Can we get over 3D now please?

[M Most]

Both sound and color were possible LONG before they were widely adopted in film, just like 3D. So the analogy doesn't really hold.

Furthermore, 3D really requires digital capture, digital post and digital projection to be practical -- all of which we have now and didn't 60 years ago. From where I'm sitting, more and more films have a 3D release today, not less, and there is no sign of that stopping.

Color and sound are rather natural phenomena and don't require any artificial apparatus to experience (i.e., glasses). Stereoscopic 3D (which, I might add, is NOT really 3D.... but I digress..) not only requires this, but is itself an unnatural experience because it's basically tricking your brain into seeing something that isn't really there by artificially forcing your eyes to see completely different images. That's why it's physically uncomfortable for many, especially over the length of a typical feature film. I wouldn't call seeing color or hearing sound (even when it's rather loud) unnatural or physically uncomfortable experiences, so I just don't see the similarity.

I'm not making any predictions about the future of stereoscopic 3D, I'm just pointing out that these comparisons don't really have much merit.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Synchro interlock

Synchro interlock

I HAVE seen the 3D movies of the 50's in synchro interlock two projector with good pola glasses.

I have seen Dial M for murder in 3D color, Kiss me Kate in 3D color, and the first two black and white 3D movies of the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and several others. I have also seen various single projector versions of those films and others in 3D as well as anaglyph prints projected of the same movie.

For me seeing black and white in good interlock stereo is BETER than seeing a 2D color movie, the surface textures in the 100% uncompressed 35mm stereo without any computer induced blur of the micro features is a geat thing to experence. Those films were shot on fine grain stock and the prints were is good shape.

Kiss me Kate is a very wild film in 3D and the parts were she sings "too darn hot" is not the same in 2D.

But syncro interlock, just like IMAX film based 3D, cannot have weave free stereo projection and your eyes get tired of trying to track the two images as the weave around causeing 3D weave rather than just the 2D weave that film projectors always have.

Todays Digital projection and cameras can be weave free, and so produce much less eye strain if the cameras were kept parallel and the other aspects such as not getting things too close to the camera were followed.

Two projector interlock cost twice as much for the prints, but did not double the gross, so that is why it was not a "success", not so much that it did not produce good results because you got twice the light from using BOTH projectors light houses the images were not as dark as todays projection since carbon arc lights could be cranked up higher than most Xenon light houses today are run at.

Today ther cost of projection is the same for 2D or 3D movies as the same single projector is used for both, but the 3D movie can draw a few extra people into the theatre, so 3D today does increase the gross and so as long as it makes more money than 2D films in the SAME theatre with no extra cost, the growth will be toward 3D rather than 2D productions.

Some people cannot see 3D and experence the joy of seeing 3D texture on surfaces, my Brother says he has a hard time seeing any 3D and that one of his eye's views looks darker than the other. I can understand that for people who are 3D blind, that the degraded 2D projection would look worse rather than better. The percent of people how have problems seeing 3D are quite large perhaps over 10%, but some people are also color blind and I would hope color blind people would not oppose movies being shot in color. Color was less sharp and had more grain than the good black and white movies (Technicolor had color weave as well that was quite large even in just the IB prints if not the 3 strip camera as well.), if I was color blind, I might enjoy seeing sharp black and white movies over the soft and grainy color moves.

==

About the un-natural part of 3D viewing, it is possable to get better results than we see today, there is no mystery or technological advance required, people are just doing things wrong because they make more money that way, or they don't care, or they don't know what they should be doing.

 

[Tom.Wong]

pirates had a 90 million dollar opening weekend in the U.S., over 300 million dollars now world wide in a little over 4 days. If people didn't want 3d, people won't watch it in 3d plain and simple. I don't pay extra for imax when I know it wasn't filmed on imax cameras, 65 mm, or a resolution beyond 2k projection. I also don't pay and watch 3d when it's post converted. The public will pick and choose what they want to pay for, and there will always be 2d showings if you don't want the 3d, simply because there are a lot of people out there who literally can't even see in 3d. that's money they don't want to lose.

I personally think 3d is just a different way of story telling, and cinematography. Pirates 4 I thought was really great example of 3d, and proof you don't need a butt ton of CGI to make a 3d movie compelling. It used the 3d tastefully and made the movie more fun for me.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Here is a link about stereo blindness,

http://www.mediacollege.com/3d/depth-perception/stereoblind.html

I have noted that sometimes you show people a stereo display or test, and the ones that say "wow" right away are probably able to see 3D, the others look a bit confused and then pretend to have seen the 3D effect, so its hard to tell how big the problem is if people hide their disability or don't even know that they have a issue and just play along and wear the glasses.

I was at a show and one guy in the row in front of me said that he could not see 3D to his friends but put the glasses on so he could "fit in" and see something...

 

[M Most]

Actually, it's interesting that you would use Pirates 4 as an example of this. If you look at the trades this week, the general feeling is that if anything, Pirates' performance in the US is showing that interest in 3D is waning. For the first time in a "tentpole" 3D release, more people saw the picture in 2D than in 3D, and many analysts are saying that the picture might have actually done better with fewer 3D screens. This is not necessarily the case worldwide, nor is it in itself a pattern (this summer will determine that), but it does have a number of studios thinking about whether they're killing the golden goose, or whether that goose even exists.

 

[Tom.Wong]

Actually, it's interesting that you would use Pirates 4 as an example of this. If you look at the trades this week, the general feeling is that if anything, Pirates' performance in the US is showing that interest in 3D is waning. For the first time in a "tentpole" 3D release, more people saw the picture in 2D than in 3D, and many analysts are saying that the picture might have actually done better with fewer 3D screens. This is not necessarily the case worldwide, nor is it in itself a pattern (this summer will determine that), but it does have a number of studios thinking about whether they're killing the golden goose, or whether that goose even exists.

also U.S. grossings alone don't define trends, or the way Hollywood works either. If it makes a trillion dollars international, and 500 bux in the U.S., and 3d was on top to make that trillion dollars world wide, you clearly get the idea.

I think there was a huge article posted awhile back on these boards, why Hollywood makes such obvious films. sequels, mindless block busters, same formula over and over again. Biggest reason is cause international ticket sales are huge with those movies, same with 3d. America may be getting finicky with it, but the world still loves it. I think the bigger issue is freakin ticket prices. I really think the box office as a whole really needs to get THAT under control.

33 dollars to go see pirates 3d for my wife and I, that could have been a really nice dinner, or half way point to a new hard drive

 

[Peter Moretti]

I think what will change a lot of people's attitudes is when the first large, really well-done dramatic non-effects-driven features are released in S3D. A director who really understands S3D and how to create dramatic scenes with S3D in mind...

Best example I can think of is "Dial M For Murder." It was shot as a 3D movie with 3D in mind, but was almost never seen that way. Seeing that movie in S3D with a master like Hitchcock at the controls is an "a-ha" moment - how dimension can really be used in a controlling emotional context. That hardcore boxed-in feeling of so much Hitchcock is made more visceral... the birds-eyes are distorted and bizarre...

We will soon see more movies like that - dramatic S3D with *good* S3D.

Lucas

Lucas,

If "Dial M for Murder" works in 3-D then why don't you guys at 3ALITY arrange some type of 3-D screening?

I'm serious. If you want people to believe that drama can work in 3-D then you're going to have to show us something we can see with our own eyes.

Just a suggestion, but I think a good one.

 

[Cliff Hokanson]

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)

 

[Jake Bastian]

Color and sound are rather natural phenomena and don't require any artificial apparatus to experience (i.e., glasses). Stereoscopic 3D (which, I might add, is NOT really 3D.... but I digress..) not only requires this, but is itself an unnatural experience because it's basically tricking your brain into seeing something that isn't really there by artificially forcing your eyes to see completely different images. That's why it's physically uncomfortable for many, especially over the length of a typical feature film. I wouldn't call seeing color or hearing sound (even when it's rather loud) unnatural or physically uncomfortable experiences, so I just don't see the similarity.

I'm not making any predictions about the future of stereoscopic 3D, I'm just pointing out that these comparisons don't really have much merit.

The third dimension is a natural phenomena, and our eyes DO see two different images in each eye - it's how we see depth. Even if it is a faked method of "seeing" three dimensions, it's not really fair to say we shouldn't do it because we are tricking ourselves into seeing something that isn't really there because that is literally what our entire industry is based on. I've also seen colors and heard sounds that were physically uncomfortable experiences for me (cartoon-induced mass seizures anyone? Death metal maybe?), I see that as having more to do with the skill of the person delivering those sensory experiences. We're learning more about how to deliver 3D in a way that will feel more natural to us, it just takes time.

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Can we get over color now please?

Can we get over talkies now please?

Can we get over moving pictures now please?

Mr. Rasmussen, have you ever seen a well-shot, properly stereo-imaged, appropriately projected 3D film? There is a huge difference between the crap AMC projects and what 3D should look like. Bad presentation will look bad whether it is 2D or 3D. I prefer to watch 3D at RealD theatres (better brightness, no ghosting) or on official iMax screens (not at converted cineplexes).

Like sound or color, 3D is another tool in the storyteller's toolbox. It can be done badly or it can be done well. (And with digital cameras we can shoot at 48fps with the motion blur of 24fps by using a 360 degree shutter. If you have never seen 48 frame projection, you should. It has an amazing solidity that adds an nice level of reality.)

I also have always generally gone to realD 3D theatres, it didn't take long for me to notice how much better their presentation of 3D is. Ever single 3D film I've ever seen, I still always get headaches, I did in Avatar, even animated films like Toy Story. Usually about half way through the film. My sight is fine, I don't wear glasses. If Jim Cameron had his way I'd never be able to watch another movie.... which would be a pretty bleak world for a guy who loves cinema as much as me.

I agree that it's a tool in the toolbox and for those of you wanting to shoot 3D that's all fine, I leave you to it, go have fun in the sand box. Just don't assume that the rest of us desire that Cameron utopian future, and don't assume our films would be better in 3D. My original point, is that despite all the hype and bullshit and all the people telling us what we as audiences would prefer, the audiences are rejecting 3D which is completely contradicting that theory. I think it's only reasonable that directors be allowed to choose whether they shoot 3D, and I think it's only fair that a 2D presentation of equal quality be offered in theatres. Both of which seem to be becoming a common issue.

Do you think Terrance Malick could shoot a film as good as 'Thin Red Line' in 3D, working so spur of the moment the way he does? I don't see it happening. It's not at all about the quality of the presentation or the work, it's about taste and how you like to tell your stories and if most of us don't want to tell our stories in 3D we shouldn't be forced to or pigeon holed into a corner of the industry because we feel that way, as artists or audiences. We should always have the choice. The process of shooting 3D is so unappealing to so many of us that we'll never go for it simply because we as artists, don't work as well that way, we get in the flow, things happen in the moment that can't be captured in 3D.

I'm going to continue exploring and painting in 2D, where my eyes can relax and allow my mind to get drawn into the story without trying to dodge rocks and tree branches flying at my face until my head is pounding.

The day that an S3D movie comes along that uses 3D in a truly artistic "Hitchcock-ian" style and my eyeballs don't feel like they're melting you can say "I told you so." And then I'll still go see it in 2D and like that better. Apparently the majority of film fans and audiences around the world agree with me.

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

About the un-natural part of 3D viewing, it is possable to get better results than we see today, there is no mystery or technological advance required, people are just doing things wrong because they make more money that way, or they don't care, or they don't know what they should be doing.

I don't know, I'm not convinced. It's still a sub-concious issue of "noticing" the 3D. We already see in 3D, so forcing 3D on a 2D plane that we're already viewing in 3D we as audiences will always "notice" 3D right? I mean, to me it seems like 3D is tricking the eyes and brain which, like a lucid dream, I'll always find a bit strange and something I'll always notice.

 

[M Most]

The third dimension is a natural phenomena, and our eyes DO see two different images in each eye - it's how we see depth. Even if it is a faked method of "seeing" three dimensions, it's not really fair to say we shouldn't do it because we are tricking ourselves into seeing something that isn't really there because that is literally what our entire industry is based on.

There is very little similarity between seeing different images in each eye in the real world, and enforced tunnel vision for each eye at vastly reduced light levels with temporal differences between the two images, as you get in current stereoscopic cinema projection. The first is natural and comfortable, the second is quite unnatural and, for many, quite uncomfortable. Not to mention the weight on your nose....

I've also seen colors and heard sounds that were physically uncomfortable experiences for me (cartoon-induced mass seizures anyone? Death metal maybe?), I see that as having more to do with the skill of the person delivering those sensory experiences.

Images that are uncomfortable because of some extreme color presentation or uncomfortably loud sound are the very, very rare exception, not the rule. ALL of stereoscopic 3D has the unnatural qualities I just mentioned by its very nature.

We're learning more about how to deliver 3D in a way that will feel more natural to us, it just takes time.

Now you're getting to the heart of the matter. If we actually had a 3D delivery system, I might agree that it would be interesting. Different than projected cinema, but interesting. Unfortunately, we don't. We have stereoscopic imagery, which is not a 3D delivery system. But it really doesn't matter what any of us here think about it, it will either grow or diminish in its own course, determined primarily by box office results, since this is, after all, a business.

Having said that, I'm planning to see Green Lantern in 2D...

 

[hans de vries]

I always thought something like 3d had nothing to do with creativity but with a new way of making more money; but Werner Herzog is working with 3d, I heard, and I assume he will do something creatitve with it; maybe one lens out of focus at the right moment? The main reason why I don't like 3d is you'd need 2 epics instead of 1 for every shot

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Ditto.

Of course!
I just feel recently like it's being shoved down my throat as a consumer and film maker in general as something I should be embracing whole heartedly but I don't like it in pretty much any (current) shape or form.

 

[Keith Walters]

There is very little similarity between seeing different images in each eye in the real world, and enforced tunnel vision for each eye at vastly reduced light levels with temporal differences between the two images, as you get in current stereoscopic cinema projection. The first is natural and comfortable, the second is quite unnatural and, for many, quite uncomfortable. Not to mention the weight on your nose....

Here’s a possibly interesting take on the subject.

Unlike a lot of the people on this and other forums, I don’t have any trouble at all watching “3-D” movies. That’s not to say I always think it adds anything to the experience, in fact for just about all the live-action stuff I’ve see so far, it seems a total waste of time. Animation is a different story, and I really believe that that’s probably going to be the only time it does contribute anything.

But here’s an interesting thing. Last week I went to a special “Gold Class” screening of “Thor”. Gold Class is a special adult-patrons-only cinema that only holds about 30 people and has special luxury recliner seats, allows alcohol and hot food to be served and so on. This was for a special birthday celebration, so they booked the entire cinema, and so I knew everybody in there.

It was only just before we went in that I learned that the movie was going to be shown in 3-D. Just about all the people there were over 50, and only one or two had ever seen a 3-D movie before; most of them didn’t even know what 3-D was! (And before you ask: “Why Thor?”, remember they were all teenagers when Marvel comics were in their heyday).

So I was thinking this will be great; they’ll all be whinging and complaining and wanting to know who organized this crap. (Not me, fortunately ;-)

But no; they all loved it! I made a point of talking to everybody afterwards to find out if they had eyestrain, headaches, or any other problems. Nope. Not a single complaint. So we have an unusual sampling of patrons: 30 middle-aged people all viewing the same screening of a 3-D movie, but not intentionally choosing the 3-D version.

So I began to wonder what was going on.

First off, this was a high quality installation. You can see into the projection booth on your way to the cinema. I couldn’t see what make of projector it was, but the thing was the size of a small locomotive, so clearly this wasn’t any cheapo setup. But I've been to less-well-set-up places with darker screens and crummier glasses, and I still had no problems interpreting the 3-D image.

So what else could be the explanation?

The main problem people have in digesting “3-D” is that of course it’s not really 3-D. There are at least 10 mechanisms your eyes and brain use to determine spatial positioning, current “3-D” systems really only give you two: Fixed parallax from using separate images for each eye, and apparent depth of field, permanantly baked into the image by the camera lens.

In the real world, we also make extensive use of differential parallax, which just means noticing the amount things in the background shift when we move our heads slightly. This is completely missing from “3-D”.

Other important clues are generated by your eyes automatically focussing on different parts of the image at different times, allowing your brain to estimate distances. This is also completely missing.

And that might be at least part of the answer. With most people, after they reach 40, the elasticity of the lenses in their eyes gradually starts to reduce, limiting the range over which they can focus. This is known as presbyopia, and is by far the most common form of visual impairment. At the same time the irises of the eyes tend to remain permanently “stopped down”. (You may have noticed the striking difference in the size of the pupils of young people in low light, compared to those middle-aged or older).

The bottom line is, once most people get past middle age, the depth of field of their unaided visual system becomes very wide, and they also lose most of the focussing ability they had when they were young.

The result is that they have effectively lost two of the mechanisms used to generate depth perception when they were younger, but because the change comes on so slowly they are not even aware of it. They still have binocular vision, and they can still judge parallax by moving their heads, which is good enough for most situations.

But maybe, because they are used to not having these mechanisms available, it’s not as disorienting for them when they are missing from a 3-D movie presentation.

It would be height of irony if it turned out the only people who are really comfortable with 3-D projection turned out to people over 50, who as a rule, make up only a tiny percentage of the general viewing public…
Even more ironic if the generally middle-aged producers couldn’t figure out what people were actually complaining about.:coolgleamA:

 

[John Fairstein]

I like 3D; it adds a sensation you can't get from 2D. I don't get headaches or eyestrain. On my 65" Samsung DLP, Avatar looks great. We turn off all the room lights and block off the LEDs on the Blu-Ray player, cable box etc. Now the eyes only see the 3D window, not the 2D surface of the screen or other distracting visuals. After years working with holograms and stereo photography, now I'm moving into 3D cinematography. I hope to capture some 3D footage on my RED soon.

 

[Jason Madeja]

I think what will change a lot of people's attitudes is when the first large, really well-done dramatic non-effects-driven features are released in S3D. A director who really understands S3D and how to create dramatic scenes with S3D in mind...

I've never really cared one way or another for 3D. But I really enjoyed Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams and I think the 3D added a lot to that. Technically, I'm sure it's a mess. I know a lot of it was shot on GoPros. A couple shots downright hurt my eyes and I had to look away, but I didn't really care because the subject was so fascinating. Looking into these caves that have been untouched for 30,000 years was quite an experience and I think the 3D added to the feeling of being in an alien world. It's hard to explain but the while watching the film I had an odd feeling like the people from the caves were watching us back. I can forgive a lot more technical misses with a film like this that has substance compared to giant robots crashing into each other.

 

[Imran Farouk]

3D is great...on animated films, like Toy Story and so on...

Saw Pirates, i wish it was in 2D where I saw it, 3D is really starting to annoy me, just for the fact that I feel like I can enjoy this stuff so much more in 2D, feels like the glasses are kind of holding me back in some ways from enjoying the film,
not saying glasses free 3D would be any better as that's ages off from being good enough to be used in cinemas...

Loved Tron though with the fact that they used 2D and 3D, knew when to use each one, it helped increase the difference in the worlds and it was a pleasant surprise to see them embracing both worlds and giving some reason to using it

I do wish though that they'd cut it out with the 3D on EVERYTHING almost, saw a trailer with Pirates and instead of saying 3D it now says "2D in selected cinemas"... total reverse from before which is quite sad,
anyway, I'm fine if they decide to stick it for animation and stuff of that kind, visual effects maybe like avatar was?

Though some say that 48fps 3D is different from the stuff now? I'm no expert at this stuff but I take it the stuff now isn't 48fps and there's supposedly a major difference in viewing experience between the two?

So I guess I'll hopefully be converted to 3D when i see a 48fps 3D film...

Given, had this thought the other day whilst seeing Pirates,
What happened to the days of using 3D for throwing things into the audience and having snakes jump out at people? A lot of the 3D now seems really contained in the screen if that makes sense

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

I'm not getting into the technical details of 3D (i'm not an expert anyway, though I've studied some stuff related to visual perception at university years ago), or of whether or not it's another tool for storytelling or simply an improved version of an old gimmick that studios are interested in so they can charge a lot more money per ticket. I don't believe the analogy to the introduction of sound and color makes much sense, but it's just a personal opinion, and other people have expressed it much better than I'd do.
I don't like 3D at all, simple as that. Last 3D movie I saw was Tron, nothing wrong with it, but I don't think I'll ever see another 3D movie ever again, not as long as a 2D version of it exists.
it's just that I miss the point of 3D, I guess. I don't really feel "immersed" in the movie better, actually I'm distracted by the 3D "effect". I don't go to theaters to have some strange illusion of looking through a window or to see stuff that comes out of the screen. If I want real 3D, I go see a stage play or a musical. In the end, the audiences will determine "new" 3D's success or its failure, just like they've done before.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

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