Walter Murch on 3d. Let's chat.

[Derek S.]

But from a box office perspective, let's face it audiences are eating up 3D. And at the end of the day that's the thing that matters to career filmmakers.

Noah

3D is like bullet time or ropes. They looked great in the first movies (matrix, CTHD), but then everybody starts using it and it gets boring and pointless, and slowly dies away.

 

[Ian Vertovec]

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.
Phil

Coincidentally, in Murch's brilliant book "In the Blink of an Eye", he argues the straight cut is fundamental process of the human visual system.

I believe the example he gives is when we quickly look at the clock. We don't recall panning our eyes across the room or down to our wrists. Our brains merely go from what we were doing, cut to the time, then cut back to what we were up to.

So he makes the argument that this process is evolutionary.

 

[Derek S.]

The final frontier of movies will be that person is put to dream and he will be one character in the story. That's the ultimate experience. Will take "few" more years, but that will be how every movie is experienced in the future.

 

[Phil Bates]

Coincidentally, in Murch's brilliant book "In the Blink of an Eye", he argues the straight cut is fundamental process of the human visual system.

I believe the example he gives is when we quickly look at the clock. We don't recall panning our eyes across the room or down to our wrists. Our brains merely go from what we were doing, cut to the time, then cut back to what we were up to.

So he makes the argument that this process is evolutionary.

Thanks, Ian, very interesting. So, would you agree that if he is arguing for the principle of evolution (which implies adaptation), that it's kind of odd to object to the possibility of our brains adapting to S3D?

Thanks,
Phil

 

[Joel Wilkieson]

Thanks, Ian, very interesting. So, would you agree that if he is arguing for the principle of evolution (which implies adaptation), that it's kind of odd to object to the possibility of our brains adapting to S3D?

Thanks,
Phil

Murch said: "they are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for." On the other hand, 3D is several decades old. In essence, that is his main argument. One could also argue that our brains will adapt to anything, that is already happening. They way we perceive information is different than someone in 19th century. Kids are playing 3D games from an early age, things are changing. That said, it will takes several centuries or much more to be fully adapted. By that time, 3D films will be dead for sure and cinema will be a projected hologram or something like that. It will become more real than real. That's my prediction

 

[Barend Onneweer]

If you put on prism glasses that flip your vision upside down and wear them continuously for a couple of days (to a week) - the brain flips the image back to normal to match the image to your other senses. When you take the glasses off it takes a couple of days for the brain to flip the image back. The human brain is a lot more adaptive than is suggested here.

There's a lot that 600 million years of evolution didn't prepare us for. Including perceiving 24fps projection as continuous movement. But it works.

 

[Richard G]

walter murch, you are a living film god of the 21st century

3D, were on to you, there is only so many of us you can fool now

camera artists, sometimes the solution to better film-making is

not always something to do with the visuals. maybe aural? who knows?

 

[Peter Moretti]

As much as I admire Walter Murch, and I do. I've seen him speak. I even have quote of from Jean Cocteau that he gave me and signed, sitting on my editing desk.

But I think he is missing something. For created worlds, 3-D can work VERY WELL. Examples are "Tron" and "Avatar."

But for drama, I agree with him that the artificiality of 3-D takes you out of the movie. So the next "When Harry Met Sally" won't look good in 3-D. But the next "Star Wars" will.

 

[Ian Vertovec]

Thanks, Ian, very interesting. So, would you agree that if he is arguing for the principle of evolution (which implies adaptation), that it's kind of odd to object to the possibility of our brains adapting to S3D?

Thanks,
Phil

Well, if I apply my understanding of evolution to his example.

He seems to be saying that the primitive man who was capable of processing multiple stimuli, and instantly "editing" it in his brain into the useful bits was more likely to survive and pass these traits onto his offspring. This would take generations.

I don't think he is underestimating the human brains ability to compute unusual stimulus. I think he is implying, however, that a movie-goer who finds 3D films quite comfortable to watch aren't more likely to survive and produce offspring then people who don't.

I on the other hand enjoy my movies in 2D and 3D.

 

[Michael McVicar]

Well, if I apply my understanding of evolution to his example.

I think he is implying, however, that a movie-goer who finds 3D films quite comfortable to watch aren't more likely to survive and produce offspring then people who don't.

It would seem that if your movie-date was more comfortable watching said film that you would be more likely to survive and produce offspring.

 

[Oliver Peters]

Regardless of what people think of Murch's talents or abilities as an editor, he does offer an informed opinion. It's important to note that he edited (and directed 2nd unit, I think) "Captain Eo", a 3D short for the Disney parks in the 1980s. It has recently been revived. Although done on film - not digitally - it is still very solid technically with minimal eye strain. Complete with plenty of gimmicky, as well as non-gimmicky 3D techniques. Plenty of visual effects, animation and a face cutting pace. It's quite possible that more people have seen that film (in sheer numbers) during its life than most blockbusters.

- Oliver

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

IMO

Sure, some movies take you on a ride; a setting like the new TRON movie is perfekt for 3D.

What was perfect with Tron and 3D was the example of how NOT to do it.
Dark + minimal background and textures + fast cutting

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.

If I'm not mistaken the method utilized focusing and converging cameras at the same point in space. Which can be one foot in front of the camera or one mile.

If you are looking at a wide shot of the exterior, intersection of both eye vectors is not on the screen surface but at a distance well behind the screen.

This also solves a lot of 3D editing problems -
you’re never cutting from one convergence to another.

You may have confused focusing distance with eye convergence.

The problem remains. Cutting is very often between different convergences.

Coincidentally, in Murch's brilliant book "In the Blink of an Eye", he argues the straight cut is fundamental process of the human visual system.

I believe the example he gives is when we quickly look at the clock. We don't recall panning our eyes across the room or down to our wrists. Our brains merely go from what we were doing, cut to the time, then cut back to what we were up to.

Which is a controlled event by the viewer.

Also it is NOT a straight cut per se, but a conscious interpretation of straight cut, which has a middle, something which connects point A to point B logically and mind has data to map and interconnect the events. What a mind may do is choose to not consciously perceive this middle to avoid redundant rationalizing, hence waste of energy, but does use it. To create a reference.

Which is why folks prefer animated visual changes in their gadgets...menu slides, swipes, coming in & out and which is why GUI's of today are not evolving to CLICK/ON, but CLICK/gradually-arrive.

Which is why a good director has to know how to tell the viewer where what is, and how important is it, because he cuts off that middle which mind needs and often puts in background processing. 2D perception requires less data to process and leaves more space for imagination to fill in the blanks, what makes 2D cut work easier.

After stepping into 3D space uncontrolled by the viewer, any cut of that "middle part" is much greatly missed than in 2D because it takes much more time and energy for the brain to examine the new surrounding and by logically mapping the data create a new reference. If someone wants to frighten you they appear in front of you without you knowing, without giving you logical reference of their arrival and the lack of that logical reference causes a shock.

With much more data to process with added dimension, in 3D any new non-linear acquired scene is less logical and irregularity is enhanced.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Just to make a case against Bad 3D that should not be called 3D or was not shot in 3D, the History HD Universe in 3D,
is by far the WORST piece of CRAP I have sen this far in 3D!!

Kind of upset as off course understandably many of those that fill the Pain of some 3D showing,
well this is surely one of them, DON'T EVER BUY THIS BLUE RAY...SUCKS BIG TIME!!

This people absolutely had no idea what they were doing, and or what controlling Disparity means, so bad had to stop watching it ;(

 

[David Battistella]

Ketch,

Therein lies a bit of the problem. Make a bad movie and folks might shit all over it. But make really bad 3D movie and there might be a lawsuit.

We are in a time when the brain is very adaptable, but at the same time the British government limits the amount if flash frames that can appear on British television to protect some members if the public with health issues that can be affected by rapidly flashing images.

Yes. 3D is more mature now than it has been and I believe that digital projection,because of the stability of the registration, has been a help, but we are still talking about rapidly flashing images into each eyeball.

I'm not convinced that we have evolved enough in 30 years to adapt to all of this and for these reasons I understand where Mr. Mitch is coming from.

The best news is that even when filining 3D you always have wonderful 2D by using one eye of the recording.

Not to be cliche but only time and lawyers will dictate this one.

David

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Agreed in part David,

problem is that there is no control over it, and IMO there should be, I mean there is a Rating for Movies were you can
not just put out a Movie that might contain Porn as a Standard Move right?

Well same for 3D, there should be some one seen all 3D material and not letting the Absolute Impossible to watch BAD Crap been Distributed, Period!!

Cause this is what it is ruining for the rest of us that are hard at work in time energy capital and vision,
to produce decent entertaining work, to be shutter in reputation by this ind of crap.

I think I will for a Global commission for 3D watchers, were all 3D Media must pass thru before been allowed to be Distributed

 

[David Battistella]

Yes. Exactly.

As Mr. Murch and others point out, there are Best Practices. Even the pace of movies in 3d Avatar and Alice in Wonderland included, dial in and consider the kind of 3d movement you can take and for how long.

Both films have 'high data rate" scenes, ones that require a lot of brain work to process, followed by easy scenes, where the brain is given an opportunity to rest.

This is the real science behind 3d now.

You can nit strap on two cameras and go, you need an understanding of cognitive function to make these things work.

The studios have the budgets to properly test this and make it work, but the worry will be the people who don't possess this knowledge or care.

David.

 

[Bruce Allen]

If you are looking at a wide shot of the exterior, intersection of both eye vectors is not on the screen surface but at a distance well behind the screen.

No. Convergence is at screen plane. For example, the shots of planets, stars, etc in Avatar in the beginning are at screen plane. If you took off your glasses during the beginning you'd see that the shots of the planets etc look fine in 2D - because they're converged to screen plane.

Disney movies - even Murch's own Captain Eo for that matter - converge the stars etc stars a way behind screen plane. Sure it looks cooler but you get ghosting and are also causing eyestrain. Personally, Captain Eo caused quite a bit of eyestrain - Avatar caused no eyestrain but Eo managed to cause pain in 20 minutes.

I really don't think Murch understands how to do 3D properly.

You may have confused focusing distance with eye convergence.

You sure?

The problem remains. Cutting is very often between different convergences.

Cutting should extremely rarely happen between different convergences. Slight convergence differences - sure, if you want - but I really think it helps a lot to have they object that the eye is supposed to be watching converged at screen plane.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[John Fairstein]

Comments on Ebert and Murch

Comments on Ebert and Murch

I was surprised and dismayed by the one-eyed position Ebert and Murch take on 3D. Ebert writes, “I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D.” That seems like a pompous pronouncement. There are plenty of people like me who are delighted by 3D in all its forms. If you don’t like to watch 3D, then close one eye and go do something else.

Murch writes, “But if you are watching a 3D movie of the salt shaker, the salt shaker may appear closer to you than the movie screen, but your eyes must still focus on the screen. Your eyes are converging and focusing at different distances.” His analysis doesn’t ring true to me: the viewer's eyes do not focus on the screen, they focus on the subject. When you look through a window, your eyes do not focus on the glass, they focus on whatever attracts your attention beyond the window. My brain works OK and can fuse images from two eyes, even moving images. I see the rabbit through the window, and watch him hop away in 3D. And Avatar looked great to me, thanks to good cinematography. My eyes and brain felt fine, and I still use the nice sunglasses.

No doubt there are folks who in the first few minutes of a 3D presentation are confused about where to look or focus. A good cinematographer starts early scenes with the action behind the window, then guides the viewer into more dynamic 3D scenes. For gasps later on, gradually dolly in close to the subject and reduce the interocular distance. Then return to the window and resume the narrative. It is the cinematographer’s responsibility to guide the brain and eyes without strain. There are plenty of good tools from PACE, Element Technica, 3D Film Factory, and others to help us with the whole process of acquiring 3D. See http://www.live-production.tv/case-studies/sports/sixteen-3d-rig-manufacturers-overview.html.

The eyes automatically converge at an angle that depends on the distance to the subject. The closer the subject, the greater the angle of convergence (see graph below). Say the window (screen) is at Murch’s suggested 80 feet; the convergence of eyes spaced 2.5 inches apart at that distance is about 1.8 degrees. [=DEGREES(ATAN(2.5/distance))] So if the actor moves from the window back 40 feet, the eyes must converge a microscopic 0.6 degrees. Do you get eyestrain and a headache watching your neighbor walk to the mailbox? The graph below shows the convergence of the viewer’s eyes at varying distances to the subject. Notice that after about 20 feet, convergence differences become very small, requiring little adjustment by your eyes.

We have two eyes and can see depth, just like we have two ears and can hear stereo. Ebert and Murch are throwing cold water on telling stories in 3D, trying to cut humans off from natural progress. But in spite of them, we’ll be moving ahead with great stories told in 3D, just like when our predecessors added talkies, color, surround sound and more. Most certainly those technologies benefited the stories. Ebert and Murch are very prominent in our field; I hope they will change their tune.

Thanks to Barend Onneweer, Ketch Rossi, Bruce Allen and others on this thread for there thoughtful comments. Forgive me if I retread ground already covered. Please let me know if you find errors in my facts or analysis.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Well John,

is a matter of not been BIAS on something as Big as 3D is today, and it is getting better as we go, just that unfortunately there are always
those that do anything and will compromise it all in order to ride the Bandwagon, there should be a serious and distinct difference from
3D and and 3D acquire in post, but most importantly there should seriously be a way of filtering the titles before been Distributed, so to
avoid that the CRAP that in deed can make people seek is not Broadcasted, and or sold.

My eyes, even so I suffer from Astigmatism have a Virtual Cortex Muscles very well trained, yet there are some titles that really should
never have made to be seen, such as is that of the one mentioned above the Universe crap.

For this I really look forward to the formation of a standardization of a commission were al 3D films must pass thru for the insurance that
they are done properly before hit Distribution, as well as forcing Distributing sources to Specify on their Titles if this were Acquired in 3D
or Conversion was applied in Post to get to 3D.

 

[Emanuel A.]

For those of you who want the context of the whole actual article and letter, here it is:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

Oh c'mon, that it is not so important...