Dual camera 3D - Is there a proper cinema classification name for it?

[Simon Dunne]

I'm getting really annoyed with fake 3D. It's doing a disservice to the industry. Let's take the new X-MEN film as an example.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Even after looking at the specs, i can't tell if it was shot with 2 Arri cameras in a rig, or just shot on 1 with the 3D done in post, so i'll just go watch it in 2D.

I saw Gravity in 2D @ 2K the first time i saw it, but was lucky enough to see it in 3D on the world's 3rd largest IMAX screen in Melbourne. Some of the 3D looked ok, but when Sandy was in the Russian capsule, i could clearly see a green hue on the side of her face where the 3D conversion could go no further.

Surely there should be some way to correctly identify a movie shot with a beam splitter rig or similar? The Hobbit was class in 3D! 2D > 3D conversion movies just do 3D an injustice and give people a bad impression. Rant over!

 

[M Most]

I'm getting really annoyed with fake 3D. It's doing a disservice to the industry. Let's take the new X-MEN film as an example.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Even after looking at the specs, i can't tell if it was shot with 2 Arri cameras in a rig, or just shot on 1 with the 3D done in post, so i'll just go watch it in 2D.

I saw Gravity in 2D @ 2K the first time i saw it, but was lucky enough to see it in 3D on the world's 3rd largest IMAX screen in Melbourne. Some of the 3D looked ok, but when Sandy was in the Russian capsule, i could clearly see a green hue on the side of her face where the 3D conversion could go no further.

Surely there should be some way to correctly identify a movie shot with a beam splitter rig or similar? The Hobbit was class in 3D! 2D > 3D conversion movies just do 3D an injustice and give people a bad impression. Rant over!

1. ALL "3D" is "fake." We don't currently have a "real" 3D capture or display system. What you refer to as "3D" is stereography, which is a method of tricking your brain into thinking that it's seeing 3D objects when in fact it's just flat projection. At some point we might have "real" 3D. At this point we don't.

2. Essentially all "3D" releases have a significant percentage of footage that was post converted, regardless of whether the principle photography was done with dual camera rigs or not. That includes "Hobbit" and just about any other stereoscopic release you can name.

3. Regardless of what's said here and elsewhere by stereoscopic production advocates, stereo production creates many problems that need to be solved by post solutions and requires bulkier, harder to manipulate rigs than single camera capture. There is at least one major studio that has "banned" native stereoscopic production completely because of problems encountered on multiple previous releases. Conversion techniques and quality have gotten to the point that for most audiences there is no difference, even if there might be to you.

4. The additional money generated by a 3D release has been shrinking at an ever increasing rate over the last few years, especially in the U.S. Audiences are not only less interested in paying more for the stereoscopic release, many if not most of them simply aren't interested in seeing it at all. So the interest in creating "native" stereoscopic production on the part of the studios is considerably lower than it has been since the whole "digital 3D" craze began a few years ago. It has, to some degree, proven to be the "fad" that many of us predicted, with any serious interest being limited primarily to large tentpole releases of "genre" pictures. I'm not trying to start any kind of political battle here, and I'm not even talking about my own personal interests. These are simply facts.

 

[Simon Dunne]

Thanks for the as always in depth answer Mike. Much appreciated. With movies like Gravity, i can see why a single camera option was used, due to the space needed to film in Sandy's cube. It's just a shame to see people 'tricked' into watching Titanic 3D and the like. The software conversion does an OK job, but it's just not worth the extra money at the cinema IMO.

 

[paulherrin]

titanic is largely considered one of the better 3d conversions... just sayin

what you're referring to indiscriminately is bad/cheap/auto conversion. this is an aged topic already...

gosh those animated movies released in stereo 3d are so terrible. must be the software.

 

[Marc Wielage]

gosh those animated movies released in stereo 3d are so terrible. must be the software.

Very true. Ain't no 3D animation cameras being used on any of those billion-dollar movies like Frozen.

I think at this point all the studio is concerned about is that the film makes money, the reviews are good, and the mass-market audience is happy. I think whether or not it was shot in stereoscopic 3D with two cameras, converted in post, or a combination of the two is not a factor at all. My own reaction is the most significant factors are how much time they take in converting the movie, and how good the planning was in blocking and shooting the film with 3D in mind. The method isn't nearly as important.

I know of a major, major $175M movie where they did extensive tests on different cameras and different 3D systems, and ultimately the star​ of the movie jettisoned the 3D rig because it slowed down production too much. Even adding another 45 minutes a day in setup delays was not acceptable to the star, who was also one of the executive producers of the film. (The converted 3D movie ultimately did OK but was not the blockbuster they were hoping for.)

 

[Keith Putnam]

For what it's worth, the majority of X-Men: Days Of Future Past was captured in native stereo on 3Ality rigs loaded with Alexas. The conversion was saved for "some key action scenes".

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/future-threat-x-men-days-of-future-past/

 

[Chris Rasmussen]

TAHNKK YOU Simon! ~ I realize I'm a few years late in responding, but I, too, have long been cheesed off at the prevalence of fake 3D. And don't get me started on the euphemistic term "conversion," which is patently ridiculous because one can't manifest a perspective that was never captured.

M Most dismisses all 3D as fake, however, native 3D provides the two essentials our brains utilize for visual assessment: approximations of both distance AND volume. Fake 3D addresses only distance leaving fully 50% of the natural viewing experience unaddressed. I found GRAVITY simultaneously exciting and annoying, seeing 2D faces and bodies in a rendered 3D environment. They did their level best in digitally morphing body portions to appear correct, but I found it distracting, as I have with all fake 3D. The best analogy I can think of is hand-colored films of the early 1900s - there certainly IS color present, but it's NOT color photography. Fake 3D gives a sense of elements being closer or farther away, but wouldn't fool anyone as being native, even as I write this in 2019, fully five years after your original post. I see the diminishing returns on 3D releases being the result of both higher ticket prices and fake 3D still effectively peddling hand-colored images as the real McCoy.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

3. Regardless of what's said here and elsewhere by stereoscopic production advocates, stereo production creates many problems that need to be solved by post solutions and requires bulkier, harder to manipulate rigs than single camera capture.

Because it is not done properly for the properties of the medium.

Proper stereoscopic requires proper camera design, cinematography, directing and editing decisions and presentation, which have neither been optimized nor became integrated into an adequate production standard, the very basis required to allow storytelling in a different medium to flourish. These are all compromises upon compromises.

Mindset prioritising sales figures is incompetent to bring forth creations which require a fundamentally different paradigm. And stereoscopic requires a completely different paradigm, from technical over production to presentation parameters. Problems are not in the medium. Problems are in the mindset.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

TAHNKK YOU Simon! ~ I realize I'm a few years late in responding, but I, too, have long been cheesed off at the prevalence of fake 3D. And don't get me started on the euphemistic term "conversion," which is patently ridiculous because one can't manifest a perspective that was never captured.

M Most dismisses all 3D as fake, however, native 3D provides the two essentials our brains utilize for visual assessment: approximations of both distance AND volume. Fake 3D addresses only distance leaving fully 50% of the natural viewing experience unaddressed. I found GRAVITY simultaneously exciting and annoying, seeing 2D faces and bodies in a rendered 3D environment. They did their level best in digitally morphing body portions to appear correct, but I found it distracting, as I have with all fake 3D. The best analogy I can think of is hand-colored films of the early 1900s - there certainly IS color present, but it's NOT color photography. Fake 3D gives a sense of elements being closer or farther away, but wouldn't fool anyone as being native, even as I write this in 2019, fully five years after your original post. I see the diminishing returns on 3D releases being the result of both higher ticket prices and fake 3D still effectively peddling hand-colored images as the real McCoy.

Yes, it's done on individual level: every one of us has to look for what he/she wants to see - for him/her self, focus, do vergence eye movements, have vestibulo-ocular reflexes etc. That's native.
With "3D" recording (and recordings in general) we get all this prefixed/prerecorded, and all we do is stare at the freakin' silver screen - like hypnotized/sanitized...fishlike. I mean, what's next? Microsaccade?! Blinking?! Well, that's gonna make it really real...100% native! :rofl:

 

[Simon Dunne]

This is bonkers! Since writing that post, i have now worked on the final Hobbit movie, Fantastic Beasts 2 and Aladdin, which is just coming out now. Plus, i got to work with the awesome Mike Most, albeit, from across the pond.

I found this site a few years back: https://realorfake3d.com/