Katzenberg: Digital Cinema a Must

[Keith Nealy]

If movie theaters go the way of 3D like Katzenberg says I believe it will become more expensive to exhibit and become more like amusement parks - offering sensory entertainment on a grand scale that can't be replicated at home.

I agree that only the big epic movies will be the ones we make the effort to go to the theater to see because it is just so much better to watch in the comfort of your own home on your hi-end system than it is to suffer the local multiplex.

In the end, this may be good for RED and independant productions by opening up more avenues for "smaller" films.

I think the future looks bright through my RED colored glasses.

aloha,

Keith

 

[Weston Ford]

I think 3d technology will be just as useful of a tool for all genres of movies. I would love to see a slowly paced drama, supernatural thriller, or comedy in realistic 3d. If it puts you in the world of the characters and makes you feel as though you are there....then it will work no matter what kind of movie it is...special effects extravaganza or not.

 

[Bill Anderson]

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate 3d's effect on storytelling: it's pretty much a carnival ride and will be great fun, and will no doubt make bags of money- just like Readers Digest. How would 3d have improved extant masterpieces? You might say "oh, but they weren't made for, or with 3d in mind", and I say, that's true and yet these masterpieces fulfill every other criteria that 3d movies must also fulfill in order to avoid reliance on the 3d effect itself: verisimilitude, performance...
So, how would 3d have "improved" the immolation scene in Dryer's Joan of Arc, a scene (one among many) that has not been equalled by all the technologically enhanced attempts since? What would 3d add to the Mona Lisa? Consider how literature (with its very limited 26 bit squiggly lined 2d alphabet) is more often than not a far superior experience than its big budget high realism cinematic interpretation! 3d has its place, somewhere between its investors' smoke blowing jargon and the 2D world.

 

[Weston Ford]

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate 3d's effect on storytelling: it's pretty much a carnival ride and will be great fun, and will no doubt make bags of money- just like Readers Digest.

I wouldn't call it a carnivale ride. It is not a gimmick...its a tool. No different than the jump from silent movies to sound, or from black and white movies to color. Every leap in filmmaking technology has been about making the motion picture experience feel closer to real life.

Of course it won't automatically improve any film. Adding color to Casablanca wouldnt make that film better...but just because of that you don't see everyone making black and white movies nowadays do you?

3d is just the logical next step in film progress.

 

[Bill Anderson]

"Of course it (3D) won't automatically improve any film. Adding color to Casablanca wouldn't make that film better..."

And that's my point, it's not the color, or the black and white, or the 3d, or the sound, or the font that the book's printed in.

"Every leap in filmmaking technology has been about making the motion picture experience feel closer to real life."


And yet, in spite of the claims for color, and its closer relationship with reality, filmmakers still often choose Black and White: Because film's (and maybe art in general) strength lies in it's ability to interpret reality, not to ape it.

Like the man said "I swear you got to tell a lie to tell the truth".

 

[Weston Ford]

Of course it won't automatically improve any film. Adding color to Casablanca wouldnt make that film better...but just because of that you don't see everyone making black and white movies nowadays do you?

And yet, in spite of the claims for color, and its closer relationship with reality, filmmakers still often choose Black and White

Maybe we are talking about different arenas of filmmaking. I'm sure in independent films, short films, documentarys, and lots of other stuff there is alot of black and white still in use. I'm talking about movies that you see in cinemas (the only arena 3d really applies to), of which 1% are b&w...if that. Perhaps the use of sound is a better example....you see almost no movies made without dialog or sound effects. Its not impossible to think that somewhere down the road the idea of 2d filmmaking will be just as outlandish.

And that's my point, it's not the color, or the black and white, or the 3d, or the sound, or the font that the book's printed in.

I dont think you can compare books to film. Its a competely different form of entertainment. Books cannot go farther then where they started...there is no more to reading than reading..nor could there be. Film is basically about a person viewing a projected image....that can be improved and as long as there are improvements to be made filmmakers are going to pursue them.

Of course all the old technology works to tell stories....we've seen it work before...but that doesnt mean we should keep doing it all the time. If no one had stepped up from silent movies and embraced sound we wouldnt have had a casablanca with Humphrey Bogarts voice...if no one had embraced color there would be none of the fantastic imagery in the wizard of oz. There are films out there in the future that 3d technology means just as much to.

All i'm saying is that innovation shouldnt be shunned and that 3d will be more than a gimmicky attraction. There is no way that people will stay satisfied with 2d images forever. It might not happen soon but I think the change is inevitable.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I just only see a certain percentage of films and filmmakers interested in using 3D.

For many other filmmakers, it would be a distraction to deal with while shooting a movie. It may be interesting for a little drama to be shot in 3D, but I think a lot of filmmakers who do those simple little tales aren't going to be interested in working in 3D for them.

I got sent a little script, for example, that's a simple road trip about some poor single mom, set in motel rooms, small cars, diners. Even if 50% of all movies made were in 3D, I can't see a little movie like this benefitting from it much, not if it causes any slow-down in shooting, any distractions for the actors, any larger crew to handle. Now if all movies were 3D, then it would probably just be something that the director would have to deal with, but I know a lot of directors who have little or no interest in shooting 3D.

As for people no longer being satisfied with 2D images, we still have painting and photography... Saying that they won't be satisfied is making the false assumption that three dimensions must be better than two dimensions for an artistic experience. By that logic, sculpture is superior to painting, live theater is better than movies.

Would "Little Miss Sunshine", for example, really need 3D? Would it have been worth shooting it in 3D if it cost any extra production money, took any extra production time, required some sort of 3D expert for shooting or post to supervise?

Not every movie made is an "Avatar" or "Spy Kids". I know 3D could be used artistically in a small indie movie, but the question is whether it would be worth it for all small indie movies.

 

[Weston Ford]

I agree with your thoughts that its not very reasonable to think people now or in the very near future should shoot dramas, comedies, or small budget indies in 3D...and you are definately much more knowledgeable than me when it comes to film production...and everything filmmaking.

But would you say that perhaps 40 to 50 years from now everything will be in 3d? Usually what seems innovative to people in the present will be common place in the future. Thats what I mean with the comparisons I was making with black and white and sound in film.

 

[Keith Nealy]

I totally agree David.

For the movies that exploit special effects as a major part of the experience it will be a boon I'm sure. I just saw Die Hard and it was amazing and would be more so in 3D.

But I think the move to 3D is less about the natural progression of filmmaking than the survival of the movie theater and the industries protection of its property from piracy. I think its a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Print was mentioned as an example. Well there is plain print, print with illustrations, print with black and white photos then color photos and now there is even POP-UP books. I venture to say that pop-up books will not corner the market because they are the natural extension of the written word.

Marshall McCluhan was not entirely correct when he said "The medium is the message."

I think 3D will have a limited engagement in new 3D theater venues while RED will pave the way and become a standard for good old fashioned storytelling.

I venture to say RED will probably not have gimbolled seats and smell-o-vision attachments.

aloha,

Keith

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But would you say that perhaps 40 to 50 years from now everything will be in 3d? Usually what seems innovative to people in the present will be common place in the future. Thats what I mean with the comparisons I was making with black and white and sound in film.

If I could predict the future in 40 or 50 years, let alone 10 years, I'd be a rich man. Anything is possible, 3D could very well become the dominent format for theatrical projection, maybe even home projection. Maybe not.

The thing you have to realize is that while everything changes over time, it's not necessarily an upwards progression -- it could be a sideways progression, it can even be a regression. In the 1940's, we had three-strip Technicolor and dye transfer prints. In the mid 1950's to early 1970's we had 65mm productions in 70mm prints. So what we have today isn't necessarily better than those peaks, just different, better in some ways, neutral in others, worse in others, but probably more convenient, less expensive, more efficient today in most cases.

Improving technology has really meant that the average movie looks and sounds better than it ever has before. But the top of the line, the great achievements technically and artistically, are about as rare now as they were then. "Apocalypse Now" in 70mm mag sound prints is one of the greatest audio experiences in a movie theater and holds up against anything we have today -- the difference is that a typical Adam Sandler comedy can have multi-track sound now and a very complex mix. So the bottom is lifted to the middle, the middle is lifted higher, but the top doesn't change much -- it's hard to lift that higher.

So maybe 3D will take over, if it's really successful at the box office and the technology becomes more production friendly so it isn't a big decision to go that way. It would have to get to the point where your average filmmaker could choose between 2D and 3D as easily as they could between shooting for 1.85 or 2.35 projection. If it's a lot harder to pull-off, then a lot of filmmakers will think it's not worth the bother on their particular little movie, if it's just a drama or something.

 

[krd]

Even if 3D becomes cheap and effortless, many filmmakers may want to preserve the 2D viewing experience. It's no secret that most humans like "to watch", and for that, 3D representations in 2D space is ideal.

From all but the front rows, theater is effectively 2D, as is watching the neighbors across the street (or the courtyard). The voyeuristic habit is so deeply ingrained, that it's hard to believe that 3D, which puts the viewer in a spacial field which stimulates a riot of fight/flight impulses, will be all that useful in sustaining dramatic fictions, large or small, in which viewers have to pay attention to what's going on.

Then again, 3D sounds like a great way to increase the market share of Hollywood, at a time when it's losing ground to national cinemas world-wide, whether or not the technology makes much sense.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think what would happen, just as it does now with 2D movies, is that directors would choose certain moments to increase the 3D quality and other times, use a longer lens and go for more compression and less 3D, even in a 3D movie.

It's just like the early Cinerama movies, which were all shot wide-angle because each of the three cameras had a fixed 27mm lens for a total field of view of 144 degrees or so. But when they developed Todd-AO and Super Panavision to compete with Cinerama, not to mention CinemaScope and VistaVision, etc. they couldn't get directors to stick to wide-angle lenses for that "Cinerama effect" because it was too limiting from a directorial standpoint -- you want some "normal" shots now and then, close-ups where the viewer is not distracted by the effect.

So if every movie was 3D, what you would see is different directors enhancing or minimizing the effect by careful use of focal length and camera movement. Something shot on a 300mm lens, for example, is not going to have any 3D effect since the two optical viewpoints are so relatively close together compared to the distance to the subject. This is one reason why the 3D IMAX movie "Wings of Courage" could just shoot telephoto shots of planes in 2D and just make two prints from one negative for the left and right eye.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I agree that certain genres will naturally lend themselves to 3D - and others would be a stretch. That said, if 3D camera systems were to be affordable, portable, ergonomically usable, and not add significant hassle or expense to a production, then keeping in mind that 2D data can be extracted from a 3D camera, and assuming that easily switchable 3D/2D projection (like RealD) proliferates, then shooting in cost-effective 3D, and delivering in a vertical array of revenue streams from 3D theatrical (and eventually 3D home viewing) down through 2D theatrical and the normal 2D medium deliveries could become a reality.

That's a lot of elements to get in line, but it may not take as long as some think. Time will tell...

 

[Proteus]

It's no secret that most humans like "to watch", and for that, 3D representations in 2D space is ideal.

You mean with one eye like through the keyhole -that is 2D! :blink:

From all but the front rows, theater is effectively 2D, as is watching the neighbors across the street (or the courtyard). The voyeuristic habit is so deeply ingrained, that it's hard to believe that 3D, which puts the viewer in a spacial field which stimulates a riot of fight/flight impulses, will be all that useful in sustaining dramatic fictions, large or small, in which viewers have to pay attention to what's going on.

It will depend entirely on the art applied, but you don't have always to be inside the scene -even the sense of depth beyond the display surface might be important in some scenes.

Then again, 3D sounds like a great way to increase the market share of Hollywood, at a time when it's losing ground to national cinemas world-wide, whether or not the technology makes much sense.

Well... technology is something universal not an exclusivity or invention of Hollywood! The same or similar technology will be available worldwide.

Contrary to what have been said, I think that independent filmmakers will take advantage of that technology (also in 4K 2D) as it becomes cheaper and cheaper (see RED for example) and especially for home viewing. That will give us the chance to see some (artistically) quality movies in the new form -even experiments, but at least not just "success prescriptions"...

That's a lot of elements to get in line, but it may not take as long as some think.

Not only it won't take too long, but soon there will be added interactivity -the next (r)evolution! That will give a serious advantage to home viewing....

 

[krd]

You mean with one eye like through the keyhole -that is 2D! :blink:

I haven't tried any keyholes lately, but I guess it depends to what extent you believe drama is, or should be, "an experience". Art traditionally cultivates distance, even detachment. But Hollywood doesn't spend $100 million to make contemplative art, so sure, bring on 3D. And inventive filmmakers will no doubt find unexpected uses for the technology.

Well... technology is something universal not an exclusivity or invention of Hollywood! The same or similar technology will be available worldwide.

Katzenberg claims 3D will add $15 million per production. That amount alone (without the rest of the movie) is all but impossible anywhere but Hollywood. And if the initial 3D push decimates other national cinemas, or independents generally, they could be a long time recovering.

 

[Proteus]

Art traditionally cultivates distance, even detachment. But Hollywood doesn't spend $100 million to make contemplative art, so sure, bring on 3D.

Now 3D will be a new tool to cultivate distance or depth in totally new ways!

And that is my complaint: They spend 100 million dollars for a production and they "dont give a damn" for a good script! Thats allmost a sin! I look at the titles at the end of a bad movie sometimes and I am sorry for them -they worked so hard for nothing! And this is why they loose ground to international productions as you said before -because art is their competitor.

Katzenberg claims 3D will add $15 million per production. That amount alone (without the rest of the movie) is all but impossible anywhere but Hollywood.

That scale of expenses just for the switch to 3D (assuming a digital production and distribution) is not realistic outside Hollywood and especially in indie-land.
An independent filmmaker that doesn't wait for an automatic point and shoot 3D all weather or whatever camera and equipment to be released, but instead gets involved in 3D technology before even that technology matures, does many experiments and studies it to understand the problems and find his own solutions, make or order some custom accessories if necessary (like an optical adapter for a two camera combination), also studies the very important 3D post-process techniques that he must do or guide himself, that filmmaker will need just a tiny percentage of that amount, almost not worthing to mention! Of course in that cost will be included the costs of delays in shooting and post processing but with deep knowledge of the techniques and careful planning, these costs will be minimized.

And if the initial 3D push decimates other national cinemas, or independents generally, they could be a long time recovering.

Low cost high-tech equipment like RED, digital distribution, competitive technology for home viewing and independent productions will prevent this from happening.