World’s First 4K 3D Digital Cinema Camera System For Studio, Location, and Underwater

[istvanttt]

Of course the eye of the DP comes first!!!

But what I think is put into the discussion is that it is not enough just to shoot like before and let the stereographer do the stereo part. The results we see.

So often I meet people from the industry who tell ..yeas.. nice... but, is it worth for a litle depth to have all the hussle? Personally I think s3D can be much more then just a little more depth, but it needs the understanding of the new media by everybody who is involved in a shooting.
Istvan

 

[Dominic Jones]

Just to clear this up - I didn't say that a person who paints can never sculpt, or vice-versa - simply that they are different mediums with different techniques and skills to conquer. At no point did I ever say, or intend to imply, that a great 2D cinematographer cannot be a great 3D cinematographer. Simply that being a great 2D cinematographer does not, in and of itself, make you a great 3D cinematographer (or director, or editor, etc, etc). A subtle but very important difference...

When Michelangelo painted, he was a painter. When he sculpted, a sculptor - he was never a painter sculpting, he could just do two jobs very well, as can many others in many areas - that doesn't make the two jobs the same! There are, of course, a good amount of transferable skills, and I think it's also worth noting that at no point was I implying (as you mention later) that you need a new crop of filmmakers to make 3D and the 2D people "can't do it". Just that everyone needs to start thinking in different circles regarding 3D shooting, and most, as yet, are not.

You do, however, make a very good point (which I sort of alluded to with the "well shot, edited and displayed 3D" part of my original post, but decided not to go too heavy on to avoid muddying the water) about cutting techniques and 3D. It is interesting to note that at present 3D is often used in the very worst types of films (technically) as far as it's innate style suits - namely horror/action movies with lots of fast cuts and dramatic scene changes! I, for one, would love to see a slow-paced art movie beautifully shot in 3D featuring fantastic locations - that would get the train moving, in my opinion.

I also agree about the shallow DoF problems with 3D - for me it is a no-go to have shallow DoF, it simply doesn't work and makes no sense as regards human vision (which is, let's face it, what 3D attempts to simulate). We don't see in shallow DoF, it's a 2D "trick" to emphasise depth, which is not an issue with 3D. This, in fact, illustrates my point beautifully - it's a mistake made by (potentially very competent) 2D filmmakers who have not understood why they are using the trick in 2D and/or why it is not necessary (or desirable) in 3D.

However, all of these are instances of the greater point, which I was attempting to make - that all of the rules of cinema, from framing and lighting to shot selection and cutting, need to be re-discovered and re-worked in 3D, and that has not really happened in earnest yet. Haste the day...

Cheers,
Dom.

 

[Eric Lange]

Nice post,

I was saying that you can shoot with a narrow depth of field to eliminate a troublesome background (in terms of parallax) but even then, a blurry unresolved stereo background can cause problems too I.e. that is preferable to the more problematic colossal range parallax where everything is pin sharp, but the main object of interest is in the foreground. I’m really glad that someone is trying to use or optimize a greater range of depth especially to pull out all the juicy fine 3d detail that all too often gets compressed. Most of the applications I have carried out in the past have used massive base separations (compared to a p+S Technic mirror rig) and I am having to learn how to use much narrower ones for smaller close up subjects in a larger spatial context.

I hope with your new stereo project that you yourself get to explore some of the aspects you discuss “in earnest” to your satisfaction and to the benefit of others. I look forward to “watching this space” as you say to see what you discover. Sounds like an interesting project. Will you be shooting on RED or something else?

Cheers,
Eric

 

[Eric Lange]

Also Dom, I don’t want to give the impression that I only think that Stereo should only be the preserve of high flying cinematographers. I think that when 3d at home takes off i.e. digital S-3d broadcast delivery, then a lot of new opportunities will be created for “young shooters” that have a firm grasp on the technology as well. I certainly agree that a lot of the technical basics have not yet been mastered.

We would all like to imagine high cinematic art being achieved in S-3d; but sometimes you have to stop and pinch yourself for a moment. The film or flick business (depending on your point of view) is just that a business. S-3d is commercially very viable and for the most part S-3D will be the preserve of family movies, sensational and action pics, horror movies and so on but I don’t think it is well applied to serious human stories, high art or drama. [ Real artists like Istvan, should I hope disagree with me on that point].

If I had another life, I would love to turn the book Vernon God Little into a movie, [The book has a very dark and ironic sense of humor, but never the less has brilliant characterizations and real drama, usually described as Holden Caulfield on Ritalin (a Catcher in the Rye for our times), a book that Dickens could have written if he were part of contemporary culture]. As much as I love stereo and 3d, If I were to start producing it as a flick in 3d people would think I was totally crazy and they would be right. The simple truth is that for serious content or drama, S3d would be an inappropriate distraction in most cases. For example Zemeckes made the judicious application of CG in Forest Gump very artful, however Forrest Gump in 3d is not so artful “The Feel Good Movie of the Year (Now IN 3d!)” or Brokeback Mountain II in 3D. The English Patient in 3d might be visually nice, but I think it would be a distraction from the emotional content. I really don’t believe that S3d will be used for serious human drama unless all the technologies up to final output are absolutely flawless including the viewing experience.

I think the ultimate cultural value and place for S3d will be in the documentary format and delivered/broadcast to people’s homes. The traditional lines between stereo movies/documentaries, and 3d VR formats will become blurred and almost indistinguishable. High quality content will be essential and will revolutionize how we experience distant sites, lands and cultures through broadcast media. The possibilities to synthesize the media into engaging non linear formats are almost endless where multimedia, games, VR and stereo movies are seamlessly integrated. To be able to experience the moments of discovery as if you are really there (in 3d), when for example a "new" Tomb is opened in the Valley of the Kings for the first time, will bring an entirely new level of excitement and engagement, a sort of telepresence to inaccessible sites and locations. Although right now the buzz is all about S3d in the movies, I think ultimately the real masters of the S-3d craft will be in the documentary format such as the work of LiquidPictures and others. [Really looking forward to seeing the results of their 4k underwater work].

Cheers again.

 

[istvanttt]

Infact Eric I do disagree with you in this! I'm convinced that once we will have higher light throu-put in the cinemas, human dramas will be a very important part of the s3D movies. Cinema is very much the art of the body-language and adding to that the possibilities to feel (!!!) also the distance empatically between 2 actors, or between 1 actor and some action, is a huge tool for transmitting emotions.

I do agree that a badly used s3D can be more distracting then helpful, but if the blocking and directing is specifically planed for s3D then (avoiding liliput effects) it should work also in dramas. Come on Eric with all your s3D experience you really want to tell me that an even abused scene like "... husband comes home and finds wife in bed with best-friend..." could not be emotionally extremly powerful and violent in s3D?

Istvan

.....
..... and for the most part S-3D will be the preserve of family movies, sensational and action pics, horror movies and so on but I don’t think it is well applied to serious human stories, high art or drama. [ Real artists like Istvan, should I hope disagree with me on that point].

....... The simple truth is that for serious content or drama, S3d would be an inappropriate distraction in most cases. ........ I really don’t believe that S3d will be used for serious human drama unless all the technologies up to final output are absolutely flawless including the viewing experience.

.........

Cheers again.

 

[Eric Lange]

Come on Eric with all your s3D experience you really want to tell me that an even abused scene like "... husband comes home and finds wife in bed with best-friend..." could not be emotionally extremly powerful and violent in s3D?

Istvan

Istvan, awesome post,

I wondered when we would get to that. Today unfortunately I have two clients and eight horses to work today and much else besides, but the topic you raise is a brilliant one and too irresistible to not reply to or ignore. I’ll try to post a response to that perhaps tonight or tomorrow morning.

I think your post (above) is probably the best post on the 3d threads forum to date.

Nice one,

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Jonathan Payne]

Just some thoughts from someone who has been reading through this thread and has experience with Stereoscopic 3D, painting and sculpture:

1st of all, I love these kinds of creative debates carried out in a kind and interesting manner governed by curiousity/shared interest rather than just passionate beliefs. Not enough of these on reduser. Thanks!

2nd of all, I agree whole heartedly that 3D is no more appropriate for action/thriller style stories than it is for dramas. The problem is that it has not only been done poorly on a technical level, it has been carried out poorly in a thematic way way as well. In other words if all movies were black and white but used color as a gag (imagine something like the red coat in shindler's list but handled in a gaudy extreme way) then people would all be saying that color is specialty 'fling' of a technology. When color is handled naturally (read: in a way that is like how we see) and thoughtfully it just makes the movie more real and beautiful. 3D is no different. All of us that can see in 3D (except for those who have a missing or injured eye or those born without the ability to sync/converge both eyes to make a single image) and therefore 3D can be more natural and beautiful than 2D when done well. Good 3D will just add to a film and take nothing away. I believe it's the current lack of public experience with 3D that helps foster the idea that 3D could ever take something away from a solemn drama.

3rdly (sorry to retread): I can speak from personal experience as someone who spent their whole childhood and teen life drawing and painting and then later in their young adult years became a sculptor as well. Naturally the same person can do both but it is SO true that when I paint a completely different part of my brain is engaged than when I sculpt. It's very pronounced how different the two activities are on a psychological level. I can't usually do both one right after another because once my brain is primed to do one, it has to really change gears to do the other well. It can be very frusterating as someone who tries to be a "polymath" (another equally silly sounding way to "renaissance man")

(PS: I think Michaelangelo was a MUCH better sculptor than painter. So much so that I think he clearly either spent more time on sculpting than painting during his life or his brain was better suited for it. It's a pretty stark difference in my opinion. Just compare him to modern painters and sculptors. Yes his paintings are very good but there are literally TONS of painters who can paint in more imaginative, realstic and creative ways than he did. Sculpture? His sculptures (while adhering to a 'style' of anatomy that was popular in art of the day) still rises above just about anyone...ever...when you compare on a technical level. His work is just quite simply monumental (no pun intended). Just my opinion)

 

[istvanttt]

Jonathan, you expressed word for word what I feel, think and belive Thank you.

BTW, a frined of mine once said Michelangelo-painter is art, Michelangelo-sculptor is a religion.
Have a nice day
Istvan

 

[Eric Lange]

Infact Eric I do disagree with you in this! I'm convinced that once we will have higher light throu-put in the cinemas, human dramas will be a very important part of the s3D movies. Cinema is very much the art of the body-language and adding to that the possibilities to feel (!!!) also the distance empatically between 2 actors, or between 1 actor and some action, is a huge tool for transmitting emotions.

I do agree that a badly used s3D can be more distracting then helpful, but if the blocking and directing is specifically planed for s3D then (avoiding liliput effects) it should work also in dramas. Come on Eric with all your s3D experience you really want to tell me that an even abused scene like "... husband comes home and finds wife in bed with best-friend..." could not be emotionally extremly powerful and violent in s3D?

Istvan

O.K., so does S-3d make art better? No. Does S3d enable and open a new artistic frontier? Definitely yes. Does S-3d have the capability to make on screen sex sexier and violence more violent? Yes to that too. But do these heightened experiences in 3d over 2d make a more complex emotional story any more meaningful?

The use of composition is of course very important to underscore visually the emotional content of a particular scene. I have found in my own experience that compositions that work in 2d do not work as well in 3d and this is purely from a compositional sense (not a technical one). This is especially true for closer ranged spaces and volumes. 2D compositions have by their nature a 2D graphic sensibility which does not sit well with 3d compositions. Successful 2d compositions have to be re-arranged to make them work in S3d; objects and participants have to be moved to different positions in Z (at least) and wider angle lenses have to be used just to be able to arrive at a 3d composition that was as strong as the original 2d composition. [You can play this game yourself just by gathering a group of objects and arranging them into a composition with one eye closed; now view the same composition with both eyes, in most cases you will find that the objects have to be rearranged and new angles of view have to be sought to still make it work]. 2D and S-3d are simply different languages and quite often one does not directly translate into the other. Sometimes when a great novel is translated from one language to another, literal translations would obscure the meaning and intent of the author, instead a good translator will substitute a completely different phrase to culturally convey the same meaning. This is the same in S-3d, sometimes completely different compositions have to be sought to convey the same meaning as an originally intended 2d shot. I think Istvan is correct when he says S-3d projects tend to neither be “meat nor Fish” because they have to serve two different masters and consequently end up being weak in both formats.

To that end, because S-3d is its own language, that for serious film making it has to be regarded as its own genre and not be lumped into regular 2d film making. The screen play and design intent of the movie has to be composed at its earliest inception as a S-3d movie, rather than just a serious movie that happened to be shot in 3d. The latter approach will always be weak, whereas a serious story intended for the S-3d screen could be quite powerful. Whether this ever happens in “Holywood” is another matter altogether, and may be a genre that develops from very different quarters.

Istvan make your movie already!:wink:

 

[istvanttt]

.....

To that end, because S-3d is its own language, that for serious film making it has to be regarded as its own genre and not be lumped into regular 2d film making. The screen play and design intent of the movie has to be composed at its earliest inception as a S-3d movie, rather than just a serious movie that happened to be shot in 3d. The latter approach will always be weak, whereas a serious story intended for the S-3d screen could be quite powerful. Whether this ever happens in “Holywood” is another matter altogether, and may be a genre that develops from very different quarters.

.........

Infact, this is why I'm afraid that s-3D could disapear again from the theaters before it even really started. Why should somebody want to make movies which are seen only in a few theaters and also there mostley with the Read-D system which cuts off most of the lights? I have the feeling that soon the HDR may become a kind of serious competition for s-3D.
Istvan

 

[Joseph Ward]

Its funny to me how people complain that only s3D movies give them headaches. Fast cutting 2D editing movies with tons of out of focus shots get me sick, like a bad s3D, but why does everyone seem to knock only all s3D films?

Why do bad looking images get more positive attention just because its ''Hollywood'' than a well made low budget film?

To go back on topic. Was there a price on that rig?

 

[istvanttt]

Its funny to me how people complain that only s3D movies give them headaches.
.......

Yes, and this gets even more funny when you hear people complaining who then admit that they have never ever seen a s-3D picture.

 

[Pedro Guimaraes]

but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking -

not true.....

Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema, by Lenny Lipton.

just to name one. There are many others.

BTW, It is not light reading.