Dimensionalized features WTF?

[Nick Gardner]

I bet none of you Ladies and Gentlemen have ever seen realistic 3D content much less 3D movie.

I've seen some realy good 3d imax at the Air and Space museum over the years, but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a gimmick and it doesn't add anything to the film viewing experience. It's cool to go see a short imax film in 3d every now and then, but if people wanted to watch 3d movies, we would have been doing it for the past 60 years.

Nick

 

[Alec Morris]

45% of tickets sold to iron man 3 were 3D. That's pretty damn high, especially for such a wildly successful film.

The reason there weren't many 3D rigs at NAB is because the market is already sated. There are enough already out there to support the number of 3D films being shot. And since they have pretty much gotten as small and technologically advanced as is possible with the current generation of cameras, there isnt really a need for new models.

It is really unfortunate that crappy conversions done as cash grabs have hurt the public opinion of 3D so much. Regardless, it's here to stay in cinema. The numbers make that very clear.

 

[M Most]

45% of tickets sold to iron man 3 were 3D. That's pretty damn high, especially for such a wildly successful film.

Not when you consider that 2 or 3 years ago, it was closer to 60%. It is undeniable that the trend has been that the percentage has been dropping for quite some time, even if there is the occasional anomaly.

 

[Paul E. McCarthy]

The only reason hollywood makes Blockbuster 3D movies is to defend against Piracy. Try to video tape a 3d movie in the theater and put on Limewire like 6 years ago, It doesn't work. Ever notice how the film comes out again in 2D a month later once all the suits in Hollywood get paid.

Its all about the benjamins.

 

[M Most]

The only reason hollywood makes Blockbuster 3D movies is to defend against Piracy. .

If that were true, there wouldn't be 2D versions of those pictures. But there are, and usually on more screens and with more showings than the 3D version.

3D versions are made because it is believed that they help to attract a bigger audience. This is more true outside of the US at the moment, and time will tell if the numbers there will gradually drop off as they have in the US.

 

[Jason Goodman]

3D attendance in the US dropped to the 40-50% range with Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and has stayed right around there since, so the BO performance of Ironman 3 shows no new indications with regard to 3D. 40% of $1B is a lot of money, and expanding foreign markets are loving it so the haters should be sad to know that 3D will continue for a good while with those kind of results. I would guess that of the 70% of people who saw Avatar in 3D, many saw Alice, Clash and other poorly converted films soon after and left with a bad taste in their mouths. Almost everyone I speak to resents the upcharge for 3D and I agree, horrible idea, particularly given the state of the economy. In most industries, when a product faces competition (illegal downloads, VOD, iPads, cheap 50" TVs, etc) you make it more competitive in terms of quality and cost. In Hollywood it seems there is an unsustainable tendency to just raise the price.

The notion that 3D films protect against piracy is flatly incorrect. That was the conventional thinking around Chicken Little days, but nobody has even mentioned that for years. We shot the "making of" doc for the Jurassic Park 3D bluray disc. I was recently shown a pristine copy of the film, in 3D, downloaded from some torrent, days before the film was released in theaters. Piracy will always find a way it seems. 3D movies are made for a number of reasons, one of which is that some directors, producers and execs actually like 3D. The other is that 40 - 50% of the audience will pay more to see it. Plain and simple. If there was something I could do to reliably earn 40 - 50% more money, I'd do it.

Saying 3D is a gimmick is very narrow minded. 3D cinema is an artistic medium. If it is utilized to make gimmicky films, it's a gimmick. If it is used to expand the world of the film, draw the audience in emotionally and enhance the story and / or cinematic experience, then it is a spectacular medium. Sadly it has been under utilized or badly abused in the overwhelming majority of cases.

It is odd to me how many people are so adamant about getting their negative opinions of 3D out there. I don't like country music, but I'm not on the internet telling its proponents it's crap. I just don't listen to it, don't create it and don't get involved with it's community of enthusiasts. Of course this forum is for sharing ideas, experiences and opinions, but how useful is "I hate 3D" and what is the intended goal of making such a sentiment? For those of you who "hate 3D" so much why did you click on the little "3D" in the REDUSER forum in the first place? No joking or insults intended, but I would also seriously suggest that anyone who is so physically bothered by 3D in all cases should consider a trip to the eye doctor for a stereoscopic acuity test. You may be surprised by what you are not seeing.

As far as why there was "no 3D" at NAB in 2013, there are many reasons, not all of which are obvious. I can tell you that 21st Century 3D was not present because we were shooting in 3D. NAB was planned, but had to be canceled last minute. We had intended to launch our new BX4.5 mirror rig, the lightest (for RED EPIC) and most feature rich beamsplitter in the market right now, the rig itself weighs as little as 11.8lbs depending on configuration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulexzFjgAm0&feature=share&list=UUR7qjFWlxC1nQILoFX9UeJw

I can't speak for other 3D production cos but I have heard that 3ality is extremely busy right now. For other non 3D specific companies, 3D is no longer the flavor of the month. Attention has turned to the widespread deployment of 4K.

3D is not going anywhere. Gatsby's opening weekend far exceeded all forecasts and there is a lot of enthusiasm for 3D in international markets as seen at Cannes right now. Get off the hating and either expand your mind or just watch 2D and leave it at that.

 

[M Most]

Saying 3D is a gimmick is very narrow minded. 3D cinema is an artistic medium. If it is utilized to make gimmicky films, it's a gimmick. If it is used to expand the world of the film, draw the audience in emotionally and enhance the story and / or cinematic experience, then it is a spectacular medium. Sadly it has been under utilized or badly abused in the overwhelming majority of cases. .

That's likely, in large part, to the fact that in many, if not the great majority, of live action 3D releases, the decision to do a 3D version was made by the studio, not the filmmakers. However you look at it, shooting live action in a stereoscopic format is a bit of a distraction during production. Whether that distraction takes away from other important tasks and decision making is arguable, but it is most definitely a distraction and, in many ways, a limitation. "Iron Man 3" and especially "Star Trek Into Darkness" are examples of pictures that were shot in 2D for both of those reasons, and both are examples of the "suits" making the decision to do 3D in the theaters, not the directors.

 

[Petri Teittinen]

Excellent post, Mr. Goodman. Thank you.

 

[Alec Morris]

However you look at it, shooting live action in a stereoscopic format is a bit of a distraction during production. Whether that distraction takes away from other important tasks and decision making is arguable, but it is most definitely a distraction and, in many ways, a limitation.

Sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. Unless your stereographer and rig techs are wildly incompetent, 3D departments can work as quickly and efficiently as any 2D camera team. There need be no burden on any other department.

Jason, as always, well said.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Interesting talking to a marketing manager from a national theatre chain & their reaction to 3D.

Public numbers are trending downwards. Also perception by some, 3D is more about an anti-piracy measure.

Myself I'm over 3D bigtime.

 

[M Most]

Sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. Unless your stereographer and rig techs are wildly incompetent, 3D departments can work as quickly and efficiently as any 2D camera team. There need be no burden on any other department.

When you're shooting stereoscopic, you're dealing with two cameras on every shot and making adjustments to things that don't even exist when shooting flat. You usually need to change rigs to swing a lens (because the lenses need to be properly set up and aligned) so you're probably carrying more bodies than you do shooting flat. You are limited in terms of camera angles and placement because of the rigs when compared to single camera setups, one of the primary reasons that a number of directors opt to shoot flat even when 3D is required for release. And in most cases on reasonably sized productions, you're carrying an extra crewmember (the stereographer) who requires consultation with both the director and cinematographer in order do the job properly. You are limited in terms of many in-camera effect techniques when compared to flat shooting (lens flares, for instance). Not to mention that if you want to monitor the stereo images, you need to don glasses and be on axis to the monitor you're looking at. Essentially every 3D production ends up having shots that are converted from 2D at least in part because of these very limitations. And while it is true that an experienced stereoscopic crew can handle some of these things efficiently, how are they not distractions?

 

[Ross Isaacs]

As usual Jason Goodman weighs in with his wisdom ;-)

 

[Alec Morris]

When you're shooting stereoscopic, you're dealing with two cameras on every shot and making adjustments to things that don't even exist when shooting flat.

the only additional adjustment is interaxial (unless you toe in, which most prefer not to as it limits flexibility in post). the stereo budget is pre determined, so it's not really that taxing to adjust for a professional stereographer.

You usually need to change rigs to swing a lens (because the lenses need to be properly set up and aligned) so you're probably carrying more bodies than you do shooting flat

the vast majority of 3D productions use zooms, so this is not an issue. that said, if you want to change prime lenses and realign, it can be done in ten minutes by skilled techs. 3ality has a program that practically does it automatically. virtually always, the 3D guys will be ready and waiting on another department to finish prepping the next shot.

You are limited in terms of camera angles and placement because of the rigs when compared to single camera setups, one of the primary reasons that a number of directors opt to shoot flat even when 3D is required for release.

a fully rigged 2D camera on a production with a budget big enough to allow for post conversion is negligibly smaller than a 3D rig. yes, its possible to make them much smaller, but it doesn't happen much. 35mm setups are the same size (or larger). imax is WAY bigger. if i absolutely have to have a specific shot, i can get two go pro's just about anywhere. or as you point out, if it's impossible any other way, just post convert that shot.

You are limited in terms of many in-camera effect techniques when compared to flat shooting (lens flares, for instance

lens flares absolutely work in 3D, and look pretty damn cool.

Not to mention that if you want to monitor the stereo images, you need to don glasses and be on axis to the monitor you're looking at

i use a passive 3DTV as a monitor. video village is no different, the angle of view is more than sufficient. i even have clip on polarized lenses that go on my prescription glasses, which i wear all day without the slightest annoyance.

if you hire a 3D team that knows what they are doing, there is no reason that you're shoot should go noticeably different than a 2D shoot would. yes, some small adjustments will have to be made, but they really aren't that hard to get used to. the only real difference is you will end up with a product that is significantly easier to sell, and that to many people (including martin scorcese, peter jackson, and james cameron) has a beautiful new dimension to its cinematic images, the bounds of which we are only beginning to explore.

 

[Zhang Ming]

Sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. Unless your stereographer and rig techs are wildly incompetent, 3D departments can work as quickly and efficiently as any 2D camera team. There need be no burden on any other department.

Jason, as always, well said.

I can say you are definitely wrong. S3D shot needs much more work to everyone. I know the fast shot trick, but it is such a bad choice, you just make IA=20mm, parallel the two camera, never change lens (usually chose 16-42 3DDP), then you can shot almost as fast as 2D, and you can easily change the zero screen or other factors at the post work. But the output S3D is much worse than well calculated shot with convergence, things looks just quite flat to me (there was a test showed each people have different feeling on same S3D, some one feel that flat feeling S3D good, but that doesn't includes me and most other people) . Also directors should have S3d in their minds to well tell the story, so does the DP. One more dimension needs more thoughts.

 

[Alec Morris]

I can say you are definitely wrong. S3D shot needs much more work to everyone. I know the fast shot trick, but it is such a bad choice, you just make IA=20mm, parallel the two camera, never change lens (usually chose 16-42 3DDP), then you can shot almost as fast as 2D, and you can easily change the zero screen or other factors at the post work. But the output S3D is much worse than well calculated shot with convergence, things looks just quite flat to me (there was a test showed each people have different feeling on same S3D, some one feel that flat feeling S3D good, but that doesn't includes me and most other people) . Also directors should have S3d in their minds to well tell the story, so does the DP. One more dimension needs more thoughts.

i'm not sure why you made the assumptions you did, but i would never do anything from your above post. IA is adjusted for every shot, and is usually adjusted during shots if there is movement. focal length should be changed just like with any other shoot.

of course flat 'pop up book' 3D sucks. of course it takes more thought to shoot 3D. but no professional set should be slowed by 3D, and no corners should have to be cut to accomplish this.

gorgeous, round, layered 3D can be done PROPERLY basically as fast as 2D with a pro crew.

i've never heard of anyone doing a 'fast shot trick', but if they are out there then I would suggest no one hire them because they are morons.

 

[Zhang Ming]

i'm not sure why you made the assumptions you did, but i would never do anything from your above post. IA is adjusted for every shot, and is usually adjusted during shots if there is movement. focal length should be changed just like with any other shoot.

of course flat 'pop up book' 3D sucks. of course it takes more thought to shoot 3D. but no professional set should be slowed by 3D, and no corners should have to be cut to accomplish this.

gorgeous, round, layered 3D can be done PROPERLY basically as fast as 2D with a pro crew.

i've never heard of anyone doing a 'fast shot trick', but if they are out there then I would suggest no one hire them because they are morons.

OK, morons works very fast Almost same speed as 2D, no more preparations, I do recommend that trick to many who do not need quality. I've experienced a stuff do things like my post and I got shocked, actually I think the output is totally enough for TV. I understand your opinion, you prefer parallel shot, that is much faster than convergence shot. But I really prefer conv shot, and I can do conv shot without post corrections . Focal length of course needs change, so I said 16-42 3DDP, it covered 19-100 on EPIC if you just need 2K final output. Anyway I've already managed to switch lens(16-42 to 30-80) within 15 minutes including calibration, no axis loose, while changing to my coke 18mm need more than 40 minutes. But in 2D, it needs only 1 minutes for anyone. I also made some accessories to expand my rig functions, but those functions are easy available when using 2D...I can do S3D shot fast, even faster than some bad 2D crews, but I can do much much faster if it's a 2D shot, and the preparations also needs much more work...S3D is a burden, it's difficult, but it's worthy.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

well said, Jason.

Regarding conversion from 2D to 3D, I have not seen any good conversion of underwater footage. Has anyone seen anything half decent?
I think the challange is in limited transparency and water particles that can not be converted easily using depth maps.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

if you hire a 3D team that knows what they are doing, there is no reason that you're shoot should go noticeably different than a 2D shoot would .

No matter how skilled a 3D team is, it cannot remove the time and focus for consideration, consultation, comparison and multiplied variables which additional shooting factor affects.
There are more elements in the equation, such as directing and lighting choices which, depending on the shot, may easily differ in type and limitations.

 

[Alec Morris]

No matter how skilled a 3D team is, it cannot remove the time and focus for consideration, consultation, comparison and multiplied variables which additional shooting factor affects.
There are more elements in the equation, such as directing and lighting choices which, depending on the shot, may easily differ in type and limitations.

There is no reason to light any differently than you would with 2D, save for adjusting for light lost through the mirror which is less than you would think. The big difference lies in how shots are framed and how far the camera is from everything. But this doesn't take additional time. It is done IN PLACE of the time one would spend framing for 2D. The director and DP should know the basics, and with the input of the stereographer, this doesn't take noticeably longer.

Could 3D add a day or two to a 30 day shoot? Maybe. But a lot of posts make it sound like it could add another 30 days.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

There is no reason to light any differently than you would with 2D, save for adjusting for light lost through the mirror which is less than you would think.

Three reasons should be sufficient:

1) If the same amount of light compared to 2D is separating the foreground subject from the background too much, due to added depth separation, and the subject drops out of the environment instead of being a part of it;
2) If hard light or light relations reveal too many distracting details which would be much less noticeable on canvas;
3) If canvas storytelling lighting becomes obvious in 3D and looks fake.

The big difference lies in how shots are framed and how far the camera is from everything.

There are more factors besides the camera related ones.

Additional dimension offers in many ways more informative perception of the content, and every thing in the simulated space does not leave exactly the same impression as it would on canvas, so a couple of things may have to be modified to adapt to the targeted storytelling context.

But this doesn't take additional time. It is done IN PLACE of the time one would spend framing for 2D. The director and DP should know the basics, and with the input of the stereographer, this doesn't take noticeably longer.

What may also take longer, besides all previously mentioned factors, is pre-visualization and optimization of execution to purpose by tweaking additional specific elements inside the shot. Simply because there is one more determinative factor group which brings new demands to the table, behind and in front of the lens. Some techniques can work in parallel, some multiply the options and require additional time.

Not to mention pampering twice the amount of cameras for media, power, I/O, lens etc. Plus the limitations of narrative environment and camera motion and compensating for those limitations. In a complex structure such as professional motion imaging is, a lot of variables tend to be inter-related and span across many tasks, which often prevents them from being localized and covered simply by additional crew, which often leads to spending more time.

In addition, stereo storytelling requires a proper 3D viewing. Which requires proper controlled conditions. Simply putting any 3D monitor where ever possible may drastically reduce the perception. Neglecting proper viewing conditions leads to shooting with just a rough guestimate of what is going on. Which leads to "fix it in post". Which leads to fake 3D. Faking illusion of a 3D, to be more precise.

Good results require adequate conditions. Adequate conditions introduce additional rules and limitations.
Which slow down things. Not once, every time. Repeating 100 times a day an action of 30 secs = 50 minutes per day for that action.