-

Jump to content



Photo

Hollywood '3D' film makers could learn from nature documentaries


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 of 24 Wayne_j

Wayne_j

    Supporting Actor

  • 503 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 07 2006
  • Real Name:Wayne

Posted June 17 2014 - 07:21 PM

As I was watching the BBC Earth documentary 'Wings 3D' tonight I kept wondering why Hollywood hasn't learned that you can have pop out during a movie without it being gimmicky.  During the movie there were several shots of birds flying in a v formation with half of the formation extended out of the screen.  Imagine if in an action movie planes or helicopters are flying in formation, some of those vehicles are popped out from the screen, suddenly a missile comes from behind the screen and hits the vehicle furthest over the audience.  Wouldn't this be the type of thing that people would actually pay a 3D upgrade price for?



#2 of 24 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,274 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted June 18 2014 - 06:14 AM

Would be nice if this was released on Blu-ray 3D.

 

Yes, it has been discussed previously that many of us would like to see more pop-out in 3D movies.


Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#3 of 24 Jari K

Jari K

    Producer

  • 3,213 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2007

Posted June 22 2014 - 07:21 AM

Good 3D doesn't mean = constant pop out. But perhaps it's just me.

#4 of 24 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 4,815 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted June 22 2014 - 08:30 AM

*
POPULAR

Good 3D doesn't mean = constant pop out. But perhaps it's just me.

 

Of course not, good 3D doesn't mean ONLY depth either.

 

For me good 3D is a film where they have story boards from the outset on how they are going to shoot in 3D, the camera angles they are going to use and the effect they want for each scene, good 3D is not just shooting in 2D and then deciding afterwards how the 3D will be seen, in my opinion doing so just results in the lacklustre 2 and a half D that i so often see from conversions.

 

Good 3D has to have consistent quality depth to the image and in my opinion some pop out should be included and does not have to be a gimmick, good pop out could easily be incorporated into the story without it appearing to be a gimmick, that doesn't mean constant pop out every few minutes, it all depends on the film, for an animated title constant pop out and depth can work very well, for example A Turtles Tale and Madagascar 3, constant pop out on a more dramatic film such as Prometheus would probably not work as well, i enjoyed the depth in Prometheus, it had a few moments of pop out near the end, all good and fine, personally i think a few additional deep pop out scenes near the end would have gone down well but nevertheless i enjoyed it.

 

I often think people misinterpret me when i say i want more pop out, they tend to think i want it every few minutes in the film, not so, i want filmmakers to utilize the 3D format better, to understand that they can have great depth into the screen but they can also have great depth out of the screen, it doesn't have to be a gimmick, use their imagination and plan in advance, use 3D better and entertain your audience, if it's just minor depth then why bother with 3D at all, the director of Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes seems to be suggesting they filmed in 3D for minor depth, well why bother, just shoot 2D.

 

I just think filmmakers are not using 3D to it's fullest, on most films the depth is not as deep as it could be and, the pop out or to put it another way the depth out of the screen is also minor if seen at all, i just think it's pointless shooting in 3D or converting into 3D unless you really use the format to it's fullest capabilities.

 

In my opinion 3D would be doing so much better if more animated titles used 3D the way A Turtles Tale and Madagascar 3 do and if more live action films used deeper depth and more aggressive pop out planned for in advance.

 

In A Turtles Tale you don't just have deep popout, you have seagulls fly into the screen, it looks natural to me, it's like in House Of Wax where Bronson appears to jump from the audience into the screen, so many movies that could utilize pop out in that way but fail to do so, Hollywood filmmakers are lacking in imagination on how to use 3D, that is why minor depth is all we mostly get.

 

Then again i sometimes have the same complaint about sound mixes, i often wish horror films would use those surround channels to scare us more, but too often they just lack the imagination to provide such sound mixes.

 

I really have high hopes for new sound formats like Auro, Atmos and the new dts one, Auro 3D ( nothing to do with 3D films ) is already available in some expensive equipment, it has height channels and can provide for 15.1 at the moment and more channels in the future but it would be difficult for most homes to incorporate these height channels but they could really add a new layer to the sound, of course that's only if Hollywood uses it in the sound mix, there are no Auro 3D movie discs out yet, i don't feel they really use the current 5.1/7.1 as well as they could in most films, i guess time constraints when mixing are one of the issues.


  • RolandL, Stephen_J_H and revgen like this

     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#5 of 24 Jari K

Jari K

    Producer

  • 3,213 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2007

Posted June 23 2014 - 09:56 AM

I haven't seen truly "bad" 3D since the first Clash of the Titans. And I've seen most of the big ones on the big screen (excluding animation titles, my son is too young to watch 3D).

I just enjoy the movie and the movie kinda takes me over. I don't even think about "3D" during the movie. My eyes "adjust" for the first 5-15 minutes and then I don't really think about it.

#6 of 24 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,553 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted June 23 2014 - 10:26 AM

I think you could simply shorten the title to "Hollywood film makers could learn 3D" but that would require they admit they have something to learn and then willing to spend the time to learn it.  Given the comments by most directors about 3D, I don't think we will ever get past the first part and they have admitted to being far too uninterested/lazy/not up to the task to do the second.



#7 of 24 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 4,815 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted June 23 2014 - 10:56 AM

I just enjoy the movie and the movie kinda takes me over. I don't even think about "3D" during the movie. My eyes "adjust" for the first 5-15 minutes and then I don't really think about it.

 

You see there is the problem for me, well done 3D will be noticeable, you will be thrilled by it, if you watch the film and don't even think about the 3D then something is wrong, if that is the case then i see no point in watching it in 3D, might as well view in 2D.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#8 of 24 bujaki

bujaki

    Supporting Actor

  • 701 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2012
  • Real Name:Jose Ortiz-Marrero
  • LocationRichardson, TX

Posted June 23 2014 - 11:17 AM

If these young directors had taken the trouble to attend last year's 3D Film Expo in LA--where many of the classics were shown, including House of Wax, directed by one-eyed Andre De Toth--they would have learned what real 3D should look like and how to use it to its optimum effect. One does learn from the past, and from the best.



#9 of 24 Jari K

Jari K

    Producer

  • 3,213 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2007

Posted June 23 2014 - 11:48 AM

"if you watch the film and don't even think about the 3D then something is wrong"

If you choose not to understand my point, that's fine. You can also twist my words, but that's fine also.

I don't really "think about" e.g. surround sound either, since it's part of the "package". It's A/V experience as a whole for me. Sure, some films have fuller surround experience than others or more "pop up" with 3D, but this suddenly doesn't make the film better. Or worse.

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm actually rarely THAT disappointed in films, let alone that I would "hate" some films. I try to find the interesting aspects from every film.

#10 of 24 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 4,815 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted June 23 2014 - 11:54 AM

If you choose not to understand my point, that's fine. You can also twist my words, but that's fine also.

I don't really "think about" e.g. surround sound either, since it's part of the "package". It's A/V experience as a whole for me. Sure, some films have fuller surround experience than others or more "pop up" with 3D, but this suddenly doesn't make the film better. Or worse.

 

I understand your point Jari i just disagree with some of it.

 

By it's very nature a well shot 3D production will draw attention to itself, in much the same way as a great sound mix will draw attention to itself, or sometimes a badly shot production draws attention to itself, now none of that means the film itself is great or bad, i understand and agree with that part of your post, it might be a rubbish film but the 3D or sound mix might actually help get you through the whole movie and keep you entertained, nowadays films can sometimes get away with being just average if they have other interesting things to grab your attention, at least that's my opinion.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#11 of 24 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,960 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted June 23 2014 - 12:02 PM

By it's very nature a well shot 3D production will draw attention to itself, in much the same way as a great sound mix will draw attention to itself, or sometimes a badly shot production draws attention to itself, now none of that means the film itself is great or bad, i understand and agree with that part of your post, it might be a rubbish film but the 3D or sound mix might actually help get you through the whole movie and keep you entertained, nowadays films can sometimes get away with being just average if they have other interesting things to grab your attention, at least that's my opinion.

*cough*Avatar*cough*


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#12 of 24 Jari K

Jari K

    Producer

  • 3,213 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2007

Posted June 23 2014 - 12:07 PM

Yes, well of course there are films that are meant to be seen in 3D. Gravity, Hugo, Avatar, Life of Pi, Prometheus, The Hobbit trilogy, etc.

And yes, there are films where 3D is treated more like a option than a priority. Films that are planned to work in "both ways". Or are clearly post-converted (old films). I'm sure films in this category doesn't impress people that much in 3D.

But to me it seems that people mainly want some more "pop out". 50s and 80s 3D was all about that, right?

#13 of 24 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,960 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted June 23 2014 - 12:36 PM

Pop out on 80s movies was excessive to the point of absurdity. Try watching Friday the 13th Part III in 2D if you don't believe me; about the only thing they don't toss off the screen/extend into the audience is the proverbial kitchen sink. There needs to be balance, and I find that the DreamWorks Animation films, as well as the IMAX nature documentaries strike the appropriate balance, generally speaking.


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#14 of 24 Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,485 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted June 23 2014 - 12:59 PM

I think "Gravity" is a great example of a film where pop out could have been used in a non-gimmicky way. At least one of the sequences where the two astronauts are traveling/space walking from one location to another, could have been done in a way that the astronauts floated out of the screen and over the audience, with the earth shown very, very deep behind the screen. Instead, like most modern 3D films and just about all conversions, the majority of the film takes place behind the screen.

I think what they did worked well enough for what it was, but I seem to be in a small minority of people who were disappointed by the technical quality of the film. I heard so much leading up to the release about how it was groundbreaking and would refine cinema, and at best, I think it's merely the best 2.5D conversion that's been done. Sure, that's something, but it could have been so much more.

#15 of 24 SFMike

SFMike

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 110 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 2013
  • Real Name:Michael

Posted June 23 2014 - 01:04 PM

Good 3D doesn't mean = constant pop out. But perhaps it's just me.

 

Nobody on this board has suggested that constant pop out = good 3D. I'm one of those viewers that feels pop out is part of the 3D experience and should be worked into the films camera setups where it fits. If you are a director or DP working in 3D and don't make use of the Z value depth provided by 3D then it is my opinion that you are being lazy and very uncreative. I feel that it is this lack of pre-planning that turns out 3D films that people feel ripped off by paying a premium for a process that is hardly used durning the course of the film. As a film maker you have this whole new space behind the screen and into the theater to play with to make your shots more interesting and most importantly involving. To not use all this space to the advantage of telling your story in a new and exciting way is just laziness. I guess these directors are just putting in the time and picking up the paycheck. Of course many of todays films have this overall look and feel from the the lazy unfocused script on up. The audience seeing a 3D film should be able to notice the 3D or it's use is pointless. Is creativity to much to ask from todays directors?


  • Stephen_J_H and FoxyMulder like this

#16 of 24 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,274 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted June 24 2014 - 10:47 AM

Pop out on 80s movies was excessive to the point of absurdity. Try watching Friday the 13th Part III in 2D if you don't believe me; about the only thing they don't toss off the screen/extend into the audience is the proverbial kitchen sink. There needs to be balance, and I find that the DreamWorks Animation films, as well as the IMAX nature documentaries strike the appropriate balance, generally speaking.

 

The 3D in Comin at Ya! was excessive, Friday the 13th part 3 much less.


Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#17 of 24 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 4,815 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted June 24 2014 - 10:55 AM

The 3D in Comin at Ya! was excessive, Friday the 13th part 3 much less.

 

Unfortunately i have never had the chance to view any of these in 3D, i wish the studio's would release them, i almost bought Amityville 3 but then i read the reviews and decided the quality control just wasn't good enough,

 

I would love Friday the 13th Part 3 including the opening titles on blu ray in 3D, yes i know the anaglypth version is out there, sorry i cannot go back to that, too poor, i doubt Paramount will release it though, the blu ray boxset was their chance and they decided to not do so, it's a shame and annoying when you see so many conversions released but films shot in actual 3D are snubbed.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#18 of 24 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,553 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted June 25 2014 - 07:05 AM

Friday the 13th 3D was my first 3D movie and I thought it was awesome.  Good music and great 3D.  Later I saw Jaws 3D and it was a blurry mess.  Must have been a projection issue and it was the same theater that I saw Friday the 13th in.  Then was Amityville 3D.  What a gawd awful movie.  Terrible plot and always very dark.  I would buy Friday the 13th on Blu-ray 3D but not the other two.



#19 of 24 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,274 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted June 25 2014 - 07:38 AM

I have the Sensio Jaws 3D DVD. 3D is great but of course blown up to 138 inches wide it is a very soft picture,


Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#20 of 24 Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,485 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted June 25 2014 - 12:52 PM

I wish we'd get a proper Blu of Jaws 3D! I've only ever seen poor anaglyph copies.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users