The day I walked out on a 3D film set... to defend 3D

[Clyde DeSouza]

If nobody seemed to want your advice or opinions on set, why were you hired, do you think?

EDIT: I see it's all been covered above

:-D We should meet over a drink sometime. and Chris reminded me, it's getting mucky, dragging this on.

 

[Ben Scott]

Always up for that, as long as you promise not to make a thread about me afterwards

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

Always up for that, as long as you promise not to make a thread about me afterwards

As long as you promise not to get drunk too soon!

 

[Ben Scott]

hahaha

 

[Björn Benckert]

Normally I wouldn't comment on something like this, but you asked for thoughts, so I feel justified giving them. Respectfully of course.

While I'm sure you were technically in the right regarding the 3d, in my opinion it's at best a fractional component of the shoot. A very important one at times, but certainly just a single component in a massive world of situations that need to be considered.

As a director I constantly depend on a bevy of skilled folks to give me their opinions. They inform as best they can and then step back and quietly let me make my decision. Many times I listen to these opinions, many times I do not...it's my rope to hang myself with. Usually, I've lived with both the project and the clients for weeks before the crew even sees me at breakfast and I'll ultimately have to deal with the repercussions of my on-set decisions for some time after. As much as I respect each and every voice on the day, there is simply not enough time to debate every issue and often less time for pleasantries. Below the line there are no egos allowed. Period. So is the way of the set.

I won't pretend to know your situation, but while personally fulfilling, walking off a set for any non-emergency, non-abusive, personal or ego reason is unacceptable and extraordinarily unprofessional. Again, I don't know the specifics, but I find it hard to believe the issue was that dire. In fact, in probably 100 shoots I think I've only seen it happen twice. Once was a union grievance, the second was someone who was so obviously unqualified that he left for fear of being held financially liable for his actions. Not insinuating, just saying its very, very rare.

I have to agree with Mark. Do your best to guide them, but once it becomes clear that lunacy is guiding the day and you've exhausted your diplomatic avenues, just tell them what they want to hear and leave with the fee you agreed upon. Moving forward, it is absolutely your prerogative never to work with a particular Director, the DP or the Prodco in the future, but it is not your place to undermine the stability or the client's confidence of a shoot, the by publicly walking away.

Again. My two cents. We make and live with our decisions.

I disagree.
If you feel that you is forced to do ugly then much better to drop the showel and leave instead of doing what you are told and then get the shit for having done what you where told. But ofcourse you are risking getting a reputation. But setting up 3D scenery is not an easy task, directors and DP's thinks that they know what they do because they read an article about it, but that is far from understanding how poor, bad stereo shots will look.. And in the end you will take the blame. So if you have the fuckyoumoney to do it, then do it. DP's and directors will thank you in the end for being a guy that takes responsibility for your work and do not do things they will suffer for later. And if they do disagree with you completely, well then again, maybe you guys should not work together anyway.


I think being humble is a good thing, but in the end it comes back and bites you in the ass.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Bjorn this kind of behaviour is acceptable in Europe.
Not so in the US.
Different work ethics by a long shot.
I'm familiar with both since I was born and grew up in the European culture.
What an eye opener when I came to the US as a young man!!!!

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

I disagree.
I think being humble is a good thing, but in the end it comes back and bites you in the ass.

There must be a way to just hit a *like* button, and not get baited into a longer I love Björn type comment

 

[Marc Wielage]

My take on conversion has gone through an evolution in thinking... In the beginning I was dead against it, but as time has gone by and more experienced/talented artists have come on board with a thorough understanding of stereoscopy, and with software getting better, I've seen at least some conversion houses grow from strength to strength (StereoD, Prime focus).

I've said many times: two of the biggest 3D movies of all time, in terms of box office, were Alice in Wonderland and The Avengers -- both shot flat and dimensionalized, both making over $1 billion. And every 3D film requires a degree of dimensionalization when it comes to CGI VFX. Like anything else, it can be done really badly, or it can be done well, assuming a lot of time, money, and experience. Not everything has to look as bad as Clash of the Titans.

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

I've said many times: two of the biggest 3D movies of all time, in terms of box office, were Alice in Wonderland and The Avengers -- both shot flat and dimensionalized, both making over $1 billion. And every 3D film requires a degree of dimensionalization when it comes to CGI VFX. Like anything else, it can be done really badly, or it can be done well, assuming a lot of time, money, and experience. Not everything has to look as bad as Clash of the Titans.

Hi Marc, thanks for steering this thread in a more positive direction

On the subjects of Alice and Transformers. I actually thought Alice was successful (in the 3D department) only because it was riding close on the coat tails (I try my best at puns) of Avatar.
Admittedly back then, I was very critical of conversions, and I believe it was not without merit. Co-incidentally here's the article I'd written exactly 3 years ago to the date (May 10 2010) on conversions and alice is referred to there
http://realvision.ae/blog/2010/05/h...-there-bad-3d-have-you-even-bothered-to-look/

On Transformers, I think it was Fans that sold the tickets. 3D itself, (again to me) only marginally added to the experience. There were certainly a few great stereo shots that I recall.
here's the review for that: http://realvision.ae/blog/2012/05/avengers-of-stereoscopic-3d/

Kind Regards.

 

[Rbs-ent]

I think if this thread could serve as a warning to future directors of 3D the need to be well informed by advice of a talented stereographer and not to forget the reason why they exist and in your case why they hired you in the first place, then it is good thing.

There are so many examples of bad 3D out there and am I close by saying put out by teams of film makers walking in unknown territory?! Clyde I've not seen your work that I know of but great stereographers worth their salt deserve their kudos and not be drowned out by the director or cinematographer.

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

Thanks Rbs-ent.
Best Regards.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

Two things I want to say Clyde:

One I feel that if a work enviornment becomes so bad that one cannot do his or her job even partially to his/her standards then breaking that work contract is acceptable.

I also believe that you future work should have some of those discussions made in prep. We had a real shaking out of the on set workflow on both 1st and 2nd unit on Spiderman.

Finally there have been some great 2D-3D post conversions (Spidy 2 is 35mm film 2D for post conversion to 3D) but some situations call for 3D origin. Planet of the Apes is Alexa 3D origin and Jurrasic 4 will also be 3D origin. One of the reasons is post scheduling.... .

Good luck. And if you run into Joseph there in Dubai hug him for me....

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

Two things I want to say Clyde:

One I feel that if a work enviornment becomes so bad that one cannot do his or her job even partially to his/her standards then breaking that work contract is acceptable.

I also believe that you future work should have some of those discussions made in prep. We had a real shaking out of the on set workflow on both 1st and 2nd unit on Spiderman.

Finally there have been some great 2D-3D post conversions (Spidy 2 is 35mm film 2D for post conversion to 3D) but some situations call for 3D origin. Planet of the Apes is Alexa 3D origin and Jurrasic 4 will also be 3D origin. One of the reasons is post scheduling.... .

Good luck. And if you run into Joseph there in Dubai hug him for me....

Thank you Peter. Your second point is one I will be paying more attention to, and not taking for granted: that of having a thorough and black n white discussion on roles, workflow, prior to signing on.

On a side note it's great to learn a bit on Spidey 2. Yeah; the previous Spidey, I kind of stirred up a hornet's nest with my comments and review (http://realvision.ae/blog/2012/07/stereomatography-a-review-of-spider-man-3d/ )
Haven't met Joseph yet in Dubai, but if I do will send your regards.

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

I was humbled today with the review of the book "Think in 3D" by none other than John Rupkalvis.

"There have been many books written about stereoscopic 3D, far more than most people realize. Yet, very few, less than a half dozen, would I recommend as "must reads" for professionals, or anyone interested in stereography for that matter. This book is absolutely among the top half dozen that do qualify.The points discussed in it may well determine the future of the industry. Anyone who wants to call themselves a stereographer must read this."

For anyone who's new to 3D and not yet familiar with an icon of Stereoscopic 3D, take a look at the PDF at the end of the article here: http://realvision.ae/blog/2013/05/john-rupkalvis-jr-and-his-contribution-to-the-art-of-stereoscopic-cinema/
You'll realize that when I say I was humbled, I wasn't exaggerating.

Best Regards.

JRs full review on Amazon.

 

[Maciej Orman]

At a only (as you put it) a grand a day... tell them what they want to hear and walk away.

Simple math.

3d will be dead soon (IMHO) Sadly my kids refuse to watch 3d movies anymore, will stand at the front door confirming we dont see movies in 3 before we leave the house...
My 3d tv was used for 2 weeks.... now its become a standard tv again.
My thoughts of making a 3d film died the moment I got my first post quote, grip quote, over time quotes... etc etc etc etc...

Hey... its a good thing that your being paid a grand a day by people that reckon they already know what to do.

Easy money ))))
The term, never bite that hands that feed you comes to mind.

PS... I think 3d rigs look cool ! Works of art.




And that was pretty much done in a box like Toy Story.. which is why it looked so great. I too have never seen a 3d movie as good or even close as AVATAR either except for those PIXAR CG3d kids films.

3D will not die but consumers are loosing interest because the 3D content is almost always screen optimized for the movie theater screen size. This is counterproductive and instead enhancing viewer experience it simply kills it.
Here is an example: Monsters vs Aliens 3D playing on home screen looks like "Barbie" size vs "happy meal toy" size and some shots are just the opposite Monsters are smaller than Aliens. That is total brain confusion and kinds recognize that naturally.
Horror movie + 3D = funny movie because who will get scared by toy size human characters on the screen no matter what happens to the them and what blood splash FX are used.
On the other hand if the movie is shot in real 3D and projected the same way the 3D effect is so strong that it may even kill a viewer giving him a hart attack.
Another bad example is Avatar, the worst 3D movie ever made. In it the characters actually grow in real time and get flattened or stretched in 3D simultaneously which kills any realism.
In addition they killed all subtle stereoscopic specular textures by retexturing everything with 2D textures which made it all look just like textured paper.
So, I think the there will be new, real 3D coming soon to your home theater only, because movie theater screens are not compatible with natural 3D.

Maciej Orman

 

[Zhang Ming]

3D will not die but consumers are loosing interest because the 3D content is almost always screen optimized for the movie theater screen size. This is counterproductive and instead enhancing viewer experience it simply kills it.
Here is an example: Monsters vs Aliens 3D playing on home screen looks like "Barbie" size vs "happy meal toy" size and some shots are just the opposite Monsters are smaller than Aliens. That is total brain confusion and kinds recognize that naturally.
Horror movie + 3D = funny movie because who will get scared by toy size human characters on the screen no matter what happens to the them and what blood splash FX are used.
On the other hand if the movie is shot in real 3D and projected the same way the 3D effect is so strong that it may even kill a viewer giving him a hart attack.
Another bad example is Avatar, the worst 3D movie ever made. In it the characters actually grow in real time and get flattened or stretched in 3D simultaneously which kills any realism.
In addition they killed all subtle stereoscopic specular textures by retexturing everything with 2D textures which made it all look just like textured paper.
So, I think the there will be new, real 3D coming soon to your home theater only, because movie theater screens are not compatible with natural 3D.

Maciej Orman

But don't you think it's a good thing for movies. This give people a very good reason to pay a few dollars to enter the theatre to see the best 3D contents.

For TV, I insists my opinion, S3d won't grow big in TV area.

 

[Maciej Orman]

But don't you think it's a good thing for movies. This give people a very good reason to pay a few dollars to enter the theatre to see the best 3D contents.

For TV, I insists my opinion, S3d won't grow big in TV area.

Yes, that is the main reason Hollywood is pushing 3D. Profits end there. Ones the 3D titles get printed on 3D-Blu-rays interest is limited and the price of 2D-BD vs 3D-BD is not much different.

Maciej Orman