Is 3-D Dead? Slate article

[Paul Watt]

Well, I think 3D is far from dead. I think it's just getting going! 3D action sports are sick! And after watching some of the last World Cup in 3D, I was super stoked. All of this on the current and flawed generation of display tech. I'm really interested to see Ketch's movie, and other non-action/cartoon movies in 3D that were shot for 3D as a priority. It's exciting just visualizing the possibilities.

As cameras get smaller and cheaper, and as the display technology improves, I believe 3D will become very mainstream. As mentioned in the Slate article, there is a lot of absolute crap in the theatres in 3D. Also, I think movies marketed to little kids aren't going to do as well in 3D as ones marketed to a more adult audience. Parents are tight with money, and little kids hate glasses, so I'm not surprised when kids movies don't do as well in 3D theatres.

 

[M Most]

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

I said this on CML, and I'll say it again here. One ignores the consumer press at their own peril. The desires and beliefs of those in the 3D part of the industry don't really matter. What matters is whether people want to buy their product. In other words, the opinions of civilians. That's what the article is talking about, and that's what one ignores, as I said, at their own peril.

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

I keep hearing those within the 3D part of the industry talking about "the reason". "The reason" why stereoscopy isn't ubiquitous, "the reason" why consumers seem to be rejecting it more over time, "the reason" 3D in the home is going nowhere, "the reason" why people complain about their experience with it. It's the glasses. It's the low light levels. It's the content. It's the bad stereography. It's the poor projection. It's that "good" 3D movies aren't being made yet. It's the quick cutting. It's the edge violations. It's use of too much negative space. It's not enough use of negative space. The list goes on and on, and all of "the reasons" seem to largely be technical excuses and explanations. But it never seems to include what seems rather obvious to me - it's that the general public just doesn't like it, at least not for feature length presentations. Everyone enjoys a good, vigorous roller coaster ride every so often. But nobody I know wants to ride a roller coaster for 2 and a half hours. I've seen stereoscopic presentations that I really enjoyed. Things like the IMAX presentations at Kennedy Space Center, the NASCAR presentation at Daytona, and even Terminator 3D at Universal here in Los Angeles. All of them had two primary factors in common: they were all 20 minutes or less, and they were all meant to transport the viewer into an environment they normally wouldn't get to see. They weren't telling a narrative story, and they weren't 2.5 hours in length.

Stereography, for me, has its place. But that place is not in narrative storytelling. Just my opinion, but one that is at least currently shared by a large portion of the moviegoing public. Understand it or ignore it, it's your choice.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I love 3D in amusement parks. It's a great. As a narrative filmmaking tool? No chance. It just takes me right out of the film. I sure hope no one ever wants us to make our films using it.

Stephen

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

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...

Christopher, maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone "fighting" to kill 3D. There are those who like it and those who don't, as I wrote earlier both "camps" are quite vocal in the press and the debate tends to get quite boring after a while. Those audience members who like it are willing to spend a premium to watch a movie in 3D in a theater (or have invested some money to have a 3D-ready set at home), the others just choose to watch the movie in 2D.
From a filmmaking standpoint, though, I have to say that even if I don't personally like 3D, at all, I'd be more than willing to work with it, because as a professional I'd like to think I should be able to use every tool. Then if someone asks me if I like it, I can say why I don't, but I just don't make a huge deal out of it, it's just not my cup of tea (or coffee, or whatever).

I keep hearing those within the 3D part of the industry talking about "the reason". "The reason" why stereoscopy isn't ubiquitous, "the reason" why consumers seem to be rejecting it more over time, "the reason" 3D in the home is going nowhere, "the reason" why people complain about their experience with it. It's the glasses. It's the low light levels. It's the content. It's the bad stereography. It's the poor projection. It's that "good" 3D movies aren't being made yet. It's the quick cutting. It's the edge violations. It's use of too much negative space. It's not enough use of negative space. The list goes on and on, and all of "the reasons" seem to largely be technical excuses and explanations. But it never seems to include what seems rather obvious to me - it's that the general public just doesn't like it, at least not for feature length presentations. Everyone enjoys a good, vigorous roller coaster ride every so often. But nobody I know wants to ride a roller coaster for 2 and a half hours. I've seen stereoscopic presentations that I really enjoyed. Things like the IMAX presentations at Kennedy Space Center, the NASCAR presentation at Daytona, and even Terminator 3D at Universal here in Los Angeles. All of them had two primary factors in common: they were all 20 minutes or less, and they were all meant to transport the viewer into an environment they normally wouldn't get to see. They weren't telling a narrative story, and they weren't 2.5 hours in length.

Stereography, for me, has its place. But that place is not in narrative storytelling. Just my opinion, but one that is at least currently shared by a large portion of the moviegoing public. Understand it or ignore it, it's your choice.

And that's EXACTLY how I feel about 3D. Thanks Mike!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

If 3D dies at the multi-plex, its because not enough care and development went into the user-experience. User-Experience in the case of 3D movies encompasses far more than resolution, cameras and projectors. Exhibitors are trying to cheap skate over the User Experience with 3D films. Filmmakers are delivering the technical, studios are delivering the titles, its time for exhibitors to step up the user experience from the equivalent of a Greyhound bus to the equivalent of Cathay Pacific Business Class. Modern cinema owners must create an experience that surpasses what one can get at home. Make the event worth the price of admission. Comfortable seats, big, wide field and comfortable 3D glasses, broader menu items than a 12 year old kid enjoys ( would it kill them to make iced tea? ). We know people love movies - now "Plus" the experience. The projection is finally arriving-- how about some effort on the rest of the equation.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

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.

Well there is an art to generating the editorial and cinematographic choices here you may be ignoring.

Its similar to the art of placing the points of interest in 2D. If I'm doing a ping pong talking head set up in 2D ... audiences know that when character A's eyes are on the left, that they should look for character B's eyes on the right after the cut.

We can not depend on that in 3D because as you say there is always a "refocus time." In 3D we should be looking to match points of convergence and focus between shots. When you cut from shot a to shot b, amongst other things you want the object that you desire to be the subject of attention at the same focal distance and with the same convergence setting at the point of the cut - or as near to that as practical. You can jigger this in post a bit, but really its something that has to be done on set, and it needs the input of the editor.

Well, as Mark Pederson would say, that's the safe bet at any rate. I think it should be the default behavior for the general case. I can see how and where you may wish to break that rule ... but not as a device throughout a feature. (in a short, or even a long sequence in a feature perhaps, but not across a whole feature.)


There are games you can play within a certain boundary though. Still you must respect both the psychology of the motion in 3D and the physiology of our merely human audiences.

That's part of the craft though ... not any sort of inherent flaw in 3D.

 

[geoffboyle]

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.

Actually Mike the Slate article just shows how badly informed most journalists writing about our industry are.

I don't understand why you have to use such an offensive tone and as for being shot at etc, well so have a lot of us, not for 20 years but for 35+ years.

So what?

What matters is where we are now and where we're going.

I agree totally that a lot of 3D is dreadful, but that doesn't mean that ALL 3D is.

We have to get over the initial greed of some producers cashing in on a "good thing" I believe that audiences will make it clear to producers what they want.

Now you may agree with me on that but you will think that people will make it clear that they want 2D and I think that audiences will make it clear that they won't tolerate bad 3D.

Now that doesn't make either of us right or wrong, only time will tell us that.

However, in a very depressed market people are deciding how to try and plan their futures and your unending negativity may well deter some young film-makers who could end up screwing up their careers by ignoring 3D, just as some did by ignoring colour, or sound.

Put your case clearly and let people make up their own minds but please, use facts and not the drivel of some ill-informed journo.

 

[geoffboyle]

You know, I think that this is the first time that MM and I have disagreed!

I agree that we can't ignore the consumer press, what we can do is point out what ill informed idiots some of them are!

If there is a single reason for the slow uptake of 3D, and I don't believe that there is, it's quite simply the lack of good content.

The use of glasses is a small problem compared to this but it is a deterrent.

Hell! we'll see what we see but anyone who shuts it out completely is probably closing off a chunk of their possible work.

That's certainly not something I can afford to do.

 

[Tom Lowe]

3D dead? LMAO. The "experts" have been saying this for almost two years now. Wait until THE HOBBIT and AVATAR 2 drop, and then we'll see if "3D is dead."

Total nonsense.

BTW, I think the theater owners are making a big, big mistake by charging a premium for 3D. It should be the same price as 2D. If they did that, then 3D would be a huge boon to the entire industry.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I keep hearing those within the 3D part of the industry talking about "the reason". "The reason" why stereoscopy isn't ubiquitous, "the reason" why consumers seem to be rejecting it more over time, "the reason" 3D in the home is going nowhere, "the reason" why people complain about their experience with it. It's the glasses. It's the low light levels. (etc.)

Naaaa, I think it's real simple: it's because the public is resisting the ticket price difference between 3D screenings and flat screenings. If the economy was better and every had the same kind of income levels and employment we had 5-6 years ago, they might be willing to pay it.

The Slate article's first two reasons are "greedy theater owners" and "greedy studios," and it's hard to argue with that. If 3D ticket prices were only slightly more than 2D films (like a dollar or so, as opposed to 20%-30% more), it might be a different story.

I think a lot of the technical shortcomings will eventually be fixable in time. I was impressed that Michael Bay was concerned enough to overcome the brightness problem for at least some of the Transformers theaters this past summer. But it's going to take industry heavyweights like Jim Cameron and Peter Jackson to really get this going.

It'll be very interesting to see how the Spielberg and Scorsese 3D films do later this year.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Wow, such an angry argument.

Personally, I don't care whether 3D is "cool" or not.

Actually, if it was "uncool" that's great because then maybe there would be less hordes of Hollywood execs screwing it up.

Personally, I like 3D and as an artist, I want to make 3D stuff. For purely personal reasons, not financial. It's damn hard to do and very costly for an indie! But I just think it fits the stories I want to tell.

If my film is the only 3D content out there... no problem. Folks can just watch my thing in 3D. That makes it more special. The technology is built into our TVs and theaters now. It's not like manufacturers are going to remove the ability to display 3D.

My film will also look fine in 2D. But good heavens... watch it on a good 3D display and you'll be blown away.

Or maybe you won't like it. That's your issue.

But I make movies for myself, primarily.

Everyone stop telling everyone else what to do and just make your own damn films the way you want to make them.

Going to bed now

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Paolo Tinari]

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

Huge!

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I think you better hang on to your hat for 4K 48fps 3D screenings then.

Cause 4K rocks, 48fps will rock and 3D will do what it does.

No no...pass on 48p and 60p for anything but overcranking.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I love 3D in amusement parks. It's a great. As a narrative filmmaking tool? No chance. It just takes me right out of the film. I sure hope no one ever wants us to make our films using it.

Stephen

Couldn't agree more. When I get sucked into a good film I forget I am in a theater. I am for the most part INSIDE the film. I can't do that when something jumps out of the screen and reminds me where I am. Talk about irony. 3D pulls me out of films and distracts me. The glasses don't help either.

BTW I don't think anyone HERE is worried about being left behind. It's RED, we're here because we like to stay ahead of the game.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Meanwhile, Lion King 3D absolutely dominated the box office this weekend...

 

[Tom Lowe]

"An impressive 92 percent of The Lion King 3D‘s gross came from 3-D screens." I guess 3D is not dead after all.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

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

I was at Best Buy the other month and wanted to sample some 3D content. I could not find a TV that was 3D and had to ask for help to be shown where the 2 in the store were. 2. Out of about 30 televisions. I'll admit, I haven't been at the tech shows, but if a major chain isn't even pushing them yet in quantity, I suspect you'll be able to get 2D only TVs for a while yet.

 

[M Most]

"An impressive 92 percent of The Lion King 3D‘s gross came from 3-D screens." I guess 3D is not dead after all.

And what percentage of the total screens were 3D screens?

Numbers can work just about any way one wants them to. I would say that this indicates the continuing popularity of a picture that just happens to be the most popular animated release in history even prior to this weekend, and that if the release had been in 2D, the results might have been the same. If one doesn't believe that, one might want to check the box office for previous Disney animation re-releases - many, if not most of which, did just as well if not better than this one. And all of them were 2D.

Of course, if one wants to believe that 3D is the reason, I can't do anything about that. I just don't happen to see it that way.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I find it interesting that this subject "stirs the pot" so much. Why are folks in such a hurry to declare 3D "dead"?

Everyone can have an opinion. Personally, I see a MASSIVE opportunity for filmmakers to make indies in 3D. Time will tell.

If you don't like 3D - then don't watch it.

If you don't believe in the future of 3D - don't invest in it.

And why do people get so personally aggressive with each other ... on a web forum ....?

I must be really missing something here.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

It goes both ways. Lion King does obviously well, notably on the lopsided ratio in favor of 3D screenings...but what is the 3D/2D screen ratio/weekend film competition/fact its a popular re-release/limited release/cost of 3D conversion & marketing, etc....etc...etc...all really tell us?

At the same time, the Slate article is not digging deep enough as well. They say the ratio is favoring 2D screens over 3D of late. But again, same questions...

3D seems way too young and too small a sample to make any all encompassingly conclusions. But yeah, the subject angries up the blood!