 3D is that you can many times achieve the emotional story-telling effect you want by NOT using "standard" film coverage. A very basic example, an actor can lean forward, through the plane of convergence - effectively coming through the screen and closer to the audience at a moment - using blocking - as opposed to cutting to tighter shot, etc.

3D is far, far from "dead". What we need is some great 3D films to be released. Films that were not just shot using 2D conventions with some stuff coming out of the screen. Films that were shot to use the 3D format to heighten the cinematic experience of the audience and emotional impact of the story.

Those films are coming ...
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
...3D is far, far from "dead". What we need is some great 3D films to be released. Films that were not just shot using 2D conventions with some stuff coming out of the screen. Films that were shot to use the 3D format to heighten the cinematic experience of the audience and emotional impact of the story.

Those films are coming ...
Click to expand...

BINGO!!

This is exactly how "Rape of a Beauty" will be shot, were the Depth Budget, positions, lighting strength and its placements and Sets will be conceived form Script as a S3D film...
Not a 2D one, considering exactly the opposite of conventional 2D filmmaking.

S3D used as a convincing tool to accentuate the Dramatic scene and present its viewers with a more dynamic and realistic experience to the story,
the main Characters, the action, and the scene in itself, a true window in to that world.

I have been alone for years while discussing the use of S3D in DRAMA, finally I am no longer alone... The great Gatsby, been one of them... ;)
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
That's a very broad statement - derived from how movies are typically shot in 2D - how we are accustomed to seeing movies. I'd change your statement from "your best bet" to "your safest bet".

The thing that most people miss about shooting 3D is that you can many times achieve the emotional story-telling effect you want by NOT using "standard" film coverage. A very basic example, an actor can lean forward, through the plane of convergence - effectively coming through the screen and closer to the audience at a moment - using blocking - as opposed to cutting to tighter shot, etc.

3D is far, far from "dead". What we need is some great 3D films to be released. Films that were not just shot using 2D conventions with some stuff coming out of the screen. Films that were shot to use the 3D format to heighten the cinematic experience of the audience and emotional impact of the story.

Those films are coming ...
Click to expand...

Meh.

You can do that in 2D as well. It's done all the time ... you walk an actor from an LS to a CU. If you are on a wide lens, then can lean from a CU to an XCU. In fact I'd call it a standard film coverage technique.

It is a general statement of course, because I am speaking generally. If you want my advice on a specific shot or film, then its time to hire me. ;)

Continuing to speak generally, I feel that the exact thing you are describing is not appropriate for most films. If I'm shooting The Wizard in The Wizard of Oz ... well it may be appropriate then. Sticking a head out of the plane can be very over the top. It's like shooting an XCU on a 9mm.

3D folks love to sell their gimmicks ... just like some camera folks love to sell extremely shallow DoF and creamy bokeh as standard fare. Wrong and wrong.

Have you thought about the psychology of how a fifteen foot head sticking out of a screen affects an audience? Its a huge deal ... and you want to save that trick for when its really good for the story. Just like a "Kirk Close."

Its all about psychological moments. One thing we must remember moving forward with 3D is that 2D film is a very highly evolved form - our techniques are very refined in 2D.

It would be smart to study those techniques again as we transition to 3D ... not only the ones we use every day but also the many techniques we eschew in 2D. Its important to understand how and why something in 2D works or fails before you try to develop a new grammar for 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top