3D Why don't filmmakers take advantage of the 3D Process?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    46,203
    Likes Received:
    4,260
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein




    This week, a co-worker and friend of mine bought his first
    3D display. It was a Samsung 51" that came packaged with

    a starter kit.


    I was very excited about his purchase and first foray into the

    format within his home. I gave hime a few 3D Blu-rays to spin

    and enjoy.


    The very first title I recommended that he put in his player was

    Imax Under The Sea. I told him to go to chapter 2 and sit and

    watch for 5 minutes, particularly when the cod fish appears onscreen.


    Just as I expected, he texted me shortly afterwards rejoicing
    at how cool that sequence was where the codfish came within

    inches of his face.


    But here's the thing....


    Sadly, I told him that is the best 3D of its kind that you will

    experience from hereonin.


    I say that, because I own a great deal of what exists on 3D
    Blu-ray, and none of it is as impressive as that short sequence

    that appears on the Imax disc.


    What I don't understand is why filmmakers don't take more

    advantage of having their action jump off the screen, coming

    within inches of the viewer's nose.


    It just doesn't seem to happen.


    I am very much aware that there are those that don't like

    excessive 3D gimmickry in their movies. I can understand

    and respect that attitude. However, when it comes to the point

    where filmmakers don't even consider exploiting the virtues of

    the format itself and keeping everything mostly within the confines

    of the screen, I begin to wonder where the WOW factor really lies?


    Let's face it, back when you went to Disneyland and watched the

    Michael Jackson or Muppet 3D show, the biggest "oohs" and "aaahs"

    came from those moments when images leaped off the screen

    and hurdled towards the audience. It was amazing.


    I don't see much of that in the home 3D format. I don't blame the

    format itself because I have seen its potential in the Imax disc I

    mentioned above, but it just amazes me that filmmakers won't even

    offer today's 3D audiences any real WOW moments that they will

    be talking about long after the credits roll.


    Just curious as to whether I am the only person that feels this way.


    And, if I am missing some really great discs that disprove what I

    have discussed above, I would really love to know about them.
     
  2. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,229
    Likes Received:
    704
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    You're not the only one. I enjoy those "wow" or "in-your-face-moments", as long as they are not over done. I think I more often read that a director does not want to do 3D, then that they do want to do 3D. It's beneath them and if forced to used it, they are going to avoid the "wow" moment. Of course, I don't yet have a 3D system, so what does my opinion matter? BTW, I have gathered through my browsing here at HTF that the Panasonic system had the edge in quality. Combine that with their exclusive deal for Avatar, what pushed your friend to go with Samsung?
     
  3. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    46,203
    Likes Received:
    4,260
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein
    Hi Johnny!


    Sigh. I really pushed Panasonic on my friend citing

    if he really wanted to go with the best that was out there

    that would be the brand to go with.


    However, I think he was looking for something a little

    more affordable, and it just so happens that Samsung is

    running a promotion right now on a 51" display (that is

    getting phenomenal reviews) along with a free Blu-ray

    player and starter kit (2 glasses and movies) for $1600.


    I could not hold him back from purchasing that system.

    It's a very good deal, and as I said, the display is getting

    excellent reviews which surprises me, because Samsung

    usually is not my first choice for plasma.
     
  4. Chuck Anstey

    Chuck Anstey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 1998
    Messages:
    1,624
    Likes Received:
    102
    Real Name:
    Chuck Anstey
    I have been arguing that since 3D made its return. I don't understand how having everything behind the screen, making it like you are looking at everything through a framed window adds anything to the movie experience and why so many people prefer it. If you are going to use 3D, the movie should be built from the ground up around 3D because 3D is not like simply going from black and white to color. 3D is an effect that has guidelines and limitations if it is going to enhance rather than detract from the viewing experience. My thought that the reason so little jumps off the screen is for that illusion of "in your face" to work convincingly, the screen has to be huge and cover most of your FOV or things in front of the screen "appear" tiny relative to background objects. A shark in front of the screen, which should appear bigger because it is closer, actually appears smaller than the fish in the background. It is an illusion but your brain can have difficultly reconciling how a 20' shark appears to only be 6 inches long 24 inches from your face. Also objects in front of the screen can get unnaturally cut off by the screen border and makes it obvious it is a trick. For anything behind the screen, they are cut off by the natural window frame of the screen border and the relative size illusion isn't as obvious. Since most theaters don't have large screens and certainly at home 3D TVs cover relatively little of a viewer's FOV at normal viewing distances, the filmmakers take the safe way out. IMAX movies were built for huge screens so they don't have to worry about it being shown on a small screen.
     
  5. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    46,203
    Likes Received:
    4,260
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein
    Chuck,


    The only counter-argument I would have to what you posted is that the

    "leap out of the screen" process does work well on the small screen.


    The Imax: Under The Sea disc proves that quite well.


    However, I absolutely agree that any 3D Blu-ray presentation that

    introduce black bars into the image ratio definately mar the overall effect.

    The black bars make the the presentation far less immersive as those

    bars become introduced into your field of vision.
     
  6. Chuck Anstey

    Chuck Anstey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 1998
    Messages:
    1,624
    Likes Received:
    102
    Real Name:
    Chuck Anstey
    You are preaching to the choir. I do like 3D when well done and built specifically for the 3D effect. That knocks out nearly every 3D movie though. I would like Hollywood to change their attitude about 3D and instead of thinking of it like shooting in color, they think about it as something special that has a real impact on how a movie is shot. Drop down to 5 to 6 movies a year in 3D with each one made specifically for 3D. Not the usual "Hey, wouldn't this movie be cool in 3D? Sure let's just do it." and instead "We need 2 3D movies this summer. What movies in the cue would be greatly enhanced if they were made around the 3D effect and that means people/objects in front of the screen?" And absolutely no "conversions to 3D". Let that BS be done by the display device (available now) if the viewer is dying for a 3D version of a movie shot in 2D.
     
  7. SD_Brian

    SD_Brian Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    16
    Real Name:
    Brian
    One thing to remember is the fact that most directors and cinematographers are new to 3-D. Not only that but many of them are also new to shooting Digital Cinema. They are having to learn to use a lot of new toys all at once and to control the visuals of their movies so they aren't "ugly." Similar technical learning curves occurred with the advent of "talkies," Technicolor and Cinemascope and 3-D is arguably more complicated than any of those. Also, as was stated earlier, a lot of directors do not want to be making 3-D movies but studios are forcing them to do so. What this leads to is a lot of attempts to make 3-D movies that don't look like 3-D movies. In interviews directors will go out of their way to talk about how their 3-D isn't about things jumping off the screen but rather to add depth to the image. It's like when "respectable" directors stoop to making genre (read: horror) pictures and they always go out of their way to say the movie isn't really a horror movie, "it's a really beautiful love story!" The flaw with the "depth to the image" argument, of course, is that it completely misses the reason why people go to 3-D movies in the first place: to see things fly off the screen. All that said, it will be interesting to see what Martin Scorsese does with 3-D in "Hugo."
     
  8. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,229
    Likes Received:
    704
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    A 51" display, BR player, 2 glasses, and movies for $1600? That's a great price. Makes me wish I had a tax refund coming right now.:)
     
  9. Chad R

    Chad R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
     
  10. Chad R

    Chad R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
    Double post, sorry.
     
  11. Ethan Riley

    Ethan Riley Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    343
    Well I have a weird story. I used to love to watch "Kiss Me Kate" when it was released on vhs some 25 or so years ago. At the time, I had no idea that KMK had originally been a 3-D movie. And I was always weirded out by the fact that the actors were repeatedly throwing things at the screen. At least every five minutes someone throws something at your face. I just assumed that all the actors in that movie hated the cameraman and were trying to take his eyes out or something. Although I've never seen KMK in its 3D version, I imagine it will someday be put out on 3D blu-ray. And all those flying props will constitute the gimmicky "wows" that you mentioned. But that's what the filmmakers were trying to do at the time. Nowadays, they do not seem to be recreating that gimmick factor; they're just going about the usual business of storytelling (usually). And it's almost like there's no point to the 3D process if they're not wholly exploiting it. So they get into this gray area: do we go for the gimmicks and throw stuff at the audience? Or do we just stick to the storytelling aspects of this movie and use 3D as an incidental part of the movie-making process? And I think a lot of current filmmakers can't really answer those questions. And you are quite right, Ronald--if they don't go for the gimmicks, there's pretty much no point in making a movie 3D in the first place!
     
  12. Chuck Anstey

    Chuck Anstey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 1998
    Messages:
    1,624
    Likes Received:
    102
    Real Name:
    Chuck Anstey
    Continuing Ethan's point above. Yes sound designers have stopped using 5.1+ surround sound so aggressively but the difference is that they can effectively create a 3.1 sound mix or mono mix without any impact to the viewer using the installed 5.1 system. That is not the case with 3D. You cannot create a 2D movie using 3D without significant impact to the viewer having to wear glasses, crosstalk, a much dimmer image, and a dang huge up-charge. Shooting a 2D movie in 3D with the simple depth of looking out a window frame is nothing like shooting in color vs B/W or creating a mono sound mix instead of an aggressive surround mix. The mistake is thinking that since every theater has 3D equipment, every movie should be in 3D. Just like your point above when sound designers thought that since every theater had 5.1 speakers, all sound mixes should use all 5.1 speakers all the time. Eventually when they design a totally passive 3D system, filmmakers will be able to choose when during a movie they want depth and when they want 2D and can shoot appropriately for the scene instead of having to choose 2D or 3D for the entire movie, Tron Legacy not withstanding because that still had all the negatives of a 3D movie even when in 2D mode.
     
  13. Brianruns10

    Brianruns10 Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wish more filmmakers would take advantage of the REAL, TRULY IMMERSIVE 3D format: 5 and 15-per 65mm!!! :)
     
  14. Brendon

    Brendon Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 1999
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Disclaimer: 3D doesn't work too well for me, having a prism in my glasses for one eye. The effect works but induces a headache when viewed for any length of time, The technology however intrigues me as does the uses (Avatar, many IMAX documentaries) and abuses (cheap, hurried post conversion of 2D films). Despite my own discomfort with the technique, I do look forward to the uses a Scorsece, Spielberg, Del Toro might put it to. The following http://www.disneyanimation.com/library/2D3DConversion.pdf is a paper discussing the considerations and process for the 3d conversion of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Specifically it addresses the 'downside' of in your face, mere inches from your eyes WOW moments in a feature length film:
    I remember seeing B&TB in IMAX during the short lived vogue for upconverting Disney animated films for IMAX presentation. Any static or slow panned scenes with infrequent cuts looked marvelous and being able to see into the corners of the artwork was fabulous, immersive and all those good things. The issue came with any scenes with rapid editing, name the beast battling the wolves. The rapid editing on such a large screen filling ones entire field of vision meant it was very difficult to follow quite what was happening, where and to whom during the scene (I think of this as the Bourne effect). I'd expect the constant having to refocus the eye from shot to shot in 3D for your average contemporary hyperkinetically edited action movie together with extreme 3D 'WOW' moments might well render many films unwatchable.
     
  15. Worth

    Worth Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,700
    Likes Received:
    612
    Real Name:
    Nick Dobbs
    I'm not really a fan of 3D, but something like this makes more sense to me than 3D televisions.
     
  16. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,689
    Likes Received:
    159
    Good post. Demanding that 3D effects be "in your face" is like demanding that stereo audio use the kind of ping pong effects that were popular in its early days. It's not realistic.
     
  17. Ron-P

    Ron-P Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Messages:
    6,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Ron
    I for one see things that "jump off the screen" as a 3D gimmick. I don't like it. I love the depth of field and all that 3D brings to the screen but leave the pop-outs and things jumping off the screen for those cheesy 3D films.

    Avatar was, and still is, the perfect 3D film. I have yet to see better as it did not employ that gimmick that made 3D so popular decades ago.
     
  18. Ricardo C

    Ricardo C Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Other than Avatar, I have yet to see a 3D film that is genuinely more enjoyable than its 2D counterpart. And home 3D technology just doesn't satisfy me. I feel like I'm experiencing a drop in resolution whenever I view a 3D BluRay movie. It feels like I'm watching a scan-line display. I don't want 3D to go away, because when done right it can be sublime, but I don't want it to become the norm, since it's so easily misused and abused, and I don't want it in my home theater in its current state.
     
  19. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,711
    Discussions like this really make me wish more people could see just how well photographed the 3-D films were in the 1950's. Don't get me wrong, they weren't all stereoscopic gems. But of the 50 features produced in 1953/54, more than two thirds were exceptionally well photographed by terrific cinematographers who not only knew their craft, but the complicated aesthetics of stereoscopic composition as well. Perhaps I'm biased, but most of what I've seen today doesn't hold a candle to what they achieved with those twin 35mm camera rigs 58 years ago! Bob Furmanek Vice President 3-D Film Preservation Fund http://www.3dfilmpf.org/
     
  20. Richard--W

    Richard--W Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    167
    That's because you are in fact experiencing a drop in resolution and because you are watching a line scan. Or a clock scan. All the 3-D blu-rays are sourced from digital captures and digital scans. I wasn't that impressed with Avatar. It is ambitious in its scope, which is commendable, but it has basic, fundamental stereoscopic photography defects that it should not have. It is also a digital capture, so it looks soft, dim and muted. The luminosity of a monitor helps to some extent, but nothing can rescue Avatar from its soft, dim and muted source. It is what it is. Repeat after me: digital capture is soft, dim and muted. 35mm film is richer, deeper, sharper, more expansive in its range of color, in its range of monochrome, in its range of contrast and tonalities, and infinitely superior in quality to HD and all other digital capture. For films shot on 35mm, the use of a digital intermediate facilitates editing and saves a lot of money. I don't dispute that. But 2K and 4K scanning "sees" film in the wrong way and brings the vast range of film down to the same soft, dim and muted level of digital capture. Scanning also drains aesthetic choices in gels and filters out of true cinematography. Scanning renders the contours of light and dark within a scene into the same exposure. It's a peculiar thing, like walking into a dark room but seeing the dark as if it were painted over daylight. A kind of pentimento effect. There are no true shadows or contrast in digital scanning; it's all the same. Compared to digital capture, 35mm film looks stunning on the big screen and on the smaller monitor. It follows them, that stereoscopic 35mm films are not soft or dim or muted. Properly projected and properly transferred they are are bright and clear and sharp. I wish the industry would progress by reverting back to photochemical processes. It is possible to transfer photochemistry to Blu-ray, although I'm not sure how exactly. In any case, do not judge the quality of 35mm stereoscopic films by digitally captured films like Avatar. Avatar is not a barometer by which 35mm stereoscopic films are to be judged..
     

Share This Page