Can we get over 3D now please?

[Francesco Bonomo]

With some of the new 3D titles that are coming out in the next year, I can almost promise you will see another 3D movie. You won't be able to stay away from seeing what these truly creative directors do with big, non-effects-driven titles.

; )

Lucas

Lucas, no offense, but I guess I know myself better than you
I can't wait to see some of the titles currently in production or near release, and there's no way I'm going to miss the Scott/Wolski sci.fi thing-y, or the new Scorsese movie, though I may skip the Hobbit, Spider-man, 3 Musketeers and many more. But I'll see those movies the "old-fashioned" way if I'm given the option to.

 

[Elmer Tenkink]

In the end making movies is all about what the public want to see, and how they want to see it.
If the public rejects 3D then 3D is on the way out, if they embrace it, evolution of 3D will continuing
I don't want to say 3D is a hype, it is much to early to say that, and it takes more years of analysis to be sure it has a real change to stay.
The studios have been pushing it a bit to much, and one big success like Avatar ain't the right way to validate it.
For the moment i am not bedding my money on it, for me right now it is heading for " blue ray disc" all over again.
But I really hope finally 3D will stay!!

 

[Erich Ocean]

For the moment i am not bedding my money on it, for me right now it is heading for " blue ray disc" all over again.

Is this the same Blu-ray disc that's had a faster rollout rate than DVD? Sounds like you're actually bullish on 3D (though presumably you meant the opposite). ;-)

 

[danbrazda]

Once again, for me, it all gets back to artistic expression. If an artist thinks 3D is the best method to deliver his or her message, isn't it great that they have the option in their creative toolbox? The same can be said about 2D. I happen to prefer the latter but appreciate the artists who don't just use 3D as a gimmick but at least attempt to use it as an enhancement to their storytelling.

I think the technology definitely needs to take the "3D blind" phenomena seriously though as it certainly plays a major role in acceptance by audiences. I for one am not even sure if I "see" 3D or am partially "blind" as well. Every 3D film I've seen (and I'm sorry to say that includes Avatar) looks LESS dimensional than 2D to me. It looks like the Pop-Up books that were a novelty when I was a kid. Layers of flat 2D images. Again, not knocking anyone's desire to pull at will from the creative toolbox but merely suggesting some specifics that need to be addressed if there is to be widespread acceptance of 3D.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Cardboarding

Cardboarding

It looks like the Pop-Up books that were a novelty when I was a kid.

Its called "cardboarding" and would show in 2D to 3D conversion and compressed images.

3D stereo requires about 100x the bandwidth of 2D images to show the full surface detail and roundness since the difference between the R and L views that make the stereoscopic effect are very small deltas, compression trys to remove such small birghtness differences making more cardboarding the more you compress.

You need to see two projector synchro interlock of 35mm film to understand what non-cardboarded images look like.

==

Don't blame 3D, blame the people who don't know what they are doing, don't care, and hype inferior work to make a fast buck and leave a bad taste in the viewers mind along the way spoiling the well for everyone. The same happened with 65/70mm when people started making blow-up prints and hyping them at 70mm rather than shooting in 65mm, adding words adds "value" when in fact you are not giving the full deal...

 

[Elmer Tenkink]

Is this the same Blu-ray disc that's had a faster rollout rate than DVD? Sounds like you're actually bullish on 3D (though presumably you meant the opposite). ;-)

yeah sorry it is late here, after a long day working i am not so sharp.

But indeed as you say 'had' a faster roll out rate, it is never embraced fully like DVD did, and it is now already on it's way out (streaming/download and iptv / internet as competition) as of course DVD is going now.
I really hope that 3D will not have the same faith, as there has been invested a lot into it.
But maybe it is better for this subject to include 3d TV sales rates to analyze public behavior on 3d content and not only ticket box offices of movie theaters.
And analyze "why" the public don't embrace it as aspected, as I guess it has to do with the additional fee too (we still life in a hard economic weather).

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Don't blame 3D, blame the people who don't know what they are doing, don't care, and hype inferior work to make a fast buck and leave a bad taste in the viewers mind along the way spoiling the well for everyone. The same happened with 65/70mm when people started making blow-up prints and hyping them at 70mm rather than shooting in 65mm, adding words adds "value" when in fact you are not giving the full deal...

I think your in luck, like I mentioned in the original post audiences arn't going for bullsh*t 3D anymore. No one is interested in bad 3D. Hopefully this leaves room for GOOD 3D to get the real hype it deserves when it comes along.

People have said that Pirates is a bad example of representing the demand for 3D but 70% of tickets sold for pirates 4 were 2D and 30% went to 3D and Pirates is a MASSIVE franchise with a built in fan base that like the movies for how "fun" they are so naturally 3D would seem like a good fit. It wasn't. North America is the PERFECT testing market for 3D because it's been around the longest here and is most prevalent here, on top of that North America represents the largest world wide movie going audience so how is it not the best place to get these numbers from? This is the most relevant market for studios.

We've seen so many horrible 3D films that no one [audiences] is interested myself included so we don't want it shoved down our throats and we want our 2D screens set back up properly not left to rot by the side of the highway because 3D films are "all the rage" according to studios and pundits. They arn't.
I hear Kung-fu Panda 2 is good. Animated films are fine in 3D, I didn't mind Toy Story 3D, but my right eye and side of my head were still killing by the end.
The problem with kids movies in 3D is that kids statistically HATE the glasses, and no one wants to sit through a movie with their kids complaining.

3D has a long, long, long way to come in pretty much every department before it has a chance of catching on and it's still not going to ever be mainstream because it will never be cheap enough to produce for something like a Judd Apatow comedy, and never fast enough to shoot properly for a guy like Terrance Malick. So I just can't see it ever really taking off to the point where 'Every film is benefitting from 3D.' At least I can't see that happening. Having done a ton of reading on it in the last few days and going through your very educational posts Dan, it's clear that to do it right it's a very complex, slow moving process and I'm not sure how that will change even as the tools become more efficient. The process remains the same right?

So lets stop treating it like it's going to change the world. It's a fun new medium for some of you, and that's awesome! Have fun! Remake that muppets movie I used to love as a kid at Disney World and I'll pay to see THAT in 3D

I'm more interested in IMAX formats and improving digital dynamic range, how 'bout IMAX becomes the next big rage

 

[Marc Wielage]

Roger Ebert has some interesting thoughts on the problem of 3D theaters and 2D compatibility, "The Dying of the Light":

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html

And TheWrap.com has a fairly damning report, "3D Slammed Anew After Format's Weak 'Pirates 4' Opening":

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/3d-slammed-anew-after-weak-pirates-4-opening-27648

To me, 3D is not that big a deal, but I am troubled by the current loss of overall image brightness in screen projection, which requires a lot of compromises in color-correction and kind of gets in the way of storytelling. But I don't think 3D is appropriate for all movies, yet at the same time, I think there's a way to do 3D well, and I also think it will get better over time.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

With regards to POTC, the second film had the highest domestic opening weekend of the series, the third one had a lower one, and the fourth one had an even lower one. I think US interest in the POTC series is waning, regardless of 3D. Given the extra cost of 3D tickets, looks like the number would have been even lower without 3D. The movie is doing extremely well overseas.

Whatever your opinion of 3D is, don't blame a film's underperformance on it, and let a few years pass before judging whether or not audiences have accepted or rejected the technology.

If anything, prices are a huge factor. For a family, the extra cost of 3D tickets quickly adds up. Even as someone who usually goes to movies alone, I would have to REALLY want to see the movie in 3D to pay extra for it. One, it would have to be a movie I'd want to see anyways (I wouldn't see most 3D movies even in 2D), and two, I'd have to believe that 3D would enhance the experience vs. a 2D presentation.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Language of Cinema

Language of Cinema

Dan, it's clear that to do it right it's a very complex, slow moving process and I'm not sure how that will change even as the tools become more efficient. The process remains the same right?

What I think one of the complaints is about is that shooting in 3D causes some loss to the "Language of Cinema".

But Digital Conversion of Broadcast TV has also done that, as did "talkies".

How many lap dissolves have you seen on TV lately, none. Lap dissolves were common on analog TV shows and in movies, but they are not used much any more because on H.xxx compression the image breaks up into low res blocks during fast fades and lap dissolves much of the time. The same with moving camera causeing motion estimation issues and image breakup.

Those image breakup issues relating to compression are a much bigger deal for 3D since they not only cause a decrease in resolution, the edges of the blocking artifacts make 3D edges that are false and give incorrect 3D depth information.

So when you shoot 3D and then compress it for digital release you need to limit some parts of the Language of Cinema.

Its kind of a "new speak" for Cinema, if you have read "1984" you will understand what "new speak" means.

Each media has it limits and features, shooting for 3D does impose some changes to the shooting style, just as "talkies" and "Technicolor" did to their productions.

Filmmaking will end in a few years probably, the costs of making Color Negative film and prints will go up, and the places to process the film and show the films will go down until the point is reached where there is no reason for it to continue. You cannot get Plus-X or 4-X to make black and white movies with, and when Double-X goes the medium will be lost forever.

Will 2D continue at all in the Digital "movie" theatres of the future, well how many black and white movies did you see last year, how many silent movies?

In spite of what going on at Cannes now, black and white movies for all their beauty and impact are a thing of the past, like Agfa 561 and 362 print stocks.

==

How much slower the DP needs to work for a 3D shoot depends in part on the Director understanding the limitations that making a good 3D stereoscopic film imposes. If the Director asks for shots that violate the "safe" area of convergence for the viewers eyes, and does not allow the DP to use the right focal length and distance to the subject, then not only will it take more time to setup the shot to try to counter invalid choices, but the end result will be inferior if not unusable.

To make a good 3D presentation, everyone from the DP to the end theatre needs to understand the needs and limits of the 3D medium and to work within those limits to make sure the audance gets what they are paying for, and that is not a headache and sore eyes.


Unfortunately the "inconvenient truth" is that some aspects of the Language of Cinema that have worked in 2D films would work less well in 3D films, but a creative team effort could get what is needed to tell the story if in somewhat confined form.

The two biggest current weaknesses other than miss convergence of the cameras for INF on all screen sizes and viewing distances (a problem that does not have a full solution for two camera capture) is the poor quality of the glasses and filters over the projectors and the dividing of the light plus the light loss from the filters. You would want better filters to get less ghosting and so you need to deal with the light loss to do that.

To correct the light loss issue would mean using two projectors with brighter Xenon light houses and using more power. All that adds cost so its not going to happen, and that alone may kill the future of 3D for another 50 years.

Production time also costs money, but in the hands of people who know what the are doing it should not take much longer to shoot 3D well, just as it takes about the same time to make bad meal as a good one, its the knowledge of the cheif that makes the difference.

As I mentioned you cannot judge the 3D alignment off a monitor on the set just by looking with glasses because of the non-constant-ratio issue with the spacing on the screen, the screen size, and your eye spacing. Using special VR gogles could give you a better example on the set of what the 3D would be like in the theatre since the diaopters can set your eyes focus at any distance and the two screens can be adjusted for your eyes spacing.

Otherwise, you can put a clear plastic sheet over an anaglyph display on a monitor that has grid lines on it, and use that as an aid to measure the absolute stereo seperation of points in ratio to the monitor screen size. That would be a faster way of working since there would be no subjective component that would vary depending on who was setting up the cameras and actor blocking. You use a 2D view to adjust the stereo, just as you use a 'scope to adjust image brightness, because its more objective, faster, and repeatable.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Unfortunately the "inconvenient truth" is that some aspects of the Language of Cinema that have worked in 2D films would work less well in 3D films, but a creative team effort could get what is needed to tell the story if in somewhat confined form.

Not just "some". A lot of them.
Many of those "canvas storytelling" language aspects are even useless and diminish the effect of "spacial storytelling".

 

[Ravi Kiran]

What I think one of the complaints is about is that shooting in 3D causes some loss to the "Language of Cinema".

But Digital Conversion of Broadcast TV has also done that, as did "talkies".

How many lap dissolves have you seen on TV lately, none. Lap dissolves were common on analog TV shows and in movies, but they are not used much any more because on H.xxx compression the image breaks up into low res blocks during fast fades and lap dissolves much of the time. The same with moving camera causeing motion estimation issues and image breakup.

Did dissolves disappear because of THAT though? The pace of TV and film is faster now, and audiences can process that we're at a different location without seeing a dissolve or an establishing shot or other previously used conventions.

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Will 2D continue at all in the Digital "movie" theatres of the future, well how many black and white movies did you see last year, how many silent movies?

In spite of what going on at Cannes now, black and white movies for all their beauty and impact are a thing of the past, like Agfa 561 and 362 print stocks.

I'm not sure it's quite the same thing... as you admit directors need to "limit" the language of cinema to avoid uncomfortable 3D. Leaving black and white behind when it was replaced by colour is a completely different thing, directors didn't have to shoot around colour the way they do with 3D.
And still, what your doing is telling directors how they have to shoot 3D to shoot it well. I can't think of many directors who would appreciate being told how they have to shoot their movies. Most of the young directors I'm working with have no interest in 3D so even the next generation of directors arn't supporting it in full force. Why arn't they interested in 3D? They love being in the moment, in the flow, capturing shots, finding shots, saying "oh wow look how great the light is over there right now lets run over and grab that shot now!" You can't do that with 3D. Even if we prepare ourselves and say "ok we're shooting 3D, we're not going to be able to get this shot, that shot, or any of these shots." The meeting would end with "Well lets not shoot 3D."

You can't say we'll just have to get used to telling stories in a "confined form" that doesn't sound like the kind of freedom I want to enjoy as an artist while working. I want to get any shot I want! I enjoy the challenge of giving a 2D medium a 3D quality with lighting.

I'm telling you, I DON'T WANT to watch 3D movies. So why then do you want to remove the option to view movies in 2D. By doing that you've taken away the thing I love most and forced me to find a new line of work. That's like one religion that another religion is wrong and they should all convert. We all know how those stories end...

As I've said in about every post, to each their own but it works both ways. I won't force 2D on you but don't force 3D on me.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

for one you think Cameron is 100% wrong, OK so let him make his Millions and you can CRY and make your $42k a year (before taxes)

Most films Cameron has made have been profitable, including the execrable Titanic. He is obviously wealthy and extremely successful with his own films and has even started or promoted trends. It's sort of a halo effect -- if you consider 3D to be the brand, producers hope that Avatar's success means filmgoers will think 3D is desirable and go to see any 3D movie, even if they have to pay a 50% premium per ticket. That may prove the case, or it may not. One way or the other, that doesn't mean Cameron is right on an aesthetic level.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see 2D going the way of b&w. How many people are insisting on taking 3D snapshots? 3D is easier to deal with in still photography and yet it has never replaced 2D still photography.

 

[Jamie Metzger]

I just worked on a 3D doc shot in 3D (parallel). Man, the effort was very rewarding. 2D/3D, the footage looked great!

 

[Tim Hole]

I can only speak for the UK but we were told from the beginning that not only do we have 10% dual screens of DIGI and 35mm but 10% will be fitted for 2D projection only, within multiplex's of 12+ screens at the least.

I have to admit though, whilst I like 3D, every showing I have seen recently (especially Priest) just seemed like the glasses were dongles and were the only way to watch the film. It becoming evident to the audiences that studios are just doing it to combat piracy and make a few more bucks. Nothing I have seen recently, in 3D, has enhanced my viewing experience.

 

[Patrick Wells]

Kevin Rasmussen hit the nail on the head! And to elaborate:

These comparisons of 3D to the coming of color or sound or even 2.35 are absolutely LUDICROUS. Just wear an eye patch for a day. Does the world really look that different as it would if everything were black and white, or if you went deaf? It's not even in the same ballpark, or even the same sport. The truth is, 90% of 3D perception isn't depth perception at all. It's perspective, and how light and shadow play off of objects, and along with that: what angle lens you use, how close or far you are from subjects, use of foreground and middle ground and background, and use of depth of field. All of these are things you have in 2D already (this was all discovered back in The Renaissance, ya know), and GOOD cinematographers are already paying high attention to them when framing.

The truth is, 2D cinema isn't really 2D and neither is 3D really 3D. In 2D, we are still seeing a rendering of 3D space with all I said above. And in 3D, it's not as if we are able to circle around a subject like you can with sculpture, which exists in actual 3D space. We are still limited to the cinematographer's POV. So the upgrade is more like from 2.3D to 2.6D, not 2 to 3.

And for this minor upgrade, which nowhere near approaches Color or Sound, what are our tradeoffs? Dimmer projection, even in RealD projection. We can't shoot really dark night scenes because it confuses the 3D effect and because of dim projection. We can't shoot with muted colors. We can't do dissolves. We can't edit too fast. We can't obscure the image too much with any kind of frost filters or flares or super high contrast imagery or grain. We can't shoot too much handheld. We can't be as free in how we find our shots. We can't play with depth of field as much or throw out of focus stuff in the foreground or we will confuse the audience and they'll try to focus on out of focus imagery (that Avatar scene with the jellyfish). We can't play with too telephoto of lenses because it kills the 3D, so this really kills a lot of more painterly shots.
The list really goes on and on.

And what do we gain? Some depth perception that gives audiences head aches and makes them more aware of the artifice of cinema, more aware of the gimmicks, and actually makes them less able to lose themselves and enter the story and the emotional struggle of the characters. And THAT is what cinema is all about. All of us other artists should always be serving the story and the characters and the emotions they generate, not our own egos. Oh, but now we're being asked to give up 24p in favor of 48p (or even 60p!) in order to lessen headaches and make 3D more immersive. Is this a cruel joke? Haven't we been spending the last few decades trying to get digital to look more like film, to go from 60i to that 24p look, complete with motion blur? And now we're being asked to go backwards and make digital look more digital again, so everything looks like a newscast and a sports game? No thank you. 24p is part of the art of cinema. It gives everything a more dreamlike and soft painterly feeling that helps you lose yourself and become immersed in a new world. 30p and higher has always been too hard and felt too artificial, and everyone who has shot slow motion on the RED or 7d or 5dmkII or similar camera and then played footage back natively knows this.

And so we are trading in so much. With sound we gained and traded nothing. We still had scores, and could still have subtitles and title cards and slapstick and use of action with little dialogue. With color, we lost little and gained a ton. I remember I originally shot B&W still photography when I was first learning the craft. Then I made a leap to color, and it was hard at first, to see how colors played off one another, to use color contrast and similar color pallets in conjunction with light and shadow and everything I learned in B&W. I had to look for more, and couldn't ignore color anymore. But I gained so much. And with 2.35 and 1.85, we gained more balanced frames and it was easier to shoot action and cross cut conversations. We lost nothing.

But with 3D, there's really no shot that can be done in 3D that isn't just as successful in 2D, other than say, the T1000 coming straight up to within inches of your face in T2:3D. And gimmicky stuff like that is all 3D is good for. And it should remain in theme parks where it was fun. On the other side of the coin, there are tons of shots and editing techniques that work better in 2D than 3D, or don't work at all in 3D. As a subtle tool, it offers next to nothing. Only one film has ever used 3D well, and it wasn't Avatar. It was Coraline, where we go from a flatter and plainer world to one with more exaggerated depth. The tunnel shot is especially effective. But I watched it recently on normal BluRay on a normal HDTV and felt I actually wasn't missing anything. It still felt 3D with how much the colors and textures popped in HD and with just how it was shot, paying so much attention to Perspective and Depth. You know, those things that exist in 2D (2.3D) Cinema.

Cameron and Jackson, I get where they are coming from. They are older artists with a lot of power, who have already made all their dream projects, and are now looking for new toys to play with. But sometimes, the toys really don't add up to much or help tell your stories at all. But maybe these two just don't have many more stories in their hearts anyway. After all, Cameron quit filmmaking for a while after Titanic, Avatar felt completely soulless, and Jackson seemed to not want to direct The Hobbit for the longest time.

And we have to remember, if 3D catches on, EVERY mainstream film will be 3D, just like EVERY film is color (unless you're a Scorsese and have a lot of weight to pull). Studio execs don't want to confuse audiences, and they want what the product is they are pushing to be clear. And do we really want every mainstream film being 3D? I certainly don't. In mainstream cinema, options rarely exist. That's why the anti 3D crowd is so adamant.

Cheers,

Patrick

 

[Brad Webb]

Methinks you have never seen "Singing in the Rain." Sound sucked balls when it first came out. Before sound the camera was completely free to roam around when there was no sound. You add sound and now you can't movie the camera because the crane makes too much noise. Hell the camera makes too much noise. Now it has to be boxed up in a blimp. Shooting outside, forget it. Have you ever been outside - there is noise everywhere!!! Oh, and it wasn't just shooting with sound that was terrible, it was terrible on the distribution end too. The sound was separate from the picture, and a lot people saw films that were out of sync, or worse, the record would skip and you would hear the same thing over and over. What a disaster.

But people adapted. It took a few years, but eventually people learned how to make talkies. The camera eventually was freed from the blimp, and roam around again. ADR was invented so you could shoot outside...etc etc.

3D is in it's infancy. People still don't know how to use it, how to work with it, how to make it work. Yes, right now most films are using it for the cheesy thing coming at you effect. Most directors working today are of the "fast cutting, shallow depth of field, mtv music video" school of directing. 3D requires more deliberate set ups that use the depth of the frame. Cuts need to be slower for the 3D to take effect.

Right now people are shooting 2D movies for 3D. There is a entire film language that 3D can use that hasn't even been discovered yet. Could you imagine the shots that would have been if Citizen Kane, 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, or Vertigo were shot in 3D (*note if these were originally done in 3D, please nobody desecrate theses movies with crap 3D conversion). In a couple of years you'll start seeing films come out that use 3D in ways you never expected. You think Peter Jackson might have some crazy ideas on things he can do with 3D. No doubt in my mind the Hobbit is going to have at least one shot that just blows peoples minds in 3D. All it takes is for one movie to do it right.

You can stick your head in the sand and hope 3D goes away, but if you're wrong and it doesn't, then you've just cost yourself a lot of work. Adapt or die. It's not going anywhere. Hollywood loves 3D. It's a tool against piracy, it's adds something to the movie going experience that you can't get at home (yet), and most of all it is supplementing the income that Hollywood is losing in the DVD and Blu-Ray markets. 3D = extra money therefore 3D is here to stay.

Cameron didn't quit filmmaking after Titanic. He took a vacation and then he spend 10 years learning about 3D so he could make Avatar.

 

[Patrick Wells]

Brad, your entire first paragraph is worthless when you go on to mention ADR. With ADR and proper sound, there are no drawbacks to sound. You can still do scenes with no dialogue and scenes that resemble silent pictures (heck, I made a 20min 16mm short that has almost no dialogue, very stylish cinematography, and a sound design that gets under your skin.) And the best directors still know how to use those silent movie tricks.

But even with good, clear, 3D projection, we can't shoot as dark. We can't shoot as telephoto. We can't play with depth of field. We can't have darker and less colorful color pallettes. We can't play with flares, blown highlights, handheld, fast cuts, cross fades, cutting from wide angle and deep depth directly to telephoto and shallow depth, etc. Anything and everything confuses the audience's brain more, and so you are less free.

Yes, there are many directors who abuse these. But to say they are off the table for everyone is ludicrous. And NO, there isn't a new language with 3D cinema AT ALL, except the language of T1000s in your face. Every single other shot you do in 3D can be done just as well in 2D. A good DP is using the exact same framing techniques in regular cinema (and to better effect) if he knows what he is doing. That's what 3D advocates don't seem to understand.

As for Citizen Kane, Vertigo, etc...they would have looked the same. Citizen Kane is actually the best example ever of using the same framing techniques you apply to 3D cinema in 2D. The use of foreground and background and middleground, the exaggerated depth, and the deep depth of field, it all gives you an intense 3D perspective, all in you guessed it, TWO D.

Depth perception just really is not that powerful of a sense for human beings when you are locked into a singular viewpoint, not when compared with everything else that goes into sight.

I don't think it's burying my head in the sand at all to say that 3D cripples movies in a way that sound and color never did, and that the sacrifices are too great to justify such a minimal gain. I think I'm a pragmatist who can see through the empty comparisons.