Is 3-D Dead? Slate article

[geoffboyle]

It always amazes me how little these "experts" know about our business.

Of course shooting 3D will be more expensive for quite a lot longer, we use twice as many cameras! but it doesn't need to be slower which is the real issue.

The "billions" that the TV manufacturers have spent on 3D is pure wrong, any 120hz HD set can be made 3D with a few pennies of IR emitter and circuitry to drive it.

This is why the set manufacturers are so keen on active glasses, they make much more money.

It's likely that next year you won't be able to buy a set that is over 32" that isn't 3D.

We need more real 3D content but that is happening.

However, the biggest factor is glasses free and that is moving much faster than people think it is.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

BINGO!!

This is exactly how "Rape of a Beauty" will be shot, were the Depth Budget, positions, lighting strength and its placements and Sets will be conceived form Script as a S3D film...
Not a 2D one,

I agree perfectly so far ...

considering exactly the opposite of conventional 2D filmmaking.

and then I suddenly don't.

Maybe it isn't fair to pick on Ketch, because it may be his english not his sense of film I'm gonna end up commenting on. Sorry if that's the case.

The point I want to make though is that you must work to find and show the same psychological elements in 3D as you do in 2D ... they truly are more the same than different as you prepare.

Now in 3D you may decide that the emotional impact of a movement or convergence position is so different that a radical departure in technique is needed, but ultimately its for the same sort of psychological effects.

So ... maybe you'll discover that where you used to change a lens from 35-85, now you want to get the same shot with a 15-40 ... maybe where you used to slowly dolly in ... now you may wish to slowly push convergence behind a subject ... the list goes on ... but it must be thought about carefully or you'll "hit the wrong note." and then you'll find audiences laughing where they should be crying or some other tragedy of our profession.

The difficult thing about developing a new grammar is that we don't get to do so on our own as a film maker. The audience will participate and drive us in ways we don't yet understand.

 

[Karl H]

The following all IMO only ..... Every Hollywood narrative 3D movie I have seen has been really bad. Why? because 3D is a completely different art form to 2D.

Hollywood and 3D don't go together for very fundamental reasons :

The film-maker asks us to focus at different depths from shot to shot. In the same way it takes a second for our eyes to adjust from a phone screen in our hands to a building across the road, it takes time for our eyes to adjust to the new focal pane of attention from scene to scene. Cutting is jarring, in 3D you have to keep it to a minimum and give the audience time to re-orient. Fast paced editing is a disaster. By the time you orient yourself in 3D space you've cut to another 5 shots and your brain is getting confused and irritated. This will not get better with technical improvements, it's inherent in the human body. It takes the brain away from the film you're meant to be watching and instead your trying to get to grips with 3D planes of attention. Slower pace, the better and Blockbusters and slow paced editing, do not go hand in hand.

Apart from the current technical limitations of flickering/strobing and double images when things get too close. There's nothing worse than having something which is out of focus placed in front of your face because its not natural. Your eye tries to focus on it like they would a real object, but it's still out of focus, obviously. Filmmakers have always drawn your eye to what they want you to see, whether thats with depth of field, or lighting. In 2D depth of field is effective at drawing the eye to the subject in focus. In 3D it isn't, especially if the object that you don't want to focus on is drawing attention to itself by being the foreground plane and out of focus floating in front of our eyes. You have a tendency to try and focus on it, but you can't.

I have to say that those old school 3D IMAX movies were the best implementation I have ever seen because they generally kept wide shots where everything was in focus and you could scour the depth of the scene with your own eyes. They also gave you time to do this, edited at a pace of a nature programme - that was no accident, it was using 3D to it's strengths, giving you time to absorb everything in the scene. Also they were fairly controlled camera movements, either floating over the moon or whizzing down the grand canyon in a straight line. No whips pans or cluttered objects on multiple planes flying around, some in focus, some not.

3D works for very specific types of film-making. You can't make all films that way, especially hollywood blockbusters which go a mile a minute. There is a fundamental conflict with the technology and the type of material it's trying to present.

In order for 3D to be effective you'd have to shoot it in a way that in 2D, might be very flat and boring. They are IMO 2 completely different mediums, and treating one film like it can straddle both, is a bad idea.

The whole point of a film is to immerse you in it's content. If it pulls you out because your brain can't see objects it should, or you're seeing flickering or double images, or trying to focus on planes which have been shot out of focus, then it's doing the opposite of that. I gave it once last chance at the weekend and saw my last 3D movie. Afterwards the whole group who went vowed never to watch another film in 3D again. We were all taking our glasses off at points, struggling to see what was happening during action scenes, and generally having a bad time.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

However, the biggest factor is glasses free and that is moving much faster than people think it is.

Agreed.

I have to say however ... there is another problem.

There is a rather large population of audience members who actually are made uncomfortable by 3D, and many who can't see the effect, or for whom it is diminished.

For the most part these people have perfectly ordinary 3D vision in normal life ... so some more research has to be done on making their experience better.

I find too many who ignore the problem ... but it has a deep effect. Including an effect on the bottom line of a 3D production.

People go to the movies in groups. That's normal people not "us." If a member of the group can't enjoy 3D, they often opt to see a film in 2D or simply not to see the film.

I believe this is a serious part of the downtick in 3D ... and its not being paid attention to.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

3D is a completely different art form to 2D.

I agree, but it will take me to a different place than it has taken you.

The film-maker asks us to focus at different depths from shot to shot. In the same way it takes a second for our eyes to adjust from a phone screen in our hands to a building across the road, it takes time for our eyes to adjust to the new focal pane of attention from scene to scene. Cutting is jarring, in 3D you have to keep it to a minimum and give the audience time to re-orient. Fast paced editing is a disaster. By the time you orient yourself in 3D space you've cut to another 5 shots and your brain is getting confused and irritated. This will not get better with technical improvements, it's inherent in the human body. It takes the brain away from the film you're meant to be watching and instead your trying to get to grips with 3D planes of attention. Slower pace, the better and Blockbusters and slow paced editing, do not go hand in hand.

We disagree here, but the details matter.

A lot of what you say about refocusing the brain also matters as you push the editing pace in 2D. You must give the audience time to re-orient in 2D as well ... and there are generational differences in what editorial pace is tolerated. So it is in part a learned behavior.

There are human limits however ... and it turns out that film editors have discovered this themselves, which you can see by how they vary their cuts.

Apart from the current technical limitations of flickering/strobing and double images when things get too close. There's nothing worse than having something which is out of focus placed in front of your face because its not natural. Your eye tries to focus on it like they would a real object, but it's still out of focus, obviously. Filmmakers have always drawn your eye to what they want you to see, whether thats with depth of field, or lighting. In 2D depth of field is effective at drawing the eye to the subject in focus. In 3D it isn't, especially if the object that you don't want to focus on is drawing attention to itself by being the foreground plane and out of focus floating in front of our eyes. You have a tendency to try and focus on it, but you can't.

I'd go further.

In 3D bringing a subject out in front of the convergence plane draws attention to the subject ... and this instinct overrides the "drift to what is in focus" that applies in 2D. That is key its an instinct. If something is flying at me ... I need to pay attention to it.

So ... my general rule is not to put objects "in front of the screen" without meaning for them to have attention drawn to them.

Even more generally I urge new 3D film makers (of which I am one!) to study their audiences at least as much as they study the film making side.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I agree perfectly so far ...



and then I suddenly don't.

Maybe it isn't fair to pick on Ketch, because it may be his english not his sense of film I'm gonna end up commenting on. Sorry if that's the case.

The point I want to make though is that you must work to find and show the same psychological elements in 3D as you do in 2D ... they truly are more the same than different as you prepare.

Now in 3D you may decide that the emotional impact of a movement or convergence position is so different that a radical departure in technique is needed, but ultimately its for the same sort of psychological effects.

So ... maybe you'll discover that where you used to change a lens from 35-85, now you want to get the same shot with a 15-40 ... maybe where you used to slowly dolly in ... now you may wish to slowly push convergence behind a subject ... the list goes on ... but it must be thought about carefully or you'll "hit the wrong note." and then you'll find audiences laughing where they should be crying or some other tragedy of our profession.

The difficult thing about developing a new grammar is that we don't get to do so on our own as a film maker. The audience will participate and drive us in ways we don't yet understand.

He he, yeah there is always my Italynglesh to deal with...

What I mean is that, while 2D conventional film methods have great input in to some S3D techniques, many other don't, and in fact it is this that some times makes S3D not as good as it can be.

They are extremely different tools, yet much of the same results are needed at the end, but it is important, extremely important in fact that S3D be an original Scripted story, for the use of this tool.

Emotions can be effected in both methods of filming, in so many different ways, yet when S3D comes to play, now we have more... Which brings me to my point, my strongest one actually...

2D movies are great, S3D movies are better...

2D movies can not achieve what S3D movies can, but S3D movies can achieve what 2D movies can and more...

Same story, same cameras, same lenses, same places, same actors, same Director, you got the drill... Yet different TOOL, S3D,
with an array of carefully planned and carefully placed changes to Empower the story for S3D telling.

 

[mike ogden]

I've never read such a load of old BS in all my life with some of these posts. 3D is dying and good riddance. Audiences woke up to the scam.

Wishing for 'good content' won't save it.

 

[Karl H]

A lot of what you say about refocusing the brain also matters as you push the editing pace in 2D. You must give the audience time to re-orient in 2D as well ... and there are generational differences in what editorial pace is tolerated. So it is in part a learned behavior.

I'd disagree. Asking the audience to focus on a single 2D plane and ignore the stuff that's out of focus, that's conditioning. Asking the audience to refocus at different depths in 3D is a physical human process that takes time for the eyes to do to get the desired plane in focus. It can't be learnt because you can't predict where you're going to be focussing on the next cut, or when it will come. The faster you cut, the more your eyes have to try and instantly refocus. I don't think you can learn to do that better or faster, maybe the next evolution of humans will be better at this

I do agree about the other points tho. For me a 3D movie would work best where everything was in focus, wide angle, and cut sparingly. Use lighting to draw our attention to the subject, not depth of field. Some people could make that work, but Harry Potter, Transformers?? Nar. It's just the wrong medium for those kind of movies.

 

[scott william]

I wanted to see fright night tonight but it was only screening in 3d. i will have to wait for DVD cause 3D is so crap.

 

[Karl H]

I've never read such a load of old BS in all my life with some of these posts. 3D is dying and good riddance. Audiences woke up to the scam.

Wishing for 'good content' won't save it.

Tend to agree. No-one I know personally likes 3D narrative movies. It feels like the emperors new clothes all over again, where the only people that do are those pushing the technology.

But.... I would go to see one of those 20 minute 3D IMAX movies because they knew the limits of the medium and did it right.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I've never read such a load of old BS in all my life with some of these posts. 3D is dying and good riddance. Audiences woke up to the scam.

Wishing for 'good content' won't save it.

Well, one thing for sure is that at list you seem a very well informed as well as educated and well manner individual, so I guess, that makes you right...

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

Very interesting thoughts in this thread, and even the article was not that bad.
Not a week goes by without an article claiming 3D is the future, followed by some other article analyzing the "downfall" or its imminent death. In the end, the debate becomes quite boring.

What if the majority of people just don't like 3D?

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Hi Alexander

I wasn't pulling your leg... I just have a very differnet opinion. I'm facinated by the micro 3d textural stuff that is offered by very polished and refined s3d aquisition. I personaly don't need s3d in most action scenes but am still very interested in s3d and how it can shape things. I'll put a short 3d vignette up on youtube next week (in side by side fomat) that I really like but it has very little 'action'. That said volume is important and interestingly the film only works becuase it is in s3d.

regards

Michael L

I think you are pulling my leg, but I'll bite.

Because for the most part the typical back and forth dramatic conversation doesn't have a real dynamic spatial relationship. There is nothing interesting happening usually, and the story must be carried at that point by performance ... so anything that distracts from performance hurts the story.

Now ... some conversations are dynamic by nature, particularly two swordsmen about to face off trading quips ... but that isn't exactly talking heads is it?

So if you are shooting a film in 3D and you get to some portion that is a typical two shot devolving into alternating OTS medium closes with the occasional CU/XCU, then your best bet is to back the camera off and let the lenses compress the perspective, and let the distance from subject neutralize the 3D effect at the subject.

You have to learn how to use 3D if you want do have it help tell your story.

Just like DoF ... you don't want hypershallow DoF in every scene right? You don't want t/16 in every scene either ... you have to find the balance and that balance shifts as your story changes.

Same for 3D. When there is action and the spatial relationships are changing quickly you want to take the camera close ... very subjective inside the circle of action. One of the best 2D examples is the Normandy landing scene in Saving Private Ryan.

When subjects are static ... let the camera be more distant, a fly on the wall. 3D isn't hugely important until something dynamic occurs.

 

[mike ogden]

Well, one thing for sure is that at list you seem a very well informed as well as educated and well manner individual, so I guess, that makes you right...

Why thank you Ketch. I am a very well informed guy. Worked on the camera side of things for 20+ years. Shot all kinds of things from dramas to dancing girls with some of the best crews. I've been shot at by teenage gangs, threatened by a certain republican political organisation (and no I don't mean US republican) to stop filming, had a chat with a serial rapist (before they caught him), threatened by a murderer and filmed in some of the most insalubrious places as well as winning some awards along the way. I'm sure many have here too. All in a days work.

So I have the right to call bullshit if I see it. That Slate article only backs up with industry figures what many think of '3D' or stereoscopic films, which is really what they are. I'm sure Sky will keep pushing it on their TV platform but it's a fail in theatrical.

Good luck with 'Rape of a Beauty'. It sounds like a delightful family film.

 

[Tim Morten]

At the end of the day, this debate is going to be settled by what consumers choose to spend their dollars on. One can propose a lot of explanations for why consumers are decreasing their spend on 3D, but unless that trend changes, our conclusion has to be that there is SOMETHING about 3D that is not appealing to them.

I have tremendous respect for those trying to forge some new ground, including Ketch, Jim Cameron, and Red. I don't think 3D will go away, and I fully expect there to occasionally be exceptional/successful 3D films in the years to come.

However, until there is a sustained increase in consumer spending on 3D, I stand by the position that most theater goers are like me, and PREFER traditional 2D for most films. No distraction from performance, no gimmickery, no sense of forced perspectives, no sense of broken illusion at frame edges, brighter, no glasses, and my wife doesn't complain of headaches/nausea... the fact that I save a few bucks to spend on overpriced popcorn doesn't hurt either.

Home presentation? I'm sure I'll have a 3D capable set in the next five years, for the simple reason that 2D-only sets will probably no longer be sold. I might even watch something in 3D on it. Once. Then I'll go back to watching the way I prefer, in 2D.

PS - Before anyone responds by claiming that "glasses-less" 3D is the magic bullet, check out the sales flop that is Nintendo's 3DS hand-held.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Why thank you Ketch. I am a very well informed guy. Worked on the camera side of things for 20+ years. Shot all kinds of things from dramas to dancing girls with some of the best crews. I've been shot at by teenage gangs, threatened by a certain republican political organisation (and no I don't mean US republican) to stop filming, had a chat with a serial rapist (before they caught him), threatened by a murderer and filmed in some of the most insalubrious places as well as winning some awards along the way. I'm sure many have here too. All in a days work.

So I have the right to call bullshit if I see it. That Slate article only backs up with industry figures what many think of '3D' or stereoscopic films, which is really what they are. I'm sure Sky will keep pushing it on their TV platform but it's a fail in theatrical.

Good luck with 'Rape of a Beauty'. It sounds like a delightful family film.

Well, see Mike, this is were you an I really differ...

This industry is a creative industry and no one is right or wrong, each his own style and or Artistic reasoning to follow in a telling of a story, with the right to use or not use a particular tool...

I think that many have absolutely no clue what are they talking about, either in favor or against 3D, not particularly saying it is you, but when you say such words, that includes you automatically...

Most important, I have little tolerance for Bad manners, and or poor language, especially when I am possibly included, it is simply a Tone that I allow no one in my presence,
as I would never refer to some one in the same way out of simple Respect.

We each have an opinion and the given right to express it, but doing so should never insult any one, no matter what you think you know , or what you think you have been thru,
trust me on this one that if we were to add up what you have been thru or what I have been thru, not sure how you would stuck up...

Again, no matter what calling names on some one's opinion simply does not make you the expert...

"Rape of a Beauty" might sure not be a delightful family film, but I can assure you it will be something that will be embraced as it is,
a powerful inspiring story of the sufferings that such brutal acts, as it is Rape can bring to any one which becomes a Victim of it... And my interest is to make it as much as an Experience as possible, hence the use of S3D.

Those that fill might like the story and don't want to see it in S3D they can see it in 2D, if I choose to release it in conventional 2D, as I might choose not to do so, to stay true to my vision, no matter the cost,
then again, I might decide to make a 2D version if I see that what I have captured allows me to extract a 2D version from it, or I can shoot the 2D version at the same time as I shoot the S3D one.

At the end what I try to say is that my Strong opinion as a Filmmaker with now over 10 years of studying the world of S3Dm, and almost a Year of direct experience with it,
including the use of our own S3D rig, the Atom rig with Epic cams, which has allowed me to see the power of S3D and what can add to a story, not subtract.

But most important I thing you simply fail to prove that you can in fact called as it is, because it isn't...

 

[Julio Quintana]

I don't think the average filmmaker has the chops to pull off a 3D movie.

The more information you have on screen, the more difficult it is to focus the audience on the correct information in the frame. This is why it's harder to shoot with wide lenses and deep focus. Most filmmakers just use a long lens and throw the background out of focus. It's easier.

With wide lenses/deep focus, blocking, lighting, composition, and production design become infinitely important to guide the audiences eye. How many guys have mastered this? Kubrick, Welles, Malick, Speilberg? It's a hard thing to do, and I personally don't know if there is enough talent out there to sustain an entire 3D industry.

 

[mike ogden]

Here you go Ketch. Print one of these out and fill your name in seeing as you feel you're so damn artistically superior.

I didn't call YOU anything. I called BS on your opinion. There's a difference. I'm tired of reading the utter twaddle from 3D supporters like yourself who go on and on about how much better it is when it's so bloody obvious it isn't and that Slate article proves it. Incidentally, there's no market for 3D independent films. I was told that by a highly regarded distributor who also distributed Herzog's 3D doc. So good luck shooting yours in a redundant format no indie distributor wants or can make a financial case for it to make sense.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

3D when done by a filmmaker for the extra immersion and done with the same skill as any other part of filmmaking it really adds to the experience, the entertainment and the almost-never-discussed ART of 3D.
The problem is that both producers and others view it as a cash cow and continue to treat it that way.

Filming in 3D is an entirely new way of making a movie, the movie has to be done with 3D in mind, not just "been put in there". I think the haters of 3D hate the same thing I do about it, the cash cow mentality.
But I cannot hate something that adds an experience, that adds more immersion to the cinematic experience. That's it, period. 3D is another way of making movies, when done right it's splendid, done bad it's shitty, just like any other part of filmmaking.

What bugs me is that some just fight to get rid of it... why? Are you feeling threatened that you will be left behind? Come on...

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Here you go Ketch. Print one of these out and fill your name in seeing as you feel you're so damn artistically superior.

I didn't call YOU anything. I called BS on your opinion. There's a difference. I'm tired of reading the utter twaddle from 3D supporters like yourself who go on and on about how much better it is when it's so bloody obvious it isn't and that Slate article proves it. Incidentally, there's no market for 3D independent films. I was told that by a highly regarded distributor who also distributed Herzog's 3D doc. So good luck shooting yours in a redundant format no indie distributor wants or can make a financial case for it to make sense.

He he, well here I was thinking I had to wait till "Rape of a Beauty" was out to get an Award... Thanks Mike!!

Oh, btw, "Rape of a Beauty" already has 3 prominent Distribution houses, and two major Studios, looking in to acquiring its rights even before is made,
but I guess I'll make it as an Indie of a new Era of what Indies can and will be thanks to the new gear like RED EPIC and ATOM, we now have access to.

Also since I am opening a Studios in Italy for the Development, Production and DISTRIBUTION of Motion Pictures, does this no longer makes me an INDIE?? Just wondering...

And one last time, then I really will no longer post, as this is going a bit too Childish for me... Nor you and nor Slate articles have proven absolutely nothing... The future has yet to be revealed...