Star Trek v. Avatar: Give me anamorphic

[Stephen Pruitt]

James Cameron hasn't made a decent movie since Terminator 2. But he sure does get credit for making blockbusters. I will never forget my great disappointment at Titanic. In fact, it took everything in me, and I mean EVERYTHING, to keep me from jumping up in the middle of the theater while Leonardo was in the water with "Rose" and shouting loudly, "PUSH HIM UNDER BEFORE HE SAYS SOMETHING ELSE STUPID!"

What a travesty from start to finish. A lamer script could not have been written. Had they followed the real story line of the sinking, they could have had a movie for the ages. . . instead of one with the TEENages. What schlock. The only thing that would make it worse would be to see it in 3D so that I could be completely immersed in the schlock. I might have to take a shower after that.

I really do find this whole 3D emphasis utterly disappointing.

As we all know, the major studios are generally only interested in making money. Art is made only incidentally along the way.

Stephen

 

[Alex Donkle]

What a travesty from start to finish. A lamer script could not have been written. Had they followed the real story line of the sinking, they could have had a movie for the ages. . . instead of one with the TEENages.

Everyone's got their opinions, but the basic plot of Titanic is very generic without question (no studio would risk $200 million on a original concept). I agree with Cameron's own words that it's a $200 million chick flick where (almost) everyone dies in the end. That's guts imho.

The biggest value in the movie for me though (aside from pushing VFX very far) is HOW HE TELLS THE STORY. Same for Avatar. (For the same script being told less well, see "Pearl Harbor")
Same reason I like a lot of films from Spielberg's "Duel" to Coen Bros "No Country For Old Men". It's hard, but occasionally great films can be made from rather mundane plots.

Back off the soap box though, what I'd really like to see is a B&W film done in 3D. One of the biggest challenges in lighting for B&W is separating the elements of the shot more than you need to in color (as to different colors differentiate themselves, where in B&W they get smeared into gray). So giving a B&W film a 3D element to separate images could be very interesting.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I agree with people who say that we are still looking at 2D movies with 3D imaging, and that things will change when film makers really start thinking in 3D.

That said, a lot of people are decrying legitimate tools from traditional cinematography when used in 3D.

For example the notion that nearby objects are "conveniently placed to jump out of the screen. That smacks of over-conservatism to me. See, I've done the exact same thing a thousand times, placing some object in the foreground of a shot and focusing deeper in the frame- and I've never shot 3D. Especially when coupled with camera motion this gives a real sense of depth in the frame .

What struck me about Avatar is the quality of the CG elements, especially the faces. Also the compositing was extremely good. I think in part because 3D requires it to be completely clean- or its obvious.

The net effect is that I often let myself be immersed in the picture- something that rarely happens in 2D cinema- my eyes are drawn to every bit of technique and craft from the entire production in 2D pictures. I haven't been "in" a picture that much since I started making pictures.

What doesn't strike me when watching is the 3D photography. (Both real and virtual.) For most of the film it seems very much like 3D was ignored from everything BUT a technical/photographic perspective. The camera did pretty much what it always does in traditional cinematography.

On reflection that is the very best thing we can do right now with 3D photography. Someone else commented about depth in the frame due to 3D photography. I agree, and I think it was very much due to treating everything but the camera in a very traditional way.

It also struck me that Avatar was the first picture to really do this. Most of the others tried to "play" more with the 3D.

Using conventional camera motion and technique (as much as possible at any rate) is also likely to result in pictures that play well with 2D displays, which are going to be with us for a very long time.

That will change of course but, again for now, its best to stick with what has worked before. I am thinking about the camera in 3D more in terms of camera motion, and less in terms of lens changes, but that's about it.

I do have some notes about 3D. First off the IMAX 3D process felt much more immersive to me than Real3D. (As an aside to the poster who complained about the Real3D glasses, the IMAX glasses have a larger lens and would probably help the issues noted.) Second I've had to reconsider my ideas regarding "ideal seating" in the theater. I think You want to be about half a screen height closer than for 2D cinema.

Someone noted in this conversation that 3D wasn't going to be a factor in the home. I think it will have a bigger impact, and sooner than we think. Given the Discovery and ESPN announcements, plus the agreement on a 3D standard for Blu-Ray and TV's, 3D will have a definite life after the theater. Remember that the #1 BluRay player, the Playstation 3, will support 3D BluRay playback via a software update.

 

[Chris Newman]

I noticed some kind of a motion artifact arising from the Real D projection. In the action scenes, there was some kind of judder that was different in each eye, which was disturbing to me. Maybe it is because the projector shows one eye briefly and then switches to the other eye, so my two eyes don't see the new frame at the same time. I don't know how quickly it switches. No one else I was with noticed it.

Did anyone else notice this, or do you know exactly what is going on there?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I noticed some kind of a motion artifact arising from the Real D projection. In the action scenes, there was some kind of judder that was different in each eye, which was disturbing to me. Maybe it is because the projector shows one eye briefly and then switches to the other eye, so my two eyes don't see the new frame at the same time. I don't know how quickly it switches. No one else I was with noticed it.

Did anyone else notice this, or do you know exactly what is going on there?

I certainly didn't notice anything on the various Real 3D shows I've seen including Avatar.

There may have been something wrong in the projection system.

As you suspect they alternate images using circular polarization in the lenses. Done properly each eye should 24 fps with a polarized shutter showing each frame 2 or 3 times, thus giving 48 or 72fps.

That's pretty easy to mess up of course, and it could be out of sync or any number of other issues.

Of course, if no one else saw it, it could be you.

Hard to say without seeing it myself of course.

 

[Joe G.]

"Someone woke up on the combative side of the bed."

(irony alert)

"I'm glad your daughter enjoyed avatar. Past that, wether or not you took your daughter and she enjoyed the movie has no bearing on who the "target audience" is."

Every kid my daughter knows has seen Avatar. Many more than once. Just what qualifies you to preach to me about what the "target audience" of the film Avatar allegedly is? Are you employed on this project in the marketing department?

Did you fail to notice the large blue aliens riding on pterodactyls?

Avatar, like any monster budget tent-pole movie has a "target demographic" of EVERYONE, as in "children of all ages." Are you going to provide some sort of evidence to the contrary? Or because you type it, makes it so?

I'll ignore your ongoing rants about image acquisition formats. I've made my point.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Ok - interested to hear some elaboration on this idea....

This, current visual art form is based and developed on representation of space and telling a story on a 2D canvas. Techniques, styles, laws using visual through temporal are based on that. All the detail and nuances, all the perfecting is based on achieving the greatest effect possible when an artwork is perceived on a 2D surface.

I think that currently there is a huge misinterpretation and over-simplification of a new medium, when substituting “canvas” with “space”, followed with common “just like that” attitude, which leads to misuse. Negative impressions, underestimation and scorn of the medium from both viewer's and cinematographer's sides are caused by the misuse.

For a start, developed, cultivated & widespread 3D photography is non existent. 3D photography is wearing diapers and crawling on the floor. Proper, practical and standardized capturing and 3D viewing equipment is non-existent. Without longer widespread usage and experienced community and widely exhibited artwork this art form cannot reach its developed - matured phase. I think it won’t happen over night, especially in 3D motion imaging, which is deprived of prior long and developed 3D photography experience.



3D:

- more time needed for the viewer to “adapt” to the shot;
- different perception of both scene as a whole and elements in it and their relations;
- stronger effect (increasing the “unnatural” factors from 2D heritage);
- less freedom of watching through the frame

Based on these four facts I think that there is no chance that immersive storytelling can properly be embraced simply using “double the imager” switch.

Same scene which on “canvas” looks great can turn out looking different and much worse in “space” - and vice-versa. If the goal is an immersive story, for a start natural laws of human vision have to obeyed, otherwise it’s destined to visual circus or confusion. Also, the way story is told has to be well thought of, with space perception instead of 2D canvas perception in mind.

For the viewer screen is bye-bye. He's “not in Kansas any more”.




Simplified list of factors which in my opinion will need adaptation:

Story
Types of stories, visualization of a story

Directing (& editing)
Shot rhythm, shot length, shot connection, character relations

3D Cinematography
Framing, lens choices, depth manipulation, depth composition, space representation, camera location, camera movement (speed, vibration)

Sound
More realistic sound depth and space compensation, sound location, ambience alignment, 3D sound effects


Some factors will require large changes, some subtle, but there are many more factors. These are the most obvious ones.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

One of the things that really bugs me about 3d is the loss of so much cinematography practice. Long lens compression? Subtle rack focus? Shallow DOF? Is this really progress to lose all this?

 

[Scott M]

One of the things that really bugs me about 3d is the loss of so much cinematography practice.

I feel the same. It seems that to raise the "experience" aspect, some of the art has to be traded away. I think 3D will remain a niche in the same vein as someone given the option to look at a hologram or a painting, they would choose either for different reasons. They could probably convert the Mona Lisa into a 3D hologram, but I don't think there would be an audience clamoring for it.

 

[Joe G.]

Has anyone figured out how to ditch the glasses?

 

[DS Williams]

RealD through a 4k projector looked miles better than DOlby 3d. Dolby has all sorts of color fringing and seemed desaturated. The saturation changed with the orentation of your head to the screen. It was SOO ghosty and artifacty. Real D gets my vote for seeing avatar

 

[Robert Sanders]

I loved Avatar. I loved the 3D. I loved the story. I loved the action.

Guess I'm an idiot.

 

[James T Mather]

I loved Avatar. I loved the 3D. I loved the story. I loved the action.

Guess I'm an idiot.

No you're not.

You're why people, including myself, go to the cinema and why people, including Mr. James Cameron, make the movies to begin with.

Love the post.

 

[Alex Donkle]

Has anyone figured out how to ditch the glasses?

Once I get my time machine working...

 

[Sterling Wescott]

I honestly have to say, In a competition of Star Trek and Avatar, It's Meh vs. meh.
Actually It's Generic meh vs derivative meh.
Then again, I've never been a fan of action movies (although Crank 2 and District 9 were two of my favorites of 2009).

I personally preferred Star Trek, not from a technical but a directorial standpoint.
Avatar was ruined for me the moment I realized it was a remake of fern-gully.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Has anyone figured out how to ditch the glasses?

Maybe you could polarize your contact lenses.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Maybe you could polarize your contact lenses.

You may have something there. I don't wear glasses/contacts, but I'd be willing to try a pair of polarized contacts next time I go see something in 3D. Hehe.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

Every kid my daughter knows has seen Avatar. Many more than once. Just what qualifies you to preach to me about what the "target audience" of the film Avatar allegedly is? Are you employed on this project in the marketing department?

Did you fail to notice the large blue aliens riding on pterodactyls?

Avatar, like any monster budget tent-pole movie has a "target demographic" of EVERYONE, as in "children of all ages." Are you going to provide some sort of evidence to the contrary? Or because you type it, makes it so?

I'll ignore your ongoing rants about image acquisition formats. I've made my point.

Look Joe... you stated your opinion. I stated mine. I mention some reasons beyond the tech why I feel Avatar has done well and why people are talking about it. I also mentioned that your initial mutually exclusive grouping of anamorphic vs 3d I don't agree with.

"Our conversation" has escalated from there and I see no merit in it for either of us to continue. Clearly the focus has shifted away from the actual initial intention of the discussion.



****

On another note, there is a company that is working on 3d screens that don't need glasses. Aside from that there are companies making "better" glasses, more stylish and covering more FOV.

 

[Tyler Black]

I think it's interesting that people describe Avatar as immersive. I've NEVER found it difficult to immerse myself in a 2D movie that was shot well and told a good story. I like 3D and think it probably has its place (until the process is re-tooled from the ground up as was earlier suggested), but if anything, I think I find it LESS immersive because you're continually made aware of it. Maybe that's because it is still used on a small percentage of films and it's still a curiosity, or maybe because it's 2D faking 3D. But it's different.

 

[Sam Taylor]

I will also point out that the "camera" work in Avatar was much more cinematic than many of the others listed. Even though so much was digital, Cameron took a very cinematic approach. Even going so far as to have the CGI lighting crew discuss with him and real crew people how they would light each scene if it was real. It wasn't just about recreating "reality" but the hyper reality of the film look with what equates to 12x12 silks with 10k's punching through.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree! This is what really stood out for me in this film, setting it apart from other animated features: that the lighting was superb, as if it had been directed by a great lighting director using real fixtures.