The Amazing Spider-Man 3D Critique

[Clyde DeSouza]

Thought I'd post here, as the film was shot on RED gear. It's interesting to note that even with the best of equipment, 3D is still a subjective art form, with a platform based on science.
The review is a stereoscopic critique of the film and a bit of philosophical musings in the beginning on the role of stereographers and their influence on the film set hierarchy.

The review contains my opinion only (and reading the comments section will show that quite a few stereographer agree) that the narrative scenes were less that spectacular.
Subtle 3D is being confused with outright Flat 3D (again imho) and that's the point i'm trying to drive home despite the argument that the 3D look was "intentional" on those scenes. I absolutely loved the live action and CGI rendered stereo on the action scenes toward the finale with it's creative use of the stereo volume.

I'd love to hear comments from professionals here.

The review: Stereomatography: A review of Spider-man 3D

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Some was awesome, but a lot of other stuff was indeed flat. Absolutely no 3D a couple times that I checked.

I love 3D and wish I could have seen it more prevalent.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

i have seen this movie tonight and still wondering why they shot this 3D.

 

[Robino_J]

Your poll is missing a question: "I could not enjoy it because there was a blue filter in front of my eyes."

3D was fine but until they figure out how to "compensate" for colors I will not watch another 3D movie. For me 3D REALLY sucks.

 

[Paul Ellington]

Pretty incredible the job that was done, with the plate, the 3-D, composition, movement. It's amazing and incredible. Filming is not easy, you try to go shoot a film like that, maybe you can but top-notch work.

- Paul

 

[Tehben Dean]

I haven't seen it, but when I saw Prometheus in a digital IMAX 3D theatre they played the Spiderman trailer.... I don't know if it was an par with the whole film but I have to admit I thought the 3D was pretty bad. Like looking through binoculars, everything was really compressed and cardboardy. Also with fast, close, tight cut action I find 3D ads one more layer to something that's already hard enough to follow.

What worked in Prometheus was all the wide shots and lengthy cuts which is where I feel 3D shines and instead of distracting from the immersion can add to it.

I'm still not convinced 3D is an improvement or as good as 2D for narrative film.

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

The Amazing Spiderman was the first stereoscopic blockbuster I chose to see on 2D.

For the last 2 years I forced myself to watch all major 3D productions (especially those shot on RED) on 3D but in all cases I enjoyed the films more when I saw their 2D versions. I didn't like the idea of a Spiderman reboot so soon after the last ones but I wanted to see how the Epic performed so I went to see it. The footage was great but I don't feel like I lost anything by not watching the 3D version.

I know this reply contributes 0% to the poll but I wanted to share another opinion.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

I saw this film twice in both 3D and 2D and although this was one of the better 3D films I've seen, the honest truth is that I enjoyed the 2D version much more. Like many other people on this forum I am also of the opinion that once there is a way to watch 3D WITHOUT the glasses then and only then will the experience be completely worthwhile. For the record, I thought Schwartzman really made the Epic shine in this film.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Have seen it and actually thought it was one of the easiest in the eyes 3D movies I've seen. It was bright, colorful and the glasses didn't "darken" or made the film look washed out like in many other 3D films. For me, the current 3D benchmark is still Hugo. In the red camp Prometheus is the one that impressed me the most in overall "immersion", but Spider-man is probably the one that made me feel more "confortable" watching. i wasn't particularly "wowed" by the depth and the mise-en-scene like I was in both Hugo and Prometheus, but didn't felt the 3D too intrusive like in certain moments in certain 3D films. Was it worth the 3D experience? It all ends up on one key factor, for me: What does the 3D add to the story, or to the way the story is told in this film? I honestly think not much. In Hugo, the 3D was part of the whole concept of the film, not as a gimmick, but a key aspect of the storytelling device. That was the first time I saw, beyond the technical marvel of, say, Avatar, that 3D in the right hands can indeed "add" something extra to a film. I do think, however, this trend of going everything 3D (because of bigger profit margins and Box Office) is sad. Hopefully Nolan can show with the Dark Knight that films can be marketable and appealing even without the 3D hook on it, specially when it isn't needed!

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

Obviously I am biased... but the thought was to be very subtle in much of the narrative portions and go a little bigge rwith the action. I think it was done well. I thought Prometheus was amazing and also Hugo was wonderful.....

The fear for directors and DPs doing a 3D film is that whether it is originated in 3D or converted if the 3D isn't BIG then the studio fears the backlash from 3D fanboys about the higher ticket prices if the 3D doesn't shine...

 

[Ketch Rossi]

First of all I need ot come out and say really LOUDLY... AMAZING!!


Yes The Amazing Spiderman it is truly amazing, IMO the best so far!

The areas of 3D, were not as many as I tough they would be since we all know that the film was originally shot in 3D, however the choice is always that of the Director in how to apply 3D, I would have definitely loved more Depth and Dimentionality movement with in the 3D space, most importantly I would have loved in such a Big Budget, to have seen a more detail 3D Depth Calculation done also with lighting and not just by Convergency and Inter Ocular, and more on this if I do end up shooting "RAPEofaBEAUTY" in 3D, I'll show there what I mean, by not only using the tools but also lighting to have a greater Depth Budget for the 3D scenes.


Having said that, yes I again would have loved a more hazardous Director as far as the choices for 3D, and how deep to go with it, and how far out of the Floating Window to bring some of the scenes.


Overall, the 3D content within the film was done great, could have used some improvements IMO, but only these given by lighting, and this is why I call my self a DoP & 3D Depth Budget Specialist, of course till I prove my self by showing what I actually mean and the incredible better Depth Budget results this technic can achieve together with a perfectly calculated Convergency and Interocular Distance, but don't worry that day is coming very soon...


At the end, the movie was INCREDIBLY ENTERTAINING and worth EVERY DOLLAR of the EXTRA charge for seen it in 3D!!


Peter, again, it was a great pleasure visiting and meeting you on set at the Sony Lots during filming, too bad the scenes of the School Explosion didn't make it to the final cut...

 

[Joseph Hutson]

At the end, the movie was INCREDIBLY ENTERTAINING and worth EVERY DOLLAR of the EXTRA charge for seen it in 3D!!


Peter, again, it was a great pleasure visiting and meeting you on set at the Sony Lots during filming, too bad the scenes of the School Explosion didn't make it to the final cut...

Ditto!

Oh, Ketch. Remember when Peter Parker is thrown into the wall behind the teacher's desk? That shot was done when we were there if I'm not mistaken.

And of course the 1st Unit was shooting Spiderman hanging upside down in the tunnel.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ditto!

Oh, Ketch. Remember when Peter Parker is thrown into the wall behind the teacher's desk? That shot was done when we were there if I'm not mistaken.

And of course the 1st Unit was shooting Spiderman hanging upside down in the tunnel.

Unfortunately we left before He got there, we were there only for the Explosions.

But I didn't see this shot of the exact room were we are standing in the pic, unless I missed.

The tunnel Scenography was just insane.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

The Amazing Spiderman was the first stereoscopic blockbuster I chose to see on 2D.

For the last 2 years I forced myself to watch all major 3D productions (especially those shot on RED) on 3D but in all cases I enjoyed the films more when I saw their 2D versions. I didn't like the idea of a Spiderman reboot so soon after the last ones but I wanted to see how the Epic performed so I went to see it. The footage was great but I don't feel like I lost anything by not watching the 3D version.

I know this reply contributes 0% to the poll but I wanted to share another opinion.

Maybe you didn't contribute to the poll (me neither, haven't seen the movie yet, and when I do, it will be 2D), but you did contribute to the thread.
I just have the same feeling as you, except that Prometheus was the first movie I choose to go and see in 2D only. And I enjoyed it a lot more (even though I didn't like the movie, but that was because of narrative screenwriting-reasons).
And at first I did a vote for the 2D versus 3D version to my company. Everyone voted 2D, and this is not an old audience. I'm talking 25-year olds.

God bless Christopher Nolan. Just shooting great images in 2D. I remember when seeing Inception for the first time, it was just after I had gone see 3 or 4 3D movies in a row (always returning from the theatre with a disappointed feeling) and the first time I saw that 2D shots of the waves, I thought: whoa, it's so nice enjoying normal great 2D images projected on the big white screen.

I have to admit, that I really loved Hugo, but I hope this fadd of releasing everything in 3D goes away, and Hollywood focuses again on bringing great stories to the screen.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Okay,

sorry guys but I must really come out and say this... What is wrong with all of you that are going to war against 3D??!!??


MOst of you don't have a clue any ways of what you are talking about, as you have simply no direct experience either.


Don't like it don't go see it, simple.


I don't like FILM, I don't use it, never will, even if they give it to me for free, I wan't use it!!


I don't bash every single post about it, I just mention it by direct experience and direct knowledge of facts when the argument is directly about it.


This argument is about the 3D!!


If you haven't seen it, then you have NO ARGUMENT here, just stop bashing, go see it then come back with a voice i it, don't just be shouting out of nothing.


Be a informed individual about the argument before you go and try to make one.


Its worst then been in a court room, were the defendant was found Guilty till Proven Innocent!!

 

[Mark Pavy]

Clyde raises a valid point regarding the narrative scenes. I haven't seen the movie but I understand the point being raised as I sit and composite in 3D everyday. Narrative scenes (I presume this refers to the typical scenario of two people having a conversation in a confined or non confined space) technically pose the most challenging situation to reproduce the actual perception and reproduction of the human eye movement, because it's at the distance whereby the eyes don't get closer but converge or rotate the most. Because of this I believe that the current methods of narrowing the IO so the whole scene works needs to be questioned. Completely agree with Clyde that 3D is subjective and each scene is different and therefore requires a different approach. In regard to your typical narrative scene, one theory I've been messing around with is to actually shoot the scene twice, shoot the plate or background with one IO and then shoot the subject/s in front of a greenscreen with a different IO, composite it together whereby you can adjust the perceived depth and z space positioning of the background and subject separately, obviously this is complex but IMHO the results look infinitely more pleasing to the brain. Even though I have a vested interest in the success of 3D, I also agree that for most movies 3D is a waste of time.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Okay,

sorry guys but I must really come out and say this... What is wrong with all of you that are going to war against 3D??!!??


MOst of you don't have a clue any ways of what you are talking about, as you have simply no direct experience either.


Don't like it don't go see it, simple.


I don't like FILM, I don't use it, never will, even if they give it to me for free, I wan't use it!!


I don't bash every single post about it, I just mention it by direct experience and direct knowledge of facts when the argument is directly about it.


This argument is about the 3D!!

Ketch, with all respect, but I think many of the critique posts here had more arguments than yours...

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch, with all respect, but I think many of the critique posts here had more arguments than yours...

He he.

 

[Jim Kelley]

I've shot a lot of 3D photos and video and I go for the natural look, 1.5 inch interaxials at the widest fov is pretty much a universally acceptable configuration inside of 10 feet. And when I see a 3D movie I expect things to look real and in person. CG toons ironically have more realistic 3D than live action 3D!

While I do believe in the use of a dynamic depth script, the valleys should not be so flat that they look nearly 2D. Remember, people forget they're watching a 3D movie, so you don't have to dial down the 3D so much just to get them to pay attention to something else, unless of course you're making some ambitious artsy 3D movie.

 

[Michael Millichamp]

Okay,

sorry guys but I must really come out and say this... What is wrong with all of you that are going to war against 3D??!!??


MOst of you don't have a clue any ways of what you are talking about, as you have simply no direct experience either.


Don't like it don't go see it, simple.


I don't like FILM, I don't use it, never will, even if they give it to me for free, I wan't use it!!


I don't bash every single post about it, I just mention it by direct experience and direct knowledge of facts when the argument is directly about it.


This argument is about the 3D!!


If you haven't seen it, then you have NO ARGUMENT here, just stop bashing, go see it then come back with a voice i it, don't just be shouting out of nothing.


Be a informed individual about the argument before you go and try to make one.


Its worst then been in a court room, were the defendant was found Guilty till Proven Innocent!!

Woah...

I saw Spider Man in IMAX 3D ETX (AMC's Enchanced Theater Experience) and for the first 15 minutes, the 3D was terrible. I don't know if it was my eyes adjusting to the screen or what. Later down the line, it got better, and then it got to the point where i didn't even realize it... So then that makes me question the purpose for it.

If my eyes adjust to it, and I get lost in the story, why again am I seeing it in 3D? It had no enhancement to the story, except for the city shots in first person, which I think would have had the same effect on me if it was in 2D...

Im all for 3D advancing and getting better, but right now, it's not that great... Its less than mediocre. The only reason I see 3D movies is to see if it has improved. Normally it doesn't and im taken out of the movie.

When im taken out of the movie because of the atrocious 3D, it makes me bummed because I want to get lost in the movie. Then they will do some silly rack focus, or some "Hey lets throw something at the camera" junk, that makes me take a step back and really question why the hell they did that.

Here is an article I found interesting.

http://rcjohnso.tumblr.com/post/24693276556/some-thoughts-on-3d

Enjoy.