Can we get over 3D now please?

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Something has been on my mind lately and clearly this is an area of debate that is close to the heart of RED, given the recent purchases by 3D zealots Jim Cameron and Peter Jackson.

As many of you will probably have noticed looking at the recent box office numbers from the last few weeks, audiences are putting the hurt on 3D releases and instead going to 2D presentations. Priest, Thor and Pirates 4 all suffered and missed their projected opening numbers, in some cases by a long shot.
Various factors play into this, high ticket prices to pay for expensive productions like Pirates ($250 mil), brightness issues, head aches, children not wanting to wear the glasses, etc. the list goes on.

There have been many arguments for and against 3D, I for one hate 3D, mainly because I get head aches about 1 hour into any 3D film. Why? Could it be 100,000+ years of evolution that makes my eyes work the way they do? Probably. There is serious neural-optic science at work here that the scientific community is just beginning to understand and the thought of a guy like Cameron having it all figured out is a hilarious joke to me .

I for one think Cameron is 100% wrong when he says "All films can benefit from 3D." I'm also dismayed that a film like The Hobbit is being shot in 3D, at 48 fps. Time, and time again it has been proven that the content of the film, the story, the characters far out weighs the technicalities of the film when trying to get butts in seats at the theatre. Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister are churning out incredible 2D movies shot on film and grossing more than any other team in Hollywood so how can anyone even begin to speculate that a Chris Nolan film would benefit from 3D or 48fps. Clearly he's doing just fine using the artistic voice he's already got.

I can't imagine no 2D option in theatres and I can't imagine no motion blur. I think if Cameron and others want to make their films in 3D they can go ahead, I could care less. But I really want them to stop telling us, and the studio heads how the rest of us should do it.
Film making is an artistic expression and all directors and cinematographers should be able to choose their brushes to express that voice without the influence of producers who think they understand what the audience wants.

Remember, all these cameras, systems and technology are all just tools that we can use to express ourselves as artists and no artist has the right to tell another artist how to do things. Ever.

The jury is no longer out. We [the audience] don't want everything to be in 3D. Having the option is fine but don't force it on us and don't tell us how we should paint our pictures. Can you imagine Monet telling Van Gogh how to paint? Can you imagine Beethoven telling Mozart how he should be playing piano?

I would also like to remind everyone to COMPLAIN if there is something wrong with the presentation of a film in theatres. AMC has recently been leaving 3D lenses on their projectors for 2D films and all the various other digital glitches and sound issues I've experienced recently seem to go unchecked and no one complains. I saw a digital presentation of Hanna recently in Toronto that looked like sh*t, the brightness was way too low, Alwin Kuchler would have flipped out. Get your money back like I did that night, it's the only way to wake these corporations up and get them to sort these things out.

Kevin

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

God, how I look forward to the death of 3D films. What a travesty.

Stephen

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Divergence

Divergence

I for one hate 3D, mainly because I get head aches about 1 hour into any 3D film.
Kevin

Don't hate 3D movies, its the DPs that are not adjusting their 3D rigs so that the stereo images can be viewed from any distance and on any screen size.

Disney films in particular seem to be trying to put much of the stereo seperation behind the screen that causes the eyes to diverge which is unnatural and should NEVER be done as it can cause pain, fatigue, and watering of the eyes as well as headaches etc. that last some time after you leave the movie theatre.

It seems someone, perhaps Sony, is telling cinematographers to have up to 2% divergence and to limit convergence to 2% I guess for goasting since the quality of the filters in some glasses is very poor.

The limit for divergence on the movie screen is 0% being that the images should be parallel at all times for infinity, that is if you walk up to the screen you should measure the inf points at about 62.5mm seperation maximum.

62.5mm is a CONSTANT value for ALL screen sizes, which means on smaller screens it would get smaller from the same source image which is OK, it just moves the space behind the screen a bit closer on small screens.

With 2D images the angle of view is constant with various screen sizes when you view small screens closer than when you view large screens, but in 3D that is not true, the spacing of points for INF must be constant for you to see INF at INF, and so the INF spacing of points varies with screen size and if you diverge the divergence angle varies with BOTH screen size and viewing distance, so that you cannot control divergence to 2% (not that that is painless in all cases) for all screen sizes and for all viewing distances.

The answer is to not to diverge the viewers eyes at all, then everyone no mater what the screen size or viewind distance would not suffer from pain with hours of unnatural angles of their eyeballs.

There are reasons why some DP seem to be told to converge their cameras, which should not be done as it is so much now, that is that the issue of ghosting from the cheap glasses used is less when there is less stereoscopic difference.

Also for glassless lenticular displays the image degrades as the stereoscopic seperation of the two images increases, so DP would be told to converge their cameras on the subject to reduce the ghosting.

Another reason that DPs may be being told to converge their cameras is stereoscopic Blu-Ray where the stereo information can be stored as a difference between the L and R views, when you converge the cameras on the subject you reduce the difference signal most of the time and so reduce bandwidth needed and can fit more on one disk.

Sony showed a broadcast 3D camera with one large lens, it may be their intention to make 3D content more compatable with their compressed stereoscopic difference signal Blu-Ray and to reduce ghosting in both glasses and lenticular TV sets.

So you have two forces at work:

1) You cannot diverge the viewers eyes as that is unnatural.

2) You need to diverge the viewers eyes in order to meet the needs of difference signal Blu-Ray and lenticular TV sets and for ghosting with poor 3D glasses.


The result is:

1) If you don't diverge you get easer to view images, but less depth behing the screen depending on the screen size.

2) If you diverge you get different divergence angles depending on the screen size and viewing distance, because the divergence may excede so called "limits" in various sets in the theatre you cannot control the pain viewers experence at closer seats.


Another issue is that when you preview your 3D on a monitor, the monitor CANNOT simulate what the stereo will look like and feel like in a theatre as the divergence distance in absolute mm will be smaller on a small monitor and so the divergence angle will be smaller on a small monitor. If you adjust divergence seperation to be 2% of the screen width on a 1000mm monitor it is 20mm, so there is no divergence, but if you show the same images on a movie screen of 20000mm the divergence seperation of the image points is 400mm which is more than the maximum of of 62.5mm by a large amount.

This is a flaw in the concept of stereoscopic production that is not being delt with in a way that shows it is understood well.

If 3D is to be a success then the movies should not be painful to watch or full of ghost images. Both of those problems are easy to fix by shooting with the camera's parallel, and using better quality filters on the projectors and glasses. If the movie industry wants to "do things cheap" and does not address the poor quality of the 3D glasses used at some shows, they will in the long run suffer much greater losses in ticket sales..

That as well as giving up the idea that poor movie concepts and lots of CGI and VFX plus 3D can replace a drama under that skin. Some producers seem oblivious to why some stories are a success and others fail, they think its the surface look of the work and copy that surface from films that have been a success without understanding that it was not the surface that was the reason for the other filmmaker's success it was the underlying drama that is only seen on the unconscious by most viewers and it seems some copycat producers.

DPs have it in their power to "kill" 3D if they want to by miss adjusting their cameras, much like Arthur Schindler miss adjusting his machine tools to sabotage the German war effort.

I for one very much enjoy 3D cinematography when its done well, and would like to see ALL movie productions made in 3D for the most part. For that to be better that what we have now the penny pinching would need to stop. Watching a good 3D shot is like looking at a live play with 3D actors on stage, it makes the experence more real. 3D conversion from 2D, and other non-stereoscopic image caputure with two discreate images at high bandwidth do not give the full 3D quality to surface textures and so miss the point of stereoscopic cinematography.

 

[Thor Melsted]

In a word, no.

 

[Adrian Correia]

the biggest thing for me is that it ruins performances for me. I just saw Pirates and I found myself so much more conscious of the acting. It destroys the illusions for me in every way.

 

[Richard Foster]

Great lighting and production design in a 2D film can create a very pleasing 3D perception without headaches or pains. Look at Toland's work in Citizen Kane. Look at Vertigo. Heck, look at Blade Runner. I know we're going to be stuck with it as an option for a while, in part because of TV sports - drinking beers and watching 3D cheerleader T&A is so American. But I hope we get over it soon in serious quality films. I for one am shooting our first feature in gorgeous 2D 4.5K WS RED MX!

 

[Paul Lee]

I for one am shooting our first feature in gorgeous 2D 4.5K WS RED MX!

Word.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Word, indeed, Richard. We shot our first feature in gorgeous 2D 4K 2:1 RED Mysterium, and our second in glorious 2D 4K 2:1 M-X. And we couldn't be happier!



Stephen

 

[Philipp Straehl]

I only watched one film in 3D, Avatar, and it was nice. But not more. After a while the 3D effect is no more really thrilling, you get used to it. It becomes normal that there is some depth in the image, just like it gets normal when you watch a black-and-white film and you get used to the lack of colours.

I certainly disagree that every film would profit from 3D. I look forward to see the Hobbit in 3D, but I wouldn't mind it it was projected in 2D at my small local theatre (http://www.cinemasilplaz.ch/program.255.0.html?&L=9). I don't care much about 3D film, it doesn't get me excited. If I had the resources to shoot 3D, I wouldn't take advantage of it. I'm more interested in the content, the actors, camera movements, etc.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
--H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
--Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

; )

Lucas

 

[Bruce Allen]

Remember, all these cameras, systems and technology are all just tools that we can use to express ourselves as artists and no artist has the right to tell another artist how to do things. Ever.

I hope that you guys respect my decision to shoot in 3D then

I personally like it and think it fits the stories I want to tell.

Also, if done well, it doesn't give me headaches. I am quite susceptible to headaches. So is my mother - in fact, she used to get horrendous migraines from the flicker of film movie projectors and CRT TVs! She much prefers 3D digital projection!

The weird thing is that some people who don't like 3D keep telling us that it's physically impossible for us to like 3D! Um... if I didn't like it, I wouldn't watch it! This is not some kind of weird con act we're playing at. I think that Cameron and Jackson are 100% sincere in their desire to make 3D movies - because they like the medium. And also... from interviews I've read, Nolan did take a look at converting Inception to 3D and liked the results - but he said it would have delayed the release by too much.

Heck, to be honest, when we were working ideas for the 3D cityscape for the teaser (you know, where the city becomes a maze which becomes the word INCEPTION) I remember thinking "wow, this would look awesome in stereo "

Oh boy, now the anti-3D camp is really gonna come at me with torches...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I hope that you guys respect my decision to shoot in 3D then

I personally like it and think it fits the stories I want to tell.

Ditto.

 

[Sam Winzar]

3D is definitely still in it's infancy and everyone is still very much in the process of learning the craft. Give it some time and I think you'll see 3D start to really blow you away soon. I love it, and every time I see a 2D film these days, it just feels flat.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Avatar was the last 3d film I will ever intentionally see.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

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

 

[Erich Ocean]

3D is definitely still in it's infancy and everyone is still very much in the process of learning the craft. Give it some time and I think you'll see 3D start to really blow you away soon. I love it, and every time I see a 2D film these days, it just feels flat.

As a director, I also hadn't planned on shooting 3D, mainly because I perceived it to not have any storytelling value -- because I didn't see that I personally could do anything with it (it felt like just a visual effect or a gimmick). Boy was I wrong! After some very illuminating discussions on CML, I'm pumped to shoot 3D. There are so many decisions to be made about 3D that can add or subtract from the story being told. I love having ANY tool I can get my hands on that enables me to tell a story better. 3D is just such a tool.

Every time a new film comes out, the stereographers talk about the choices they made on CML. The 3D medium is still very much in its infancy. Count me in the "let's give 3D a try and see where we can take it" camp.

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...

Couldn't agree more, and hope to be a part of that.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

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.)

 

[Nick Gardner]

We've been through all this before. If the public wanted 3d, we would have had it 60 years ago. We'll see if the market wants it now. I sure hope not. The arguments about color and talkies and such don't hold any weight. Actually, they are great examples of why 3d probably won't go anywhere. Color was adopted right away (relatively). So was sound. Because the audience wanted it. 3D has had many mini roll outs and it always goes away.

Just sayin......

Nick

 

[Erich Ocean]

We've been through all this before. If the public wanted 3d, we would have had it 60 years ago. We'll see if the market wants it now. I sure hope not. The arguments about color and talkies and such don't hold any weight. Actually, they are great examples of why 3d probably won't go anywhere. Color was adopted right away (relatively). So was sound. Because the audience wanted it. 3D has had many mini roll outs and it always goes away.

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.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

If the public wanted 3d, we would have had it 60 years ago.
Nick

No offense - but that's a very silly statement.

The technology and practicality of shooting and releasing 3D is rather different than it was 60 years ago.