Walter Murch on 3d. Let's chat.

[Emanuel A.]

I think he is the greatest film editor of all time.

Only partially ;-) agreed...

Has everyone forgotten the old bible?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0229424/

 

[Emanuel A.]

Absolutely, but an opinion expressed by one of the greatest film editors of all time (...)

What to call to Ruggero Mastroianni then? ;-)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0557870/

 

[Emanuel A.]

What would Thelma Schoonmaker say?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0774817/

 

[Emanuel A.]

Or the Coen Brothers? ;D

PS:

In the Blink of an Eye is simply one of my favorite technical books ever. I bet of Coens' too ;-) however, why to fully agree with Murch? Should we? Only 'cause he wrote an opinion article? (rethorical question) I guess not every directors who have worked with him did or do

Apart (under) a physiological POV, his point on the convergence/focus («600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before») is exactly what art means. To show to the audience(s) what has never presented before ;-) or it should be, unfortunately not always...

That is -- aside interesting points like «a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with», that final «alienating» argument (3/4 lines below the ref to the Brechtian trick if we exactly know what we're talking about when Brecht is recalled to ;-) can work in reverse mode instead, though LOL

 

[Peter Matthes]

I certainly don't think that 3D should be squashed, but keep this in mind.

Would any of these movies have been better in 3D?

Apocalypse Now
The Godfather I & II
The Deer Hunter
Lawrence of Arabia
Dr. Strangelove
Ordinary People
Jaws
Raging Bull
The Silence of the Lambs
Schindler's List
Rear Window
Good Fellas
Citizen Kane
E.T.
Blade Runner
The Shining
Raiders of the Lost Ark

Just to name a few.

My point is ...

You don't need shit to fly out at you in order to feel immersed in a movie.

That has historically been achieved with beautifully written stories, well composed shots and excellent acting performances.

Let's just make damn sure that it's those aspects of film-making that always take the front seat.

:emote_popcorn:

 

[David Battistella]

Peter,

That list includes many of my favorite films. You make a good point. We go to the movies to "feel", laugh, cry, with the actors to share a human experience. This should be the goal of any film. If the 3D can add to this experience of human emotion while pulling us further into the story, then I am all for it as well.

Charts and graphs about the experience do not make me feel any more about a movie. The best thing I can say is that 3d films seem to take on a "dreamlike" quality. This for me seems more like a detached state of consciousness or reality, which I sometimes like when experiencing a film. I also like getting the feeling of being immersed in a great 2d film which calls for a diiferent level of consciousness.

3D is "new" again and it makes sense thatHollywood makes this push now to keep a footholdin it's business (which is really what this is about) CinemaScope was invented to differentiate the cinema experience from TV.

3d is "back" because the kids need something other than vim or YouTube in HD. It's a sales tool more than a filmmakers tool, but the artists (hopefully) will take it to another dimension.

I think Mr. Murch speaks as an artist who has a history if immersion in his tools, has not stuck to "one way", is a teacher author and thinker. 3D's success this time will depend on whether artists can elevate and better understand the tool or the "parlor trick". If someone dos with 3D what George Lucas did with green and blue screen, then we will be into a new realm.

David

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

 

[John Burnley]

Let the games begin!

From my POV Murch is overanalyzing. I found 3D working for me during AVATAR and was glad it was created in that medium. But, the next film I saw in a theatre was SHUTTER ISLAND and I was glad it was made in good old 2D.

For me, 3D can work very well for certain stories but if all movies - OR even most movies - were made in this medium, it would DRIVE ME NUTS.

 

[John Burnley]

Peter,

The best thing I can say is that 3d films seem to take on a "dreamlike" quality. This for me seems more like a detached state of consciousness or reality, which I sometimes like when experiencing a film. I also like getting the feeling of being immersed in a great 2d film which calls for a diiferent level of consciousness.

David

EXACTLY!

 

[Roberto B]

What to call to Ruggero Mastroianni then? ;-)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0557870/

ya.. fellini's roma.. satyricon.. casanova.. prova d'orchestra.. city of women.. ginger and fred.. amarcord.. visconti's Lo straniero.. death in venice.. cavani's la pelle.. 170 movies against murch's 23.. ehehehehe

 

[Eric Lange]

"Plastigrams" that's awsome...

Murch just thinks cinematic 3d is a bunch of crap. He’s entitled to his opinion but that will not change anything. My old man had Oscar nominations and academy awards, (he died a few years ago), was a master of his craft but it didn’t stop him from being an old curmudgeon and saying this and that is a bunch of gimmicky crap and why don’t people make movies based on a good story anymore (he worked on 2001 and the first three Star Wars). Facts are being applied after an opinion has already been formed. Enough with the sacred cows already ( I think). Murch is not the one who is solving the technical problems, but rather just throws up his hands and says this is “impossible” and it will never change. I say to the contrary, but it entirely depends if the will is there to make these kinds of changes.

For example, we have developed some technologies that are indeed very capable of re-sampling stereoscopic content into much more comfortable ranges of parallax. It is able to do this without flattening fine 3d texture and detail. [Was basically discovered as an accidental by-product of creating a new type of VR stereoscopic model that is extremely efficient at representing extremely complex scenes in an absolutely lifelike way.] So there ARE ways to minimize this whole view accommodation vs. convergence issue while keeping the stereo content very engaging (something that is not possible via conventional techniques). It works very well for real time data sets.[We have granted patents for this] I would also suspect that there are other methods that might be able to achieve a similar effect or result aswell.

So big deal?

If the process was introduced in its current form it would be possible to re-sample a live action movie; however it would probably take about ¼ to 1/3rd of the resources that it currently takes to dimensionalize a 2d movie. With increased automation the amount of time could be significantly cut, but it is still a very expensive additional process to add to the mix just to make it more comfortable.

This is not something that I have taken very seriously because I don’t believe that the film companies are going to pay the extra money just to make it more comfortable. If the audiences get fed up with seeing 3d movies then the film makers/producers production companies will just make 2d movies; it does not make any difference to the bottom line, and they just ride this current 3d wave. Disney is a bit different as they sort of have this religious mandate to do S-3d.

Unfortunately and fortunately the main advances for S-3d technology are going to be with video games and Broadcast (as some have allready mentioned (like IBLOOM).

There are technical solutions that can significantly improve viewer comfort and the whole convergence vs. view accommodation thing, it’s more of a question whether media producers can be bothered to implement such techniques or whether they see it as important to making money or not. I.e. will such techniques be viewed as an unnecessarily expense, and who cares if one in twelve people don’t go to see S-3d because it happens to hurt them?

I don’t see it as an isnoluble technical problem, far from it; I see it more as a problem of how the film industry currently tends to work, and weather the industry “feels” that it should be more responsible with its stereoscopic content...


Cheers,

Eric

 

[John Fairstein]

3D commission

3D commission

Ketch - Yes we need such a commission. I hope the ASC can set something up like what you suggest.

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.

 

[John Fairstein]

Great films in 3D

Great films in 3D

Peter - Certainly any of the great films you list would be better had they been shot in 3D, simply because we have two eyes and normally see in stereo 3D. Just think of stereo 3D renditions of going up river in Apocalypse Now, the sweeping desert scenes in Lawrence of Arabia, the restaurant scene in the Godfather, Slim Pickens riding the bomb in Dr. Strangelove, and so on.

I completely agree with your statement, "...beautifully written stories, well composed shots and excellent acting performances." I might change it to read, "...beautifully written stories, well composed stereo 3D shots and excellent acting performances." And you are also right on -- there is no need to have gimmicky scenes with objects flying out of the screen.

I certainly don't think that 3D should be squashed, but keep this in mind.

Would any of these movies have been better in 3D?

Apocalypse Now
The Godfather I & II
The Deer Hunter
Lawrence of Arabia
Dr. Strangelove
Ordinary People
Jaws
Raging Bull
The Silence of the Lambs
Schindler's List
Rear Window
Good Fellas
Citizen Kane
E.T.
Blade Runner
The Shining
Raiders of the Lost Ark

Just to name a few.

My point is ...

You don't need shit to fly out at you in order to feel immersed in a movie.

That has historically been achieved with beautifully written stories, well composed shots and excellent acting performances.

Let's just make damn sure that it's those aspects of film-making that always take the front seat.

:emote_popcorn:

 

[John Fairstein]

3D for the stage

3D for the stage

Also note that these great playwrights all wrote for 3D: the theatrical stage.

William Shakespeare
Edward Albee
Tom Stoppard
Eugene Ionesco
Samuel Beckett
Christopher Durang
Anton Chekhov
Henrik Ibsen
Bertholt Brecht
Harold Pinter
Tennessee Williams
David Mamet
Eugene O'Neill
Neil Simon
Christopher Marlowe
Noel Coward
Paula Vogel
Lillian Helman
Thornton Wilder
Oscar Wilde
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Peter Matthes]

If the 3D can add to this experience of human emotion while pulling us further into the story, then I am all for it.

I completely agree.

Certainly any of the great films you list would be better had they been shot in 3D

I completely, and respectfully, disagree.

Should all photography be holography because that's what we see with our eyes?

Most of us see in color. Should nothing ever be shot in black and white?

Do you agree with Ted Turner that all the old black and white movies should be colorized?

Just because you have a whole spice rack, and the human tongue can taste them all, doesn't mean you need to put them all in your dish.

Simply because you have a box of 120 crayons, doesn't mean you need to use them all in the drawing.

There can often be beauty in simplicity and minimalism.

There is a place for a Jackson Pollock ...

... and a place for a simple Japanese line drawing.

 

[IAN SUN]

I think Blade Runner would have been even more awesome in S3D.

 

[M Most]

I think Blade Runner would have been even more awesome in S3D.

I don't.

You're talking about one of the most meticulously and magnificently photographed pictures of all time, a picture in which a great cinematographer at the top of his craft (Jordan Cronenweth) worked with a visionary director (Ridley Scott) and used the combined power of composition, bold lighting, diffusion, and special effects (smoke, rain) to an unprecedented degree to craft a world that was all at once familiar, depressing, and frightening. The nuances of the storytelling that were so skillfully enhanced by the visuals created a work of art that has not only survived the test of time, but has actually had its reputation enhanced by the passage of time. To convert it to a 3D format would not only be nearly impossible to do well (due to the constant presence of smoke and atmosphere), but would, to me, diminish an already near perfect artistic statement.

Great works of art don't require gimmicks to move the viewer either physically or emotionally.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Mike, why are you assuming that Blade Runner would need to be converted? I thought the question posed had to do with whether the picture might have been enhanced if it was SHOT in 3D? BLADE RUNNER might be epic in 3D, I think. Who's to say?

 

[Clyde DeSouza]

The article linked to on page 4 of this thread was written by me.

...getting back to whether any of the great films mentioned a few posts back would have been "enhanced" had they been made in 3D... I'd say there needs to be a fundamental evaluation made on this question from strictly a non technical and non cinematographic point of view, to arrive at a fair answer.

A person making such a decision should wear both a Cinematographer's AND a Director's hat and then evaluate what 3D could bring to such movies (non converted, but with original binocular capture).

Lawrence of Arabia ... Yes the undulation of the Sand dunes could show more of the desert harshness. In recent times ardent Golfers when watching 3D coverage of golfing events were seen to be more emotionally engrossed and excited to be able to see the topography of the Greens undulate in 3D. They have even been known to expressly state this.

Silence of the Lambs:.. What's the "psychological impact of a 3D scene?" Is it worth investigating?

Schindlers List: ...from the same article above, Can 3D replicate the feeling of claustrophobia, or of solitary confinement?

The common mistake we make in comparing true Stereoscopic 3D capture over and over again to things such as B/W versus Colorized, or Mono v/s Stereo sound etc.. or even 2d to 3D converted movies etc, is that these are done "after the fact".

A good Stereoscopic 3D movie does not need to be added on, it should be *used* to enhance the feeling or realism (or fantasy) in a movie. Tron, imho, uses this well and challenges many previously held notions of how to do good 3D,
Fine Detailing is what Stereoscopic 3D brings out in a movie, be it skin texture, soil on an alien planet, the cracks in a sidewalk or alleyway...

realize that this level of detailing is not possible in 2D to 3D conversions.
Regardless of whether we "notice" this detailing as a story is unfolding or not, just as in real life... our peripheral/subconscious is re-assured when these details are present in a scene.

This is what Stereoscopic 3D is *capable* of doing for visual storytelling, but unfortunately thus far is being underutilized by get rich quick schemes by Studios and movie makers who are jaded by years of 2D experience and thinking.

Regards
Clyde

 

[Eric Lange]

The article linked to on page 4 of this thread was written by me.

...getting back to whether any of the great films mentioned a few posts back would have been "enhanced" had they been made in 3D... I'd say there needs to be a fundamental evaluation made on this question from strictly a non technical and non cinematographic point of view, to arrive at a fair answer.

A person making such a decision should wear both a Cinematographer's AND a Director's hat and then evaluate what 3D could bring to such movies (non converted, but with original binocular capture).

Lawrence of Arabia ... Yes the undulation of the Sand dunes could show more of the desert harshness. In recent times ardent Golfers when watching 3D coverage of golfing events were seen to be more emotionally engrossed and excited to be able to see the topography of the Greens undulate in 3D. They have even been known to expressly state this.

Silence of the Lambs:.. What's the "psychological impact of a 3D scene?" Is it worth investigating?

Schindlers List: ...from the same article above, Can 3D replicate the feeling of claustrophobia, or of solitary confinement?

The common mistake we make in comparing true Stereoscopic 3D capture over and over again to things such as B/W versus Colorized, or Mono v/s Stereo sound etc.. or even 2d to 3D converted movies etc, is that these are done "after the fact".

A good Stereoscopic 3D movie does not need to be added on, it should be *used* to enhance the feeling or realism (or fantasy) in a movie. Tron, imho, uses this well and challenges many previously held notions of how to do good 3D,
Fine Detailing is what Stereoscopic 3D brings out in a movie, be it skin texture, soil on an alien planet, the cracks in a sidewalk or alleyway...

realize that this level of detailing is not possible in 2D to 3D conversions.
Regardless of whether we "notice" this detailing as a story is unfolding or not, just as in real life... our peripheral/subconscious is re-assured when these details are present in a scene.

This is what Stereoscopic 3D is *capable* of doing for visual storytelling, but unfortunately thus far is being underutilized by get rich quick schemes by Studios and movie makers who are jaded by years of 2D experience and thinking.

Regards
Clyde

Clyde, after reading your interesting article;

Well you could say that cinematic S-3d is a gimmick that’s here to stay. For kids movies and “sensational” type movies it can certainly create an enhanced experience. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere (don’t you think?). The fact that S3d can be used to amplify truly horrific subject matter I don’t feel is a good thing, a 2d image on a 2d screen is a good psychological safety barrier (I think). As filmmakers were not going out of our way to warp people’s minds, video games already do a good job of that already, and unfortunately S-3d is going to make that even more of a slippery slope.

On a separate note, if you really care about how the image looks, you are not going to want to trash your imagery on a projection system that is dark and has significant crosstalk. Initially you think wow Blade Runner would have been cool in 3d, but then you play through your mind’s eye in your head and think, hmmm maybe not (maybe about three shots I can think of that would have been cool in 3d, and the rest would just be a compromised waste). Maybe with systems like they have in Europe that use LCD shutter glasses you can get a brighter image with less cross talk so that trashing of good imagery is minimized.

I think what you write about, the unambiguous perception of space and fine texture will be wonderful for the travel documentary and NatGeo/History channel type subjects and format; and as you say the correct perception of space for sports events will be really cool too.

Ta

Eric


P.S. This link points to an interview with Ridley about making two alien prequels in 3d, and also he is asked if he would dimensionalize any of his previous movies.

http://collider.com/ridley-scott-confirms-alien-prequel-will-be-shot-in-3d/22944/

I’m sure a lot of you have seen this story before...

I think the genre lends itself very well to dimly projected imagery with cross talk and ghosting and muted color!

You just know that they are going to make the alien’s mouth within a mouth come out and drip slime three inches from your face with that shit eating grin and then bite your head off.