Is 3D dying

[Dave Blackham]

We have built several 3D rigs professionally for our Cinematography work. Some use 2 taking lenses (and cameras) two rigs use one taking lens but for specialist purposes. One of the rigs uses both dual objective and a Single taking lens and 2 cameras either Epic or LKMP HD1200, one rig uses one camera one lens and the camera moves, its for Stop Motion work. A friends 3D camera uses one camera, one lens and moving iris.

I think its fair to say 3D is evolving, and I certainly respect everyone's view on this site.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Perhaps there is a cardboard boxing uncanny valley, where if you go beyond a certain point it becomes acceptable again.

If there is, I would say that at that point of re-gained acceptability there is no realistic immersion but fake depth with background mess relying on forced parralax, and the main reason this circus may be less of an issue is because viewer's focus on the story in a particular shot is stronger than perception of realism of stereo.

In that situation one may logically question the point in using 3D for that story or the point in approaching that scene in this way from a cinematography aspect.

However, on the other hand, when the DOF becomes very wide in S3D I find my eyes wondering around the scene rather than focusing on the main character (as the scene becomes rather interesting to just take in...) so I tend to lose the story.

That is common and may easily be because the story has been thought in and designed for 2D, while the viewer, having a fascination with an immersive effect, naturally wants to explore it, drifting away from the story. If the whole scene is more interesting than the specific important story element in the shot, the 3D storyteller failed.

Also, it is common for the eyes to wander around in general exploring the contents of the canvas, and in 3D they may be compelled to explore the space as well wandering through depth as well, which tends to create a visual conflict with unavoidable fixed vergence points and causes headaches. Meaning one cannot really look where ever one wants in 3D. The info which is not really shared on 3D movie promotions or reviews. "Dear paying audience, you cannot watch the 3D movie the same way as a 2D one and your head will hurt if you are watching it the wrong way".

Plus there is an optimal DOF factor as well, of course.

So what is the middle ground?

The middle ground would be writing, directing, composing, lighting, art directing and editing a story specifically for 3D experience instead of trying to glue additional dimension onto a creation envisioned and designed for two, treating the whole medium as a gimmick and expecting it to pass.

 

[Alec Morris]

To the people that come on here to complain, who are you trying to help? I have heard every counter 3D argument time and again when I talk to people in person. And you know what? That's completely fine, because that is the place for it. If we were somewhere having a beer, I'd love to debate 3D with any of you.

But this is supposed to be a technical forum. I'm not gonna go on an Alexa or canon forum just to tell them how much I dislike their choice of camera. It's pointless and disrespectful.

There is no need to clutter this part of the forum with your negativity. If you don't have anything useful to add, then please just leave. I have already heard every anti 3D argument there is. Do you seriously think we're ignorant to why some people dont like it?

If you dislike 3D, I can respect that. Please show us the same respect. If you don't have anything constructive to add, then you have no business posting.

 

[M Most]

There is no need to clutter this part of the forum with your negativity. If you don't have anything useful to add, then please just leave. I have already heard every anti 3D argument there is. Do you seriously think we're ignorant to why some people dont like it?

If you dislike 3D, I can respect that. Please show us the same respect. If you don't have anything constructive to add, then you have no business posting.

The last time I looked, this forum is run by Red, or at least by Jarred, and moderated by appointed moderators. And I don't recall seeing your name among them. The forums here are set up for discussion, and as far as I know, the section related to stereoscopy is for discussion of that topic, regardless of those here who want it to be an advocacy group. In any discussion, points are going to be made that some agree with, and others will be made that some disagree with. That's the purpose of a discussion. If it's going to be an advocacy group, the people who run the board should say so. And at least to this point, they haven't. So as far as I can see, it remains a discussion group, with all of the pros and cons therein.

 

[Alec Morris]

The last time I looked, this forum is run by Red, or at least by Jarred, and moderated by appointed moderators. And I don't recall seeing your name among them. The forums here are set up for discussion, and as far as I know, the section related to stereoscopy is for discussion of that topic, regardless of those here who want it to be an advocacy group. In any discussion, points are going to be made that some agree with, and others will be made that some disagree with. That's the purpose of a discussion. If it's going to be an advocacy group, the people who run the board should say so. And at least to this point, they haven't. So as far as I can see, it remains a discussion group, with all of the pros and cons therein.

3D seems to be something you like or you don't. No discussion on here is going to change anyone's mind. So what's the point?

Its not that the discussion is bad. It's valid. But it has been beaten into the ground. It seems like every time I check here there's nothing but rude and angry people that want to prove that their opinion of 3D (pro or con) is the right one. No one seems to be trying to learn anything or help anyone. Again, what is the point?

 

[Ivan Kovax]

3D seems to be something you like or you don't. No discussion on here is going to change anyone's mind. So what's the point?

Its not that the discussion is bad. It's valid. But it has been beaten into the ground. It seems like every time I check here there's nothing but rude and angry people that want to prove that their opinion of 3D (pro or con) is the right one. No one seems to be trying to learn anything or help anyone. Again, what is the point?

So the only appropriate place for debate of 3D is over a beer, yet if a topic has been broached before it is not worth discussing again? That is quite restrictive for any type of discussion.

The reason why 3D is important to discuss on the red forums is because for better or worse, this issue effects us all in some way, so it is a topic worth discussing. SOme people might not be as familiar with the topic as you are, and varied points of view give readers an insight into the trajectory of this cinematic form.

I noticed that there is generally a smaller amount of posting on the 3D sub-forum than others. If there is a reason why people are not "trying to learn or help anyone" it is probably more to do with the fact that 3D seems to be a niche sub-forum at reduser, than it is with folks being unhelpful.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

That is common and may easily be because the story has been thought in and designed for 2D, while the viewer, having a fascination with an immersive effect, naturally wants to explore it, drifting away from the story. If the whole scene is more interesting than the specific important story element in the shot, the 3D storyteller failed.

Also, it is common for the eyes to wander around in general exploring the contents of the canvas, and in 3D they may be compelled to explore the space as well wandering through depth as well, which tends to create a visual conflict with unavoidable fixed vergence points and causes headaches. Meaning one cannot really look where ever one wants in 3D. The info which is not really shared on 3D movie promotions or reviews. "Dear paying audience, you cannot watch the 3D movie the same way as a 2D one and your head will hurt if you are watching it the wrong way".

I am not sure I completely understand your conclusion. Are you saying that because there is a natural tendency for the eyes to wander more in 3D, the director/creator has to place even stronger emphasis (technically) to focus the viewers attention on the subject than one would in 2D?

The middle ground would be writing, directing, composing, lighting, art directing and editing a story specifically for 3D experience instead of trying to glue additional dimension onto a creation envisioned and designed for two, treating the whole medium as a gimmick and expecting it to pass.​

Yep exactly. That is why Avatar, Up and Hugo worked far better... people who shoot for 2D, or a compromise (2.5D?) end up failing.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Interestingly, outside of the cinematic experience, where 3D is making an impact for anti piracy reasons, the home market may well come to 3D films most successfully via full immersion VR, rather than through stereoscopic projection etc, where many of the existing issues can be more easily negated.

The Occulus Rift demos of a 'virtual' cinema, where you could be sitting on your couch but enjoying a virtual darkened cinema surrounding watching a 3D movie are particularly interesting:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/...how-re-writing-reality-in-vr-creates-a-better

 

[Alec Morris]

So the only appropriate place for debate of 3D is over a beer, yet if a topic has been broached before it is not worth discussing again? That is quite restrictive for any type of discussion.

Again, it's not that it isn't appropriate. It just seems to have completely taken over. There is almost never anything else posted here.

I just don't understand the point of discussing something so subjective over and over and over and over again. There's nothing wrong with it, it just isn't constructive. I own 2 epics and shoot 3D, but I hardly come here anymore because no one seems to want to talk about shooting 3D.

Arguing the merits of 3D is perfectly valid, but it shouldn't dominate the discussion.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Alec,

I fully understand what you mean. Again, i think this is more to do with the fact that it is quite a niche forum, and when something like, "Is 3D dying?" is posted, it is something everybody including those not involved directly in the S3D industry can comment on and contribute to (for better or worse) which is why these threads tend to be most popular. It is to be expected on a mixed forum like this.

Ivan

 

[Geoff McLeod]

I hope so.

Most films would be better of if they spent that extra money on story writers / better plots and things like it. Even the heavy VFX films I think benefit heavily from not being done in cumbersome 3D. The "3D experience" is also very much limiting the camera work, the set designs and pretty much everything if the 3d should look good. So to me there is pretty much not a single film that actually benefit from being done in 3D.

Couldn't agree more. I'm always looking at the 2d sessions to take my kids. 3d was just a diversion to making great films. I'm also glad I never bought one of those 3d tvs.

 

[Alec Morris]

Its not like a 3D film won the Oscar for cinematography this year... Or even two years in a row... Or the highest grossing film this year was 3D, or even last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that. That would all be so silly.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Its not like a 3D film won the Oscar for cinematography this year... Or even two years in a row... Or the highest grossing film this year was 3D, or even last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that. That would all be so silly.

No fair bringing facts into this discussion! ;-)

 

[M Most]

. Or the highest grossing film this year was 3D...

It wasn't. I assume you're referring to Iron Man 3, the highest grossing picture this year. That picture is a 2D production that was converted for 3D presentation. And 55% of the audience chose to see the 2D version. If you want to talk about "3D films" I would suggest sticking to the ones that were shot that way, and for which the majority of the audience chose to see that version.

 

[Mike Garrick]

The reason I posted here and I have nothing what so ever to do with 3D . Is the title of the thread, it asked the question + it showed up in New threads......I didn't see a requirement for s secret handshake to gain entry...or barbed wire around the thread.....in the future I will know not to post here .

Now how I can comment on 3D ? Well I'm the other end of the equation, I'm the viewing audience and without people like me going to see 3D you will not be shooting it. Everything you do is to try & persuade me the viewing audience to part with dollars to see whatever you shot in 3D. We are king, we are many, we are the reason you work in this business. As a Producer this is the reality of the business if you choose not to consider or even listen to the viewing audience than there is a fundamental problem with your business model.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Its not like a 3D film won the Oscar for cinematography this year... Or even two years in a row... Or the highest grossing film this year was 3D, or even last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that. That would all be so silly.

I feel the need to queue a Christopher Doyle rant at this point for some strange reason

 

[Alec Morris]

maybe I am not properly phrasing my problem.

those of you that dislike 3D seem to come here with a blanket hatred for it. It's not, "I liked how round and natural the faces were in Life of Pi, but the post conversion of Jurassic Park didn't have enough reference objects near the screen to show off the depth." It's just "3D is terrible and I hope it dies."

alice in wonderland and clash of the titans really screwed this up for everyone. most of you, in your vehement hatred of all things 3D, are pretty vocal about how you do everything you can to avoid it. Your opinions are based on a lot of bad post conversion. If you were to give newer films a chance, you would see that 3D creativity is really still in its infancy. Movies like Hugo, Life of Pi, Pina, and Kon-Tiki are showing what a beautiful future it can have.

those of us that shoot it see that future. we know how bad a lot of the 3D out there is. i would hope that this forum could be a way for us to share workflows and techniques, as well as discuss the stereo of different movies. but instead 90% of this forum is you letting us know how much you personally hate 3D. there are no specific examples, no technical discussion, no individual theater experiences. It's just 'I hate 3D, everyone should hate 3D, it makes my eyeballs feel like they are on fire" I'm not asking you to understand parallax, IA distance, or the intricacies of stereo post. Just be more specific and give examples.

ito compare, if I went on the alexa forum and said 'yes, I agree that the skintones from your alexa are very beautiful, but I prefer the sharpness and workflow of my epics.' that would be one thing. But going on and saying 'the alexa is so ugly it makes me nauseous. epic is the only way. i make sure my kids never watch alexa footage', would that be appropriate? no.

i welcome the discussion, but please be more specific and more respectful. those of us that are pro 3D have been rude as well, but you have to understand that it is not just our opinions but our professions that you are insulting.

 

[Mike Garrick]

@Alec
This is the real problem not how good 3D can be which at times it is . But unfortunately the BRAND of of "3D" has been so tarnished by the unscrupulous few. Hence audiences dwindling enthusiasm for the medium.

So ...........Perception doesn't = reality

How you combat this perception I've no idea.......but something does need to be done about the policing of standards in 3D to avoid what is happening right now.

Anyway off now to see Superman in 3D !

 

[Alec Morris]

Mike, could not agree more.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Alec, Mike,

Alec, thanks for your brutal honesty. Your points are well taken.

Other than what Mike said (which I entirely agree with) we have to consider an over-saturation of the 3D market. Remember at CES and NAB a few years back, every other booth seemed to be about 3D? Creators and studios bought this hook, line and sinker and as a result movies that never should have been 3D became 3D in the interest of attracting people back to the theaters (this exact pitch was used quite often as the case for 3D, which in my opinion is a self-defeating form of promoting the technology).

Another thing which we discussed in this thread was the entirely inappropriate photography of many 3D movies (I thought Hugo and Avatar were spectacularly done, the Hobbit, not so much). This is more than obvious, especially when it was storyboarded for 2D, and they just slap 3D as an afterthought.

One big thing which we cannot avoid is this: Many people cannot verbalise their dislike of 3D and have such visceral responses because it is a deep mind/body connection that is being effected. There are no two ways around this. Our eyes are physically forced to focus on one point, whilst our brain is tricked to refocus on different virtual planes. This causes our brain to overwork,and as a result the headaches and occasional nausea some complain of. A person on these forum once posted an fMRI of a brain whilst watching 3D. It was highly lit up in more of a way that indicated overstimulation than a simple activation of the occipital lobe .

If many people say 3D makes them "sick" or gives them "headaches" I would assume that they are not as much lying as being frank about their bodily reactions. I have been trying to keep this discussion on point for as much as possible and haven't as of yet mentioned this, but I unfortunately happen to be one of those poor bastards that gets a headache at the 45 minute mark. My wife too. Whether I am enjoying the movie or not is never the issue. But I always get these headaches, sometimes to the point where I have to leave the theater and wash my face. This is a real and non-imagined issue with 3D that is intertwined with out biology. So I am sure you could appreciate that when some people say it "makes them sick", it quite possibly isn't that they have a "rabid loathing of all things 3D", but that it very possibly is just making them physically feel like that!

Technologically, I am not certain what the solution is. Glasses free 3D will still rely on "tricking" the brain in this way to create the stereopsis. I think if a new technology come along down the line that addresses more than a few ways humans perceive 3D in real life would be a good step forward. I see holograms that occupy a physical depth as being one solution, but Hrvoje made a rather strong argument against that.. so now I am caught twiddling my thumbs.

That is not to say that I don't enjoy 3D. I do. In many cases I prefer "3D" to "2D", but all the same I keep suffering these physical side effects as I assume do many others in the world.