Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Walter Murch on 3d. Let's chat.

I have to resound Tim's comment Barend,

even so I mostly agree with your other points, you are incorrect in point number 1).

I have personally adjusted a Projector after a huge argument in a Cinema (that for obvious reasons I can not say) were the image was
dark, and I knew and had seen some footage of the actual film, and when seen it on theater it was way darker, after the projector
been adjusted everything was fine, plenty of Light in the projector to go higher if needed, most Cinema s do however keep it at a
minimum necessary as to make so that the Lamp replacements are not as frequents as they do cost a fortune.

The Patrons however do pay this price in 3D viewing when a Projectionist does not adjust luminosity on the Projector for 3D viewing.
 
@ Tim and Ketch: good information, although it doesn't change much in the general discussion: the lower light output sometimes seen in S3D projection is not a valid argument against S3D in general.
 
You are right Barend,

it is not a valid argument, the argument should be to properly train Projectionist the
difference for Projector calibration form 2D Monoscopic to 3D screening.

And it is actually not the only wrong argument presented by so called Experts want to
be in a media that they know nothing about it ;)
 
Peter Matthes said:
You can say that again.

Here is a nice interview along those lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_py6jVyOqUY

A bunch of kids got this unique seven minute interview with him at his home.

http://roadtripnation.com/WalterMurch

Fuck ... Can you imagine going to film school with Walter, Lucas and John Milius?

Pat ... I'm sorry that I am only addressing half of this thread. I am just a really really big Walter Murch fan.

Wait ... Okay ... I am not very fond of 3D ... except for animation. :smiley:
Click to expand...


We can not say that his opinion is not considered. "In the blink of an eye" was maybe the besst book written about editing.

He is entitled to an opinion on 3d and makes his arguement based on many years and many miles of film that past before his eyes.

I'm not going to wade into the 3D debate, but it would be a blast to have those three guys as teachers.
 
3D, Avatar and the rest ...

I love 3d.
I think it is a subtle business.

Saw Avatar many times in 3D and (some times in 2d).
I enjoyed it - a lot!

:-)

Walked out of "Alice in WL" after 20-30 minutes or so ... i was in pain!
(Actually, i walked out of Alice straight into Avatar AGAIN!)

Guess, 3D wants to be applied in a subtle way.

It is the same like with any effect (rule no. 1 in my book)
... never use an effect for the purpose of showing off the effect.


Regarding 3D, Box office and pulling an audience ...
Avatar revived the whole game and has pulled thousands into the theaters to experience a new world.

To me, 3D has never been done so well before ...

Now, i am really curious to see how the EPIC generation of 3D blockbusters handle it ...

I have a gut feeling, it will be ....... ......... ;-)


Regarding Walter Murch:
One of the view people, i´d take advice from.
His work is outstanding, his thinking and writing about the moving picture shaped my consciousness.
 
Francesco Bonomo said:
... Fair enough. I think things are pretty simple, he doesn't like it and was voicing his opinion...
Click to expand...

(taken from the article here) "... The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed." Walter Murch
Click to expand...

He makes a valid point here.

The subjective "weirdness" of the 3D image experience may also change according to the individuals eye condition.

I have a condition, where my eyes don´t perceive as much of a 3 dimensional image, as other people do ... I see some, but not to much dimension ..... this is according to the doctors from their comparative testing.

Therefore, I probably pay much more attention to the lines and many depth cues from the real world, my brain kind of learned and trained itself to make up the perception of dimension from the two dimensional, rather photographic information at hand - using memorized experience accumulated in life, observation of changing size of objects, convergence, geometry, parallax and so forth ...

I can imagine, that this fact may add to the pain factor i have experienced in the "Alice in WL" case ... it was so unnatural, a real torture to me with physical unease and pain.

With Avatar instead, 3d was applied in a rather subtle way and helped to trick me into getting lost in the image ...


In my personal experience, it seemed that James Cameron has applied "just enough" and "the right kind of 3D" into the mix, to fool the eye and take me in.

From what i could draw from the various backstage pieces and interviews with JC, it seems that he is very well aware of the tricky task at hand and figured out, how to do it "the right way".

To me, it looks true again, that "Less is more."

Then, i really do not know, if everyone shares this experience - or if it's just a personal thing.

As i see it, we have about 6.5 billion different experiences of our world - anyway....


;-)
 
Video games are the reason Murch is wrong. Unfortunately. Children will train their brains to watch 3D and converge and focus differently by playing endless hours of 3D video games as pre-teens. This new generation will demand other content also be 3D. Sadly, my prediction.

IBloom
 
OK here's what I posted on ProVideoCoalition:

RE: "3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another.”

Have you watched anything Vince Pace has been involved in? Avatar? Heck, even the Hannah Montana 3D concert movie?

It doesn’t have that problem.

With the Vince Pace method, 90% of the time you converge what the camera is focused on at screen plane.

So your eye IS focused at the cinema screen -which is where you’re converging. This also solves a lot of 3D editing problems - you’re never cutting from one convergence to another.

Sure - there is cool 3D stuff happening in elsewhere in the screen, but it is a peripheral effect.

Bam! Back at you, Mr Murch

Bruce Allen
(who art directed the 3D titles in the aforementioned Hannah Montana movie - and had the great pleasure of working with Vince Pace)
www.boacinema.com
 
Miley Cyrus is no stranger to sound manipulation. :w00t:
 
Frank Glencairn said:
Not exactly



rev3Dboxoffice2-400x303.jpg


Frank
Click to expand...

please note that not one of those movies in the graph where shot in stereo.

Current 3D projection is maxed out at around 2-3ft lamberts. Lenny Liptons new "Ocula" system has been tested successfully in Burbank AMC....he is getting 8-9ft lamberts.

so yes brightness will be going up.
 
It worked great for me the other day when I saw TRON.
 
1. Murch is dead on about the fundamental focus/convergence issue. At best it makes 3d a tiring and stressful experience, even when it is as well done as Avatar. Still it is a visual treat on occasion, but like a rich dessert best enjoyed sparingly.
2. As far as immersive engagement in the film, 2D is at least as good as 3D, probably better for most films.
 
Murch is 100% correct with regards to the physiological impact on the viewer. If stereographers don't heed this warning and dial back the experimentation, 3D will be doomed. But in small doses, properly done, 3D can be an option. But I prefer pristine 4K to "3D". I prefer the resolution and brightness of the 2D image over the gimmick of artificial depth. But I would never want the market to be denied one or the other. In fact, I've been known to see both versions at the cinema, days apart. I like that 3D exists, I just think there's too much seat-of-the-pants, half-assed and wildcatting operating going on because some stereographers pay too little heed to the basics.
 
I feel like the detractors make too much of certain issues like headaches and discomfort. I don't deny that 3D causes that in some people, but if it was as big a problem as they would have us believe, audiences would be revolting against 3D left and right (no pun intended).

I think Murch's best point is this one:

"And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with."

He nails on the head how we engage with films. We exist "in" the film without physicality or sense or a specific perspective forced on us. 3D reminds us that we are looking at any given shot from a specific vantage point. Literally seeing depth and physicality on-screen isn't inherently always more immersive than a 2D image.

As much as I respect both Walter Murch and James Cameron, I think the future of 3D lies somewhere between "3D doesn't work and never will" and "everything will be shot in 3D." Horror, action, sci-fi, fantasy, animation, and CG-heavy family films (G-Force, Yogi Bear kind of films) will be big in 3D. Films in which a purely visceral enhancement would be fun.
 
If Murch believes in evolution of the brain, why can't we evolve to embrace this new way of seeing?

Although I have high respect for Murch, I must disagree on the "focus/convergence on different planes" issue. Our brains have shown that they can adapt to visual paradoxes. For example, probably the most un-natural visual phenomenon: the straight cut. Our brains were never intended to see an immediate switch of images in the real world. What a jarring shock to the brain, yet it happens all the time on TV without us giving a second thought. Another example is that when we watch TV/Cinema our eyes are focusing on things that our brain must interpret as closer or further away. Again, we seem to be able to adapt fine and I see no reason why we wouldn't adapt to well shot, well edited 3D.

I hope Murch is wrong. I love being innovative again and the challenge/potential of S3D is amazing to me. I have been showing demos in my office of 3D aerials and pyro we shot recently and people go nuts over them. In my world there is much hope for 3D.

Phil
 
David Rasberry said:
1. Murch is dead on about the fundamental focus/convergence issue. At best it makes 3d a tiring and stressful experience, even when it is as well done as Avatar.
Click to expand...

Where do people get this? I haven't had the least hint of headache both times I saw Avatar. Our brain is fundamentally more adaptive to new types of input than you think and there's no definitive neuroscientific basis for your statement, but you still state it as if it's a simple fact, which is already negated by the fact that millions of people have no problem watching the material that you find tiring and stressful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top