Walter Murch on 3d. Let's chat.

[Karel Bata]

Glad you liked the post Eric. Yes, London. You here too? Off to BVE by any chance?

Looking forward to more debate.


BTW here's something about dynamic convergence across edits, relating to the prob some have identified here (and I think Murch is whinging on about - hard to tell) with cutting between shots that have different depths and points of interest, from Bernard Mendiburu's book "3D Movie Making" Go to page 154 on Active Depth Cuts. Again, problem 'solved'.

Anyone working in 3D should buy this book. Clearly neither Roger Ebert nor Walter Murch have.

 

[fALk Gärtner]

Maybe I can share my very own view on 3D from a consumer and from a conversion perspective.
My first 3D movie experience was in 1993 in some Disney Land cinema seeing a 3D (converted?) version of Hitchkocks "Birds" or a short version of it - I loved the birds flapping in front of me and all the effects - it kind of stuck to me since that day - I always thought one day we are in a room and the movie is all around you.

Then I tried some IMAX productions in 2002 or such - you know the "intro" things they made - the 3D rollercoaster ride or whatever it was - the experience was horrible.
I tried again with "Creatures of the Deep Sea" - made by James Cameroon - this day I lost every tiny bit for Mr. Cameroon as a director for once and all - that was about the worst documentary someone can make - and the 3D effects was equally horrible - even so this genre should have been extremely kind to 3d (floating stuff in high contrast setting) - it just didn´t work very well - headache inducing stuff - might also have been the film itself.

Then came Avatar - I gave it a go - clean slate and everything - I wanted to like it - I wanted 3D to succeed since that Disney Land in the 90s.
The film was horrible again - the story sucked beyond believe and my now VFX trained eyes saw so many shortcoming in the backgrounds that I was ripped out of the already not so nice story too often - at least I didn´t get headaches and some of the "effects" (like the floating fluffy bits) where nice. But it didn´t convince me and wrote 3D off for me personally.

Then I got a call to work on a 3D conversion for IMAX - bigger film with young witches and magicians - adaptation from a book of an english author *cough* - though the conversion was never finished I got to stare at 3d shots for two weeks every day - Pixel peeking and playing around with how it all works - I have to say I started to love the art side of it - you know how you can use it as a tool to actually make better films. I changed into the "pro 3D" camp and was looking forward to TRON - cause no subject matter would be better suited to a 3D look then TRON.

I went last weekend. It was such a let down its hard to describe. No technically it was great. The FX was amazing. The story sucked but not as bad as Avatar - but the 3D?!?! WTF. I just forgot that I was watching 3D after about 15 minutes into the TRON side world (which was 3D). I think it was just playing safe with the 3d effect - but I could have watched the movie in 2D and would have had the exact same experience - all that money and talent going into making it 3D - what a freaking waste. I am trying to work it out and the more I think about it the more I think about the Murch article - it just doesn´t work - it never will - if it would work then we would have had 3D films since the 50s. The amount of time and energy spend on making these films (especially on the VFX side) stands in no correlation to the effect they achieve. I give it this year and then the idea will fade in the background again - latest if one of the big studios goes bankrupt over the VFX of one of their blockbusters.
I am back to go fully 2D until holography comes out - for my own ideas as well as for me as a cinema goer - I am having an educated guess that this will be a trend this year - I would like to be proofed wrong - I am giving it one more shot with the new Coppola movie that is half in 3D - if he can´t convince me then I am out forever.

 

[Eric Lange]

Glad you liked the post Eric. Yes, London. You here too? Off to BVE by any chance?

Looking forward to more debate.


BTW here's something about dynamic convergence across edits, relating to the prob some have identified here (and I think Murch is whinging on about - hard to tell) with cutting between shots that have different depths and points of interest, from Bernard Mendiburu's book "3D Movie Making" Go to page 154 on Active Depth Cuts. Again, problem 'solved'.

Anyone working in 3D should buy this book. Clearly neither Roger Ebert nor Walter Murch have.

Wow, thanks a billion for your 2p!!!

Sorry this is freaking long…

I grew up just on the edge of London, at the age of 20 went to the sates on a couple of research fellowships, DC and LA, then invited to do a Ph.D. at Cambridge University, lived in the bleak fens for the better part of a decade, lived in France for a while and then the past six years living in New Mexico; good horse country, nice sunny weather, and a nice place for atomic weapons development. I occasionally get back to the UK.

There’s enough material inthe report for 50 threads on this Forum.

I was really happy that their analysts basically ticked all the same boxes and came up with the same conclusions we/I have, including various projections and time frames. The risks are apparent and the realities good and bad are weighed up in a very “balanced” way. I would say their analysis is a little more realistic than as the politicians would say that “we are cautiously optimistic”.

In the report they kept stressing the need for high quality content; but I felt there were a few false correlates concerning what is meant by a “good 3d movie”. I.e. it seems that the good 3d movies were also very popular as 2d “good movies” (I’m not getting into technique vs intent vs final delivery; just story themes and basic execution).


Their basic thrust and warning is Don’t over sell 3d, as this will kill everything (I agree with this).


Quote “…

So we can say unequivocally that substantial progress has been made [in the past year]. Many people were skeptical about 3d. Now, many people are over-excited by it. The danger is that industry players risk killing a golden goose by overselling and, in some cases, overpricing the 3D experience- and by providing too much mediocre content that doesn’t do justice to the technology.”

[Just as an aside I find it funny about people bitching about over priced 3d ticket prices; You pay like $14 for pop corn and a bloody drink!!! Why aren’t people railing about the profit margin on stale pop corn?].

The points I found interesting were more from the broadcast sector.
Quote”


“IS ENOUGH 3d CONTENT AVAILABLE?

No Doubt the biggest challenge for 3D TV is the lack of content, and this is likely to persist for a number of years.

Whether television will opt for event-driven 3D-on-demand, or when sufficient 3D inventory will become available to sustain a channel (as in traditional linear programming) remains unresolved. Certainly, now and in the immediate future, the availability of 3D content is not sufficient to support 24/7 programming, about 3000 hours of programming or 500 films are needed to support a dedicated channel, and currently only about 200 hours and 30 films are available.”

I think there is a lot of room for quasi documentary formats where the experience of “being there”, is greatly enhanced. I think a lot of tv shows that have “jumped the shark” already will definitely be coming out with a few 3d episodes. I think bear Grills has “jumped the shark” a long time ago but a 3d Bear Grills episode in the Borneo jungle etc. with the bugs sweat and intractable vegetation would be a lot of fun in 3d as it really puts you there. So basically shows that have zero plot line or story but have a very strong experiential component (that you can’t normally access will be great for 3d programming).

The other thing that was interesting is that the report says that there is still a huge bandwidth deficit for s-3d, and that seems to be projected some time into the future. I thought the delivery/bandwidth issue had some kind of road map for getting the job done. The report was still saying that “new compression technologies remains critical for resolving economical and capacity constraint problems.” So I am definitely going to blow the dust off some old algorithms we were working with given that our basic data sets are 400x more efficient at being rendered for the same complexity as conventional data sets. Maybe we munge together a new type of s-3d “engine” to address that issue. Standard compression artifacts have the capability to substantially degrade or destroy half decent s-3d.

It was also really interesting that they report that executives from TV, and gaming still seem skeptical about viable business models for s-3d. This is a very complex situation, but from the report they seem to indicate the zenith for all these s-3d related offerings to be about 2015, and then things might decline somewhat after that. I have to admit that is my vibe unless much better technological solutions are brought to bear. [minimally our technologies can extract very clean models from s-3d data sources such as movies that at least could go together to make a better s-3d game of the movie, but that’s a small potato.]. I think there really needs to be much more cooperative and parallel development between movie productions and games development. The game is always developed rather independently (mostly later) and consequently usually “sucks”. I think this would help tip the s-3d market by 1 or 2 percent (If this was aggressively pursued).

After reading the document; I will knock on Discovery’s door at the appropriate moment, and I need to buy a plane ticket and go to Korea; damn eight years ago we didn’t file patents there..; can’t predict everything….

So it’s pretty clear given the massive investment on many fronts s-3d is here to stay for a while, but I think it’s still looking for the “killer App” to have it NOT tail off and start to recede about seven years from now.

Thanks for the Mendiburu ref. BTW
Bernard is super smart super super nice guy. Everyone should buy his book, just for the hell of it.

The technical advice offered on page 154 is common sense. However Murch is going on about seemingly intractable psychovisual problems. We have solutions for that but may take a few years to gain acceptance of new techniques. Right now folks working on S-3d are just struggling to get the basics right. There is sooooooooooooooo much more that can be done. The computer horse power is almost commonly there but six years from now, definitely.

Karel thanks so much for really interesting FACTS and analysis.

Everybody should read that report, it’s the most un-hyped balanced/objective overview I have seen in a long time!


here's the link again:

www.scribd.com/full/47522536?access_key=key-2hgw7tyk4wggv30hc98p


Cheers,

Eric

 

[Eric Lange]

Maybe I can share my very own view on 3D from a consumer and from a conversion perspective.
My first 3D movie experience was in 1993 in some Disney Land cinema seeing a 3D (converted?) version of Hitchkocks "Birds" or a short version of it - I loved the birds flapping in front of me and all the effects - it kind of stuck to me since that day - I always thought one day we are in a room and the movie is all around you.

Then I tried some IMAX productions in 2002 or such - you know the "intro" things they made - the 3D rollercoaster ride or whatever it was - the experience was horrible.
I tried again with "Creatures of the Deep Sea" - made by James Cameroon - this day I lost every tiny bit for Mr. Cameroon as a director for once and all - that was about the worst documentary someone can make - and the 3D effects was equally horrible - even so this genre should have been extremely kind to 3d (floating stuff in high contrast setting) - it just didn´t work very well - headache inducing stuff - might also have been the film itself.

Then came Avatar - I gave it a go - clean slate and everything - I wanted to like it - I wanted 3D to succeed since that Disney Land in the 90s.
The film was horrible again - the story sucked beyond believe and my now VFX trained eyes saw so many shortcoming in the backgrounds that I was ripped out of the already not so nice story too often - at least I didn´t get headaches and some of the "effects" (like the floating fluffy bits) where nice. But it didn´t convince me and wrote 3D off for me personally.

Then I got a call to work on a 3D conversion for IMAX - bigger film with young witches and magicians - adaptation from a book of an english author *cough* - though the conversion was never finished I got to stare at 3d shots for two weeks every day - Pixel peeking and playing around with how it all works - I have to say I started to love the art side of it - you know how you can use it as a tool to actually make better films. I changed into the "pro 3D" camp and was looking forward to TRON - cause no subject matter would be better suited to a 3D look then TRON.

I went last weekend. It was such a let down its hard to describe. No technically it was great. The FX was amazing. The story sucked but not as bad as Avatar - but the 3D?!?! WTF. I just forgot that I was watching 3D after about 15 minutes into the TRON side world (which was 3D). I think it was just playing safe with the 3d effect - but I could have watched the movie in 2D and would have had the exact same experience - all that money and talent going into making it 3D - what a freaking waste. I am trying to work it out and the more I think about it the more I think about the Murch article - it just doesn´t work - it never will - if it would work then we would have had 3D films since the 50s. The amount of time and energy spend on making these films (especially on the VFX side) stands in no correlation to the effect they achieve. I give it this year and then the idea will fade in the background again - latest if one of the big studios goes bankrupt over the VFX of one of their blockbusters.
I am back to go fully 2D until holography comes out - for my own ideas as well as for me as a cinema goer - I am having an educated guess that this will be a trend this year - I would like to be proofed wrong - I am giving it one more shot with the new Coppola movie that is half in 3D - if he can´t convince me then I am out forever.

FALK, that’s an awesome post,(all these awesome posts!) really brave and honest. (My posts are long winded rubbish).

I’ve had very similar experiences that you describe. In 2001/2001 I had to do the rounds to see all the 3d movies and conferences in one day. Man, at the end of the day I was carrying my eyeballs in a freaking pint glass, clutching my head on the tube ride back home. Yes, and one of them was an early Cameron doco; “ouch”. The Philip Glass “Monsters of Grace” nearly killed me too. I had been working with stereo on a daily basis for ten years already.

Avatar is also a bit of a sacred cow, I think people are afraid to say anything against it just in case they get hired on a Cameron production..you get called onto the carpet; people are expected to be vaguely “on-message” on a production especially if you are hired for the first time. Story, hmmm… well Cameron certainly knows and understands his market very very well, and he has fun doing it.

Again the basic problem, exactly as you describe (for example with TRON etc.); safe and comfortable = boring 3d; more dramatic 3d = pain. We absolutely have a technical solution for this but, we need to figure out (as cheaply as possible) if this is viable financially for re-rendering an entire 3d movie (shot in proper stereo); There are a zillion frames that have to be processed and there is some hand work/editing that is required. If you are really interested PM me and I can dig up a rather ponderous patent documents of ours that contains some of the techniques. I’m not here to sell or push stuff, but more here to learn, learn what people think and maybe make some new friends in this area too.

Ta,

Eric

 

[Karel Bata]

Initially Vince Pace was the stereographer on Tron Legacy, but Claudio Miranda, the DP decided he could do a better job:

"“I have what might be a weird thought about stereography,” Miranda continues, “but I keep thinking that this should be the DP’s thing. It’s about the staging, and when working in 3D, the DP ought to have a lot to say about staging. It’s a natural progression for cinematographers, so defaulting to a stereographer and expecting that person to make it into a work of genius seems like a bad thing. If you’re a cinematographer, you should have an opinion about where people sit and where the screen plane ends. Most folks don’t see it that way yet, though.”"

HDVideoPro

Hence the result...

Eric, nice post. Keep it coming.

Just got in from doing some low grade 3D tests around Camden Market. :crazy: This is how I now spend my weekends! The girlfriend is very patient. :emote_hippie:

 

[Eric Lange]

Initially Vince Pace was the stereographer on Tron Legacy, but Claudio Miranda, the DP decided he could do a better job:

"“I have what might be a weird thought about stereography,” Miranda continues, “but I keep thinking that this should be the DP’s thing. It’s about the staging, and when working in 3D, the DP ought to have a lot to say about staging. It’s a natural progression for cinematographers, so defaulting to a stereographer and expecting that person to make it into a work of genius seems like a bad thing. If you’re a cinematographer, you should have an opinion about where people sit and where the screen plane ends. Most folks don’t see it that way yet, though.”"

HDVideoPro

Hence the result...

Eric, nice post. Keep it coming.

Just got in from doing some low grade 3D tests around Camden Market. :crazy: This is how I now spend my weekends! The girlfriend is very patient. :emote_hippie:

That’s so funny!

Twenty years ago every girlfriend I ever had, HAD to make the pilgrimage to Camden Market to get the best deals on the coolest gear ( I shop well for a "bloke"). I’m sure it’s very up-scale these days.

What a perfect subject, interesting colors and textures, interesting people milling about, a useful claustrophobia that naturally brings about nicely controlled backgrounds, and with any luck, with a typically English evenly overcast sky you are not going to get any of those pesky clouds in the shot that draw attention to a larger range of depth.

Nice one! (should get some nice results); what do you like to shoot with?

Is Camden Market the compromise with the GF (or is that your preferred "location")?

Really interesting take on stereographer vs. DP vs director, I have to read that link, maybe I go to the movies while the Super Bowl is going on!

Wow…

 

[Eric Lange]

Initially Vince Pace was the stereographer on Tron Legacy, but Claudio Miranda, the DP decided he could do a better job:

"“I have what might be a weird thought about stereography,” Miranda continues, “but I keep thinking that this should be the DP’s thing. It’s about the staging, and when working in 3D, the DP ought to have a lot to say about staging. It’s a natural progression for cinematographers, so defaulting to a stereographer and expecting that person to make it into a work of genius seems like a bad thing. If you’re a cinematographer, you should have an opinion about where people sit and where the screen plane ends. Most folks don’t see it that way yet, though.”"

HDVideoPro

Hence the result...

Eric, nice post. Keep it coming.

Just got in from doing some low grade 3D tests around Camden Market. :crazy: This is how I now spend my weekends! The girlfriend is very patient. :emote_hippie:

From the Tron link;

Very nice and concise description of a lot of the main technical elements, very nice read indeed, it painted a very “nice” picture of the production itself (at least from a technical point of view).


Thanks for that.

I haven’t yet had the opportunity to see Tron yet (boo hiss.. my bad…), obviously a must see, given that opinion is so divided on the subject. From reading the article the approach sounds very good, be interesting to take it in.

At the end of the article it talks about the following

“At press time, Miranda expects to wrap the DI on TRON: Legacy with a couple of lengthy sessions, which he’ll work into his schedule while prepping another 3D feature, director Ang Lee’s adaptation of the popular novel Life of Pi.”

I haven’t read the book but a good synopsis is offered on Wikki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Pi


Oh my God!

That should work superbly in 3d, but bring your barf bag to the cinema. I remember years ago when people walked out of Peter Greenaways “The Cook the Theif, his Wife and her Lover” in total disbelief and disgust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cook,_the_Thief,_His_Wife_&_Her_Lover

Well there you go, you have it all. Mind-bending mysticism, coupled with Ang Lee’s eye and sensibilities with potentially absolutely disgusting and disturbing scenes of canabalism and animals eating eachother stranded on a small life boat 200 days + a drift IN GLORIOUS 3D! Somehow, I just don’t get the idea that this can be “tastefully” done. It does however offer a perfect opportunity, given cramp spaces and easily controlled back grounds to maximize 3d texture; Yuk! Either it’s going to be s-3d kitsch or it’s going to be the most mind bending movie ever made or both (excluding Naked Lunch and Eraser Head); very surreal and disgusting probably.[You can just imagine the high concept pitch made to the studio exec’s, "well its sort of, Madagascar, meets Slumdog millionaire, meets silence of the lambs meets Ghandi, meets Animal Farm….(and so on)...all in Disney 3D!].

I’m sure this is a reflection of my astounding ignorance.

Has anybody read the book? maybe I find it but bring a bucket to throw up in while I read it. Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick...?

Just when you think you can’t push stuff to the max any further.

Bloody hell….

[I think the thematic issues are going to be far more problematic than the technical ones!]




PS.

If it’s not a joke, I predict that it will follow a similar path as 2001 a Space Odyssey. It will be a box office flop, will be totally panned by the critics, and then some years later it will be heralded as the greatest movie ever made.

But you can just imagine the trailer for the movie. They’ll show the boy fishing to feed the Tiger in the other end of the life boat (how cute), and they’ll play “Forest Gump” type sweet insipid music, they’ll have catch lines like “Seeing is believing, believing IS seeing” quotes like “one of the most spiritually affirming movies of the year…”, the studio execs demanding that the trailers are cut as if they are some sort of magical realism feel good movie of the year. Then the punters go and see it, and people actually come running out of the cinema screaming and throwing up in the lobby. I don’t know how they are going to prevent people from feeling sea sick/motion sick (at the very least)? This has to be a joke… right????

 

[IAN SUN]

:zombie_smiley: Funny stuff Eric :rofl:

 

[Karel Bata]

A bit stream-of-consciousness I think Eric. Could've done with an edit! :smash:

I think there's two other things not yet really talked about that could have a big effect on the future of 3D.

First, there's this thing of double vison. Here's my graphic again: How We See The World A simplification of the perceptual process I know, but it makes the point that we see double vision all the time. Yet we completely blank it out unless we consciously focus on it. Currently we go to great lengths in 3D production to try to minimise this, and to allow audiences fuse as much as is possible.

But I do wonder if eventually the widespread usage with 3D, and the consequent familiarity with double images (often initially with bad 3D) will open up a new way of viewing it, of accepting stuff we now find a bit painful to watch, and learning to blank it out. A bit like our acceptance of hand-held shaki-cam, or fast cutting.

Secondly there's the ever increasing size of TVs in the home. Will they reach a limit? How will that impact 3D viewing? Most 3D TV broadcasts on a big screen up close will be uncomfortable.

I was at conference discussion about the future of 3D and at one point was watching the proceedings from another room on a huge flat screen, and I thought "That's the future! Imax in the home." I'm not kidding. This isn't just around the corner, but eventually it has to come.

And the content is already there - Imax movies, in 3D, in your home. So the camera of the future will be a 100k sensor (a RED of course) and the monitor will have a little 16:9 frame line in the middle in which to keep the action for the benefit of the old fuddy-duddies who still have a 16:9 TV set. :laugh:

The significance for 3D is that many of the current issues will disappear. Today we view movies through a picture frame hung on the wall. This frame creates huge problems for 3D. Once that frame is gone, like in an Imax theatre, it becomes a much more immersive experience. What happens off to the sides won't really be part of the action, but will add to that sense of actually being there.

 

[Eric Lange]

Ohhh come on,…. were not presenting a formal paper here, it’s Ok to have a bit of fun even if it is a puerile diatribe/stream of consciousness.




The Ang Lee life of Pi is absolutely central to the Murch argument and a substantial number of threads since the inception of this forum.

Practically from the first thread of the “RED 3d forum” and before, the basic question has been posed, can you make cinematic “Art” in s-3d? For some this is the Holy Grail of S-3d and is something that has been debated for years now (even here).

This directly calls into question what Murch and other editors, and cinematographers have been complaining about with s-3d techniques. What they are saying is that S-3d is technicaly very limiting and un-artful and comes with a bag of inherent problems that create unwanted deleterious artifacts when finally presented.

In the other camp a lot of people are saying that s-3d has the capability to re-present to the eyes and brain what it would naturally see. The question here, is that artful (in a “high” cinematic sense)?

That basic question goes to the absolute core of photography itself. Fundamentally (I believe) that when you collapse a dimension i.e. capture or render (in an artistic sense) a 3d reality into a 2d representation then automatically you bring about a certain level of abstraction (especially if you have a good eye for composition). This collapsed dimension allows one to create interesting ambiguities, and further with cinematic tools and techniques bring about a set of imagery that is inherently much more symbolic in nature. Form, space, tone and texture have been reduced to a highly filtered intent to tell an amazing visual story. This is where for many film makers and photographers where the art comes from. There is an amazing range of tools and techniques to bring about this artful mode of visual communication.

In S-3d the opposite is true, because it is an explicit 3d representation and so automatically removes most of the artful devices that would be at a cinematographers disposal; and secondly the route to more abstract and symbolic imagery has in essence been partially blocked, or made far more difficult to get too by comparison. So I can really understand what these filmmakers are getting at, and in a sense they feel that this is a “gimmick” that they are forced to work with (in some cases) because of commercial pressure and demand.

My own opinion right now (but my mind may be changed later on) is that attempts at high cinematic art created with s-3d is perhaps a rather pretentious idea that seems more likely to create “kitsch” than “art”. A lot of people are drawn to this idea of s-3d art, but to me this reminds of teenagers when they first discover art, they think Salvador Dali is the greatest artist there ever was. When they get older then they might start to understand the merits of Rembrandt and Jackson Pollock in equal measure. I think this is how an older generation of cinematic artists view S-3d right now. Obviously new more artful s-3d technique will be developed but I think you have to go much further and harder to try create this, and in most cases attempts will fall into the kitsch Dali category rather than the Rembrandt to Pollock camp.

However there is one aspect of S-3d that really needs to be studied in great detail. And it’s this; a lot of people are saying that S-3d has a much higher emotional impact. It is often said that somehow having this more explicit 3d representation engenders a higher level of empathy and feeling for a character over 2d. Is there a difference between how we feel when someone is emoting through a 2d flat screen versus someone who is almost physically present? This is one of my main interests and question. Is there a basic human need for s-3d, emotionally, as it were OVER a compromised visual S-3d aesthetic? I think this is a very important question and will largely determine whether S-3d will become a ubiquitous technology that fulfils a basic human need (like the mobile phone) or whether it will persist as a sensational presentation device.

Even though I poke fun at the concept of the Ang Lee life of Pi, on the surface it appears as a total car crash of sensibilities; never the less it will probably be the most important S-3d movie ever made and will give definitive answers to a lot of these outstanding questions. I think Ang Lee is one the best directors that there has ever been, so this will be the definitive proof of concept for S-3d cinematic “Art”. In this case, Ang Lee has gone straight for the jugular, and I am a little disappointed that the subject matter is so harrowing and frankly inaccessible to most. I can guarantee that Life of Pi will be the most talked about movies of its year.

This is perhaps why I think frankly Disney and the broadcasters have the right idea when it comes to S-3d.


That’s my 2p.

Eric

 

[Karel Bata]

I think we're at a stage where 3D is locked into a mid-set of recreating reality as closely as possible. And critics are being unforgiving of any variation of this. I look forward to a time when that third dimension is manipulated in an artistic manner, and is not a slave to how we 'really' see the world. it's early days yet.

You could be right about Life of Pi, but Michel Ghondry let us down with Green Hornet, and the 3D is again by the same man who brought us Tron 2, so it will play safe.

I rather like this bit of abstract 3D: Stereoscopic Santa DON'T WATCH THIS IN 2D!

That emotionally immersive quality you talk about is going to be interesting - what would films like Hurt Locker have been like in 3D? More involving? Or completely alienating?

 

[Eric Lange]

A bit stream-of-consciousness I think Eric. Could've done with an edit! :smash:

I think there's two other things not yet really talked about that could have a big effect on the future of 3D.

First, there's this thing of double vison. Here's my graphic again: How We See The World A simplification of the perceptual process I know, but it makes the point that we see double vision all the time. Yet we completely blank it out unless we consciously focus on it. Currently we go to great lengths in 3D production to try to minimise this, and to allow audiences fuse as much as is possible.

But I do wonder if eventually the widespread usage with 3D, and the consequent familiarity with double images (often initially with bad 3D) will open up a new way of viewing it, of accepting stuff we now find a bit painful to watch, and learning to blank it out. A bit like our acceptance of hand-held shaki-cam, or fast cutting.

[/I].

Well I have worked with large and small screen stereo based applications for at least 22 years now, from VR to aerial photogrammetry to close range photogrammetry, high res dynamic and so on and so forth even in different spectra than just white light (for example x-rays).

It is true that for example photogrammetrists that work on stereo work stations of one sort or another over time, do become more adept at “digesting” S-3d data sources with much more challenging ranges of parallax. In the old days photogrammetric operators were selected on the basis of their stereo-acuity.

I find that I myself, am very stereo sensitive and can usually only tolerate smaller ranges of parallax so I am my own safe guinea pig to try stuff out on. However I am constantly testing people to see what they can resolve comfortably. So I am always going “can you see this..”, make adjustment “can you see this” a bit like an optometrist. So I test ranges of parallax, the ranges of simultaneous +ve and –ve parallax you can get away with, all kinds of transitions, different screen sizes, distances from the screen of different sizes and so on. Some times on individuals or set ups that might have 600 people plus.

I would really say try to never leave un-resolvable double images on screen; this really does cause pain. If it’s possible to blur out very substantially a double image, then in essence it’s no longer a stereo resolvable feature. The main problem is sharply focused un-resolvable stereo features where the break down between view accommodation and convergence becomes pretty extreme as well as the brains inability to simultaneously resolve such huge ranges of parallax.

I try very hard not to inflict psycho-visual torture on other people, this is one of the reasons I am fairly reluctant to go to cinematic stereo presentations simply because I know that it’s going to hurt. I think this is why I didn’t go to see TRON, but now, as I understand it has a very “tame” range of parallax so I’m going to go see it now thanks to what people have posted. Thank you for that!

 

[Karel Bata]

Interesting stuff. "I try very hard not to inflict psycho-visual torture on other people" That's good to hear!

But I wonder if you've misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't advocating inflicting torture. Far from it!

What I meant is that we're about to see a wealth of consumer 3D cameras (I've got a 3D app for my phone!) that will generate a lot of bad 3D which will end up on places like YouTube. A mix of three things will then happen:
1 - some people will just hate it and ignore 3D, or
3 - learn how to do it properly, or
2 - they'll learn to 'concentrate on the good bits, and ignore the bad bits.' To blank out the widely divergent stuff. We do that all the time, every day, though in a different way, but since we already do it...

This has it's precedents. Look at how technically bad many of the videos on YouTube are - yet millions watch them! Or TV news. How much do you see where the background is sharp, but the presenter is actually out of focus. A few years ago the broadcasters would never have let such footage through. Nowadays audiences don't even appear to notice. I think some kind of equivalent will happen with 3D.

 

[fALk Gärtner]

The thing when I worked on the conversion that made me go "wow this can truly work as a tool" was actually quite simple. There was a group of the young folks standing in a circle all just talking for quite a while. I moved convergence points and masks around and I could magically put some actors further in the background and get some more to the front -as such seperating different members of the group - of course that was a trick only a 3d conversion can give you (and why I think the last word on conversions isn´t spoken yet if 3d as a whole is here to stay - you can direct in post how the 3d is going to look - very hard to do nicely - but if done it might have a better effect), but probably could be repeated on set in one way or another.
Generally just using the depth cue for separation and guiding the eye ever so subtly without heavy DOF or other tricks (vignetting comes to mind) (heck most of the scenes had a deep DOF and that worked in my opinion in favor of 3d) is what speaks in favor - but DPs have to let go of a lot of traditional thinking. Using the 3d not as gimmick but also not to just to be on the safe side and just "blur out" the background.
Still debating on what made TRON so 2Dish for me after the first 15 minutes. I mean I watched it IMAX second biggest screen in Europe so it could not have been the screen size. As said its almost as the 3D effect disappeared. It only reappeared in the scrolling credits (which where floating in front of the screen)


PS:
Still the amount of work especially on the VFX side to make all this work - OMG really you all have no idea. Make half a pixel mistake and it doesn´t work. My inbox is full with work offers cause the VFX houses can´t find enough artists right now - its like 5-10 the amount of work to do VFX in s3D the traditional way and there seems no easy solution on the horizon.

 

[fALk Gärtner]

oh and by the way we are already beyond 3D -> 5D is where its at

http://www.mebucom.de/news/events/Bogner-zeigt-5D-Film-auf-ISPO-2011-1986

 

[Eric Lange]

Falk I know what you mean.

So I got see Tron on a 4k SONY projector on a smaller screen yeaterday, so illumination was pretty adequate.

You can see what I wrote about it on the other thread BUT, I am too, still scratching my head as to why 99% of the time the faces and figures in the key scenes were essentially flat cardboard cuts disposed variously in very mild 3d apparent space (in the “Grid World scenes). Throughout the whole movie I was going “show me 3d face…” “show me a 3d face..” …”come on …”, “come one already”, “This one is going to be 3d surely..”. So there were only two shots of about a second and a half that had vaguely rounded stereoscopic representation of a face. I don’t understand what happened either.

I think there may be several reasons (pure speculation) as to why the ranges of parallax were so very mild in most cases.

1. If you have bright electroluminescent lines and features everywhere, against a black background then this is the worst possible situation for ghosting and cross talk. I think this is why they have this stupid mist going everywhere to help cover this up. There has also been some talk about “ghost” busting algorithms. As I understand it the “ghost” busting algorithms don’t play well with stereo occlusions. So all of these factors would encourage one to use very meager ranges of parallax. A lot of the time to me, it looked more like 3d manga type comic (maybe that’s OK?).


2. I think Disney Obviously has a lot riding on S3d and its very much in their history and DNA. So they obviously pay attention to the fact that people have been complaining about headaches, eye strain, stereo-fatigue and so on. It may be that the senior priority was that it be comfortable, and under no circumstances should it exceed a certain range of parallax. I think it was very apparent that they took a hybrid approach, where they would amp up as much as possible the pseudo 3d sensation using standard 2d methods to achieve this. In this sense you might call this movie a 2 ½ D movie not a S-3D movie.


3. I don’t have the inside scoop on what really happened between Pace and Mirando; but I was seriously wondering whether Mirando can’t see stereo properly. 7% of the population don’t see stereo properly.


4. I think people are learning that you can only take comfortably about 25 minutes of deep stereo in one sitting without a break, so I think they might have been aware of this, and hence judiciously paid out, drop by drop of little bits of slightly deeper stereo until the final climactic scenes, where there was a little more depth (not a lot). It felt like a long movie but still had a couple of really amazing scenes. The new Scorsese 3d movie approach should be interesting so that the 3d is loaded into a shorter set so you can “punch” things up a bit, (as Scorsese is usually given to do); The adaptation of “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” should be spell binding, perfect Christmas release, I’m looking forward to it.


I think the other thing that’s really puzzling is that when you look at the credits there is cohort after cohort of compositors and 3d VFX crews/houses on Tron L. They must have spent Sooooooo much time and money on this, it’s hard to fathom that the whole 3d ish/2 ½ D look all came down to a dispute with Pace who left the production? Egos aside this is really unbelievable.




[I have to admit after watching Tron L coming out into the car park I was going “wow, look at this, everything is so 3D, those cars look amazing!" That’s the first time that has happened to me so I guess the Tron parallax was really restricted]

 

[Eric Lange]

oh and by the way we are already beyond 3D -> 5D is where its at

http://www.mebucom.de/news/events/Bogner-zeigt-5D-Film-auf-ISPO-2011-1986

That’s so funny! I really laughed my arse off; but you know I love the eccentric passion that he has for what he does; I like that a lot, great spirit.

“Für die 360-Grad-5D-Filmpräsentation entwarf Bogner ein eigenes Filmtheater – kreisrund, und mit 14 Projektoren versehen. „Das ist meines Wissens weltweit das erste richtige 360-Grad-3D-Kino“, sagte Bogner. „Noch nie vorher konnte man das faszinierende Gefühl des Skifahrens den Zuschauern so wirklichkeitsnah präsentieren. Die 360-Grad-5D-Technik bringt uns ganz nah an die Realität.“

Es ist geplant, im Herbst das 360-Grad-3D-Kino in München wieder aufzubauen, um einem
breiten Publikum die Gelegenheit zu geben, den Film anzuschauen. (02/11)”


My brother hops over to Munchen quite a bit, maybe I twist his arm to take a look if it is still showing.


[In Albuquerque we are very lucky that we have a digital planetarium that has at least seven projectors, and once a month they put on this amazing show called “Friday Fractals”. They have this fractal genius who is also neuroscientist that renders to the whole dome with all these fractals as one contiguous image with the latest Mandlebrot and Julia set renderings. When you see it you feel likey ou moving in all kinds of directions in space as it fills your field of view completely, and there are no other frames of reference. It’s a really awesome beautiful and mesmerizing show (its unique to that planetarium).

 

[Eric Lange]

Interesting stuff. "I try very hard not to inflict psycho-visual torture on other people" That's good to hear!

But I wonder if you've misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't advocating inflicting torture. Far from it!

What I meant is that we're about to see a wealth of consumer 3D cameras (I've got a 3D app for my phone!) that will generate a lot of bad 3D which will end up on places like YouTube. A mix of three things will then happen:
1 - some people will just hate it and ignore 3D, or
3 - learn how to do it properly, or
2 - they'll learn to 'concentrate on the good bits, and ignore the bad bits.' To blank out the widely divergent stuff. We do that all the time, every day, though in a different way, but since we already do it...

This has it's precedents. Look at how technically bad many of the videos on YouTube are - yet millions watch them! Or TV news. How much do you see where the background is sharp, but the presenter is actually out of focus. A few years ago the broadcasters would never have let such footage through. Nowadays audiences don't even appear to notice. I think some kind of equivalent will happen with 3D.

Ok, I see what you mean a bit…

A lot of these consumer devices have pretty narrow IOD (or base separation) that is fixed. So unless you are shooting too many close up subjects you shouldn’t get too many un resolvable double images. But in most cases the stereo will have the “cardboard effect”.

So about fifteen years ago Phillip Glass (the famous composer) put on a live orchestral performance to a 3d movie that was made in unison called “Monster’s of Grace” at the Brabican theatre in London. The ranges of parallax were killer, and then there was this one element, a blue bird that flies around that was nearly impossible to resolve and really painful. Everybody came out at the intermission, very intrigued and impressed, but the question that was buzzing around non-stop was “could you see the bird?”. About 30% could, but what was interesting there was this feeling from the people who could not, that they felt that perhaps they didn’t measure up (stereoscopically) some how to have the privilege of resolving “the brid”.

So fifteen years later, I looked at your fractal stereo video link, and I could not watch it all the way through, because half of the parallaxes were out of the screen and the other half into the screen. My eyes kept on flicking back and fourth between +ve and negative depth ranges as the subject matter was rolling from left corner to right. I don’t like direct interference with the frame especially subjects that come out of the screen and scrape past the edge of the frame. So I just turned it off. Sorry,… but I get the idea, and the idea was very nice, his work should be encouraged.

To answer your question, people will have some tolerance for “Iffy” stereo initially through the technologies you describe, but after a short period they won’t tolerate it and will prefer to see a 2d one if its available. I think people will be more tolerant of compression artifacts than irresolvable parallax. The stereo double images that we see in real life in a true volumetric environment are substantially different from residual double images from un-resolvable parallax on a flat screen.

Again twenty years ago I helped put together a VR walk through of Nefertari’s Tomb, Audiences of 50 at a time; Barco Projector, LCD Shutter glasses, Onyx RE II etc. etc. About seven hundred people went through that in short space of time. I was driving the system with a jet fighter style Joy stick and control box, moving very slowly and carefully through the environment. However, occasionally I would move to an area a little quick and close, and you would hear physical groans, and ouches, and people flinching, and recoiling. This kind of stereoscopic pain is absolutely immediate. It’s like being poked in the eye with a blunt stick. I just don’t think people are going to get used to that, and as more stereo content comes out, people will become less and less tolerant of that type of stereo presentation, especially when they have seen how good it can really be. You know even "homebrew-stereo" could be good, so I think internet viewers will gravitate to the better amateur stereographers (just like anything else).

Even in Tron L. I was thinking, O.K. (about 40 mins in) I am starting to feel characteristic stereo eye strain, and I’m asking myself is the mild level of pain (I have a high pain threshold for other things like migraines and broken bones), worth it for what I am seeing. I am asking myself what is the ratio between how much pain I am willing to put up with per “unit measure” of entertainment (I think the blonde helped with that problem a little bit)? The strain comes from not the range of parallax (In Tron L's case), but the stereo imcomplete atmospherics, flares, mists and “fuzzies”. If those effects were not present, then the show, I believe would have been very much more comfortable to watch.

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Karel Bata]

Maybe your right. Just musing.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

Even in Tron L. I was thinking, O.K. (about 40 mins in) I am starting to feel characteristic stereo eye strain, and I’m asking myself is the mild level of pain (I have a high pain threshold for other things like migraines and broken bones), worth it for what I am seeing. I am asking myself what is the ratio between how much pain I am willing to put up with per “unit measure” of entertainment

I don't know what percent of audiences experience eyestrain at 3D movies but this is what sets 3D apart from sound, color, and widescreen. There's no special brain trickery involved (other than the persistence of vision that's at the core of cinema itself) to experience those things. Your ears hear the sound coming from the speakers, and your eyes see the color and extra image without much more brain processing power than looking at your coffee table.

I think if the goal is a more immersive experience, S3D cinema is just a kludge until we get holographic cinema or something else which would probably be a different medium altogether rather than just regular cinema + depth illusion.