Is 3D a new powerful dimension of Cinematography?

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I once thought 3D was just a gimmick... Until I saw Avatar.

However, it was not the spectacle alone that brought this thought to my head, but the perception of it over the months, how I assimilated the space of the narrative. If in a regular film I usually feel I have witnessed the actions, with Avatar I felt like I participated in them, that I was actually there, inside the space.

And if 3D has this power, the third dimension becomes a powerful narrative tool and what pops inwards or outwards of the frame, not this old word, the viewspace, should be thought in this matter. Not just to make a big headed funny character to pop out, or a RPG to scare the crap out of the audience on an Action film.

Excuse some certain ignorance on the theoretical side... I'm just pouring some raw thougts here.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I loathe it and am dreading the day when it will become standard for dramatic productions.

Stephen

 

[Thor Melsted]

I loathe it and am dreading the day when it will become standard for dramatic productions.

Stephen

That's your prerogative. I disagree.

3D probably will not become the standard, it will just become normal and less of an event. It is my firm belief that 3D is here to stay, but as a narrative choice, like Cinemascope vs Academy and not as the only way to go. It's not like sound vs no sound. I can't imagine many silent movies getting made in modern day Hollywood - Silent Movie being the last notable exception (and it was anything but silent). But I can imagine 2D films being made 100 years from now. They're an art form unto themselves.

I don't think all movies need 3D, but I do believe most stories can benefit from being told in 3D, provided the filmmaker knows how it affects story telling and how to use it effectively. Chances are someone will use it in a manner even James Cameron didn't envision when he made Avatar.
Not all films benefit from Cinemascope. I think the same can be said for 3D.

I don't see a reason to hate it any more than I see a reason to hate Cinemascope or Academy. It's a choice that can improve storytelling if used properly or ruin it if used improperly.
After all, it's all about the filmmaker's choices, isn't it?

 

[Peter Hodgins]

I loathe it and am dreading the day when it will become standard for dramatic productions.

I dread the possibility that it might drive up the costs and complexities for indie filmmakers but, why are you loathing and dreading?

 

[albert rudnicki]

the more I think, the more I am convinced that 3D will be the new "film" standard and 2D will remain only as a creative choice.
Remember what happened to B&W? it went colour.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

There are problems presently that need to be overcome. The dark picture of the single projector 3d screens, the cost of shooting true 3d. The difficult post work. The nausea that detrimentally effects some viewers. I hope both 3D and 2D remain popular, I would hate to see everything become 3D. It is fine for action films, scifi stuff and cgi animation but once everything mainstream becomes 3D, it will really be a crime. I really miss B/W too, it needs to make a comeback. Anyone see The White Ribbon? Some of the best cinematography I have seen in years.

 

[albert rudnicki]

for recent really great B/W watch Tetro FF Coppola

 

[michael zaletel]

My Opinion: 3D will not reach its full potential until the standard for viewing 3D imagery does not require glasses of any kind. If we could affordably project holographically, it would already be the standard.

-michael zaletel

 

[Tim Hole]

for recent really great B/W watch Tetro FF Coppola

Really wanted to see that but I blinked and missed it. It definitely didnt make a bit splash in these waters.

I agree that 3D and 2D both has positives and negatives. I personally can see 2D films getting labelled by cinemagoers in the same way that foreign language films get labelled. If it isnt 3D and isn't a romantic film then it must be an indie arty piece of crap. Not all european films deserve the auspicious title of European Cinema. Just because they are french and set in the sixties doesnt mean they are seminal works (even if they probably are!)

I have not seen a film that has truly mastered 3D yet. I have high hopes for Tron Legacy. I really don't want Del Toro to make The Hobbit in 3D. The next Bond might be in 3D...

 

[Andrew Wilding]

I fully expect pop up books to replace all art currently in galleries and museums by late 2011.

And actually pretty convincing 3d was pulled off by the ancient greeks thousands of years ago.

I don't think that we "2d" photographers and film makers have much to worry about, really.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The best thing I can say about 3D is that its popularity is forcing more and more theaters to change to digital projection. Ultimately, I think this has a lot of benefits, especially for independent digital filmmakers who want to avoid the expense of 35mm prints.

Roger Ebert's recent essay, "Why I Hate 3D Movies" (at this link), and Francis Ford Coppola's anti-3D essay, "3D Is Tiresome," are worth reading (at this link). I don't agree with everything they say, but they make some very valid points. And I also agree that 3D isn't necessary for all movies. It's just one of many tools available.

No question, Avatar was a game-changing film. Still, I think it's interesting to note that Cameron and DP Mauro Fiore managed to make pictures that beautiful with relatively-old 1080P Sony cameras, all uprezzed to 4K.

 

[Erwin Vanderhoydonks]

Don't forget that 1/4 of the people don't see 3D. They just see it as a 2D movie. But they can always enjoy it with the rest of us...