3D TIMID 3-D: Fear of Negative Parallax (1 Viewer)

I want to present an idea and find out your reactions. Agree or disagree, I want to hear your opinions.


We all know that, in everyday life, stereoscopic depth perception falls off beyond a certain distance. Even the sharpest-eyed person is going to have a clearer perception of binocular disparity (and therefore stereoscopic depth) within a closer range. Speaking subjectively, even though I can distinguish stereoscopically between objects 50, 75, and 100 feet away, the most dramatic and pleasing depth perception comes when I look at the world within, say, 50 feet of my person.


Here is my book, two feet from my eyes; my beautiful fiancée, five feet away; my little dog, ten feet away and closing fast, leaping into my lap; and there, on the far side of the room, is my television. My own living room is a stereoscopic wonderland. But outside my window, there's a car on the far side of the street. Behind it, a fire hydrant. Beyond that, a tree, and a little further on, the little church on the corner. I can distinguish depth between the car, the hydrant, the tree, and the church, sure, but it's not nearly so visually dramatic, nor so pleasurable, as the spatial relationships of objects in my near vicinity.


Now consider the fact that so many 3-D filmmakers today are very, very reluctant to transgress the planar boundary of the screen in any way, shape or form. They avoid negative parallax at all costs. They are not merely rejecting "gimmick shots"—the paddle ball, the floating beer tray, the spears and flaming arrows; they are rejecting the depiction of any object that leaves the screen and enters theater space, no matter how naturally or unobtrusively this is done. They are declaring off-limits an important part of the stereo playfield, if you will. And I think this is being done arbitrarily, or at least without sufficient consideration.


Now consider this: Most audience members sit, what would you say, 20 feet back from the screen? Thirty? Forty? More than forty feet, in some cases? Which means that, if no object in a given 3-D movie ever violates the plane of the screen, it naturally follows that no object in that 3-D movie ever appears to come closer to the viewer than 20, 30, or 40-plus feet.


If the perceptions of other audience members are similar to my own--if many other people besides myself take the greatest pleasure in stereoscopic depth perception when surveying objects in their near vicinity--then does this not mean that a 3-D film conforming to this arbitrary limitation is in effect choosing not to stimulate the very sense (stereopsis) for which it was ostensibly made?


Leaving aside for the moment questions of narrow interaxial—I and others are convinced that most native, live action 3-D movies nowadays are shot with incredibly narrow IA values of perhaps one inch or less—does not this across-the-board rejection of negative parallax (parallax that places objects in theater space) diminish the effectiveness of 3-D movies and contribute to increasing audience apathy?


Discuss.

Lack of guts/imagination/talent on the part of the film makers? It's not easy getting stuff into theatre space and then keeping it there long enough to be effective without disrupting the film's pace

Bear in mind these "creatives" are the same people who frequently hand over their 2D movie to a bunch of technicians to turn it into 3D and leave them to it.

Part of the problem is the lack of involvement or the lack of freedom for the creative people involved.


The best negative parallax (pop outs) this year came from the Spongebob movie. Part of the reason why I believe they're so much more creative with 3-D is because A) The creators are the same people involved with the hit TV series the film is based on, B) They are probably given more free reign to experiment with their movie since their TV show had so much success. Executives and others at the studio are less likely to butt in and ask questions. C) Animators tend to be more creative and experimental when it comes to visual side of filmmaking, including experimenting with visual space.


I recall an interview a few years ago with Thomas Jane, the director of Dark Country (2009), explaining how much hassle he had to take from producers and suits about how he was shooting his film in 3-D. He was a relatively new filmmaker (most of his experience was as an actor), so the suits were questioning his decisions at every turn. Veterans like the Spongebob crew may have a bit more leeway.


Outside of the Hollywood studio system, I tend to see stronger examples of 3-D popout and experimentation. Independent production companies like Nwave are a prime example.

Thomas Jane's producers seemingly had him hold back on the 3D effects for fear of alienating people. This "make a horror movie but don't make it too scary" method of making movies is ludicrous.

Anyone interested in how not to make movies should see "The Death of Superman Lives". The original idea was "let's make a Superman movie but no flying and no costume".

Raymond Chandler once said that it's not that so many Hollywood movies are bad that's surprising but that a few of them are actually good.

My experience with producers is that they don't know what they want until they see the finished product, whereupon they realise that wasn't it. Producers hate directors, directors hate technicians, writers hate producers and directors, editors hate everyone. It's a wonder anything ever makes it to the screen.

The majority of modern Hollywood 3-D product still fails to satisfy what I want from 3-D. They seem to miss the point about what was exciting about the process in the first place. Even some of the supposedly better conversions continue to frustrate. Everything has to be kept out of arm's reach. And not in a tantalizing way, but in a way that makes everything that much more distant, and disengaging.


I hate to say it but they don't know what they're doing.


To attempt to convey in 2d images the largely unrealized potential of 3-D, two of the following images represent what we generally get, and one represents what we are generally denied:

revgen said:

I recall an interview a few years ago with Thomas Jane, the director of Dark Country (2009), explaining how much hassle he had to take from producers and suits about how he was shooting his film in 3-D.

Click to expand...

DARK COUNTRY was in 3D??

RJ992 said:

DARK COUNTRY was in 3D??

Click to expand...

Yep. It was shot in Native 3-D.


It's only available on 3-D Blu-Ray from France.


LINK


However, the Blu-Ray does have forced French subtitles, but there are ways around that...

RJ992 said:

DARK COUNTRY was in 3D??

Click to expand...

It's one of the better modern 3D offerings as well as being a pretty good movie in its own right.

revgen said:

Yep. It was shot in Native 3-D.


It's only available on 3-D Blu-Ray from France.


LINK


However, the Blu-Ray does have forced French subtitles, but there are ways around that...

Click to expand...

Dark Country was available from Sony on the PS3 at one time. I'm not sure if it's still there though.

Animation does tend to be more adventurous in the 3D realm, but even it has been considerably tamed as of late. The Spongebob Movie was a fantastic use of 3D, and relatively early (post-Avatar) titles are quite adventurous. Pixar's material I tend to find overly cautious with few exceptions, and this mindset appears to be infecting DreamWorks, if Home is any indication.

If you want adventurous animation, have a look at the Lichtmond series. See thread below for more.

Too many films play it safe with 3D, some to the point where you question whether it should even be seen in 3D, mild depth, no popout whatsoever, why even bother, there are films like that out there and it annoys me, they are the type of movies that are effectively killing off 3D or at least the enjoyment of 3D.


Dan mentioned Nwave, they have made some fine 3D animated films, A Turtles Tale and Thunder and the House of Magic both stand out as superb 3D titles with fantastic depth and popout, i have not seen better from an American studio although Madagascar 3 comes close at times.


Timid is a good word to use for most new 3D films, they lack imaginative use of 3D, for whatever reason the filmmakers seem afraid to fully use negative parallax and instead concentrate on depth, they don't even do depth all that well and limit themselves, it's shocking that you can watch something like House of Wax or Kiss me Kate and see massive depth and also good use of negative parallax aka popout in some scenes but Hollywood today thinks mild use is all that is necessary to keep people happy.


It's possible that they think crosstalk will be a problem on some displays so they use mild 3D, if that is the reason i say stop it, displays are much better these days, sure most may still have some crosstalk in the backgrounds, although if you have DLP projection you have perfection with 3D. ( except for ultimate brightness )


If they are going to shoot in 3D then do it right, don't do a Bryan Singer on the last X-Men film, he used 2D monitors because he found the 3D process slow on Jack The Giant Slayer, so what if it's slower, look at the massive cameras they used in the fifties, look at the art they produced, today's filmmakers want it too easy and are not prepared to toughen up, they want small, lightweight cameras, well todays 3D camera systems are small and lightweight compared to the fifties.


I'm only buying 3D titles that make use of the format, Dreamworks were good but seem to have succumbed to the less is more philosophy with 3D, a philosophy adopted by Pixar too, unfortunately some people consider that great 3D, it isn't, not by a long shot.


It isn't too late to save 3D, to make the films better, it'll take some courage and planning, right now i only see Nwave and possibly James Cameron willing to do that, while Avatar was a good 3D film it wasn't great, i believe Cameron will incorporate more depth and more popout in the next three films in the series, hopefully give the format a boost and encourage others to start being bolder with their use of 3D, right now i think the use of 3D is indeed timid and too safe.

Shock headline! Movie industry shows lack of imagination!

Movies have to be designed with 3D in mind right at the start of the production process. Adding it afterwards, ingenious as it is, will never be as good.

The pace of the 50s 3D classics is far more leisurely, with much longer shots than today, which gives time for the 3D effect to take hold. Even just lobbing stuff at the camera was more effective then.

Audiences probably wouldn't still still for movies made in the same style today, given that they're all used to fast cuts and TV pacing. Just looking and being amazed isn't enough.

It's a pity the classics aren't given the blockbuster treatment occasionally and shown to a wider audience. Showing "House of Wax" in the same multiplex as the latest new 3D offering might yield unexpected results.

Interdimensional said:

To attempt to convey in 2d images the largely unrealized potential of 3-D, two of the following images represent what we generally get, and one represents what we are generally denied:

Click to expand...

I've been meaning to contribute more of substance to the conversation, but I haven't had the chance. But I can't wait any longer to say that the images you chose, Ed, are absolutely perfect illustrations of what's wrong with 3-D movies these days.


In my last conversation with the late Ray Zone, going on three years ago now, we were both disgusted that so many recent live action 3-D movies resembled bas-reliefs, and feeble ones at that. I remember saying, "I've seen more dimensional coins than some of these flicks!"

Jbug said:

Dark Country was available from Sony on the PS3 at one time. I'm not sure if it's still there though.

Click to expand...

Still there. I wonder how many people buy the 3D titles on the PS3 when they are cheaper if you bought the Blu-ray version. There are a few titles like The Mad Magician which are not on Blu-ray.

Here's another theory of mine.


If any of you have shot your own stereo photos and have read the technical literature pertaining to the hobby, then sooner or later you will have heard mention of the 1:30 rule. Old hands in stereography swear by it.


The idea is that if you want everything in your still to have either zero parallax or positive parallax, with nothing breaking the window, and if at the same time you want homologous image points at infinity not to diverge, then you calculate the permissible distance of the closest object in the picture by multiplying your stereo base (interaxial) by 30.


So if you're shooting with a 65mm interaxial (which matches the average human interocular and may be regarded as normal), you calculate the closest permissible object thusly:

65 x 30 = 1950, or 1.95 meters (about 6.5 feet)


If you have objects at nominal infinity—mountains in the distant background, say, or a sailboat on the far horizon—then the closest any object can come to your camera without breaking through the window is 6.5 feet.


But in modern-day filmmaking, how often are actors and objects ever guaranteed to be 6.5 feet or farther away from the camera? This is especially so in the case of films shot handheld or with Steadicam platforms. In many cases--not all, but many--the camera gets awfully close to things.


And we've already observed that many modern stereo movies don't prefer breaking the window under any circumstance.


My theory, then, is that modern stereographers use some variation on the 1:30 rule, but they derive what they consider a suitable stereo base by working backwards from the distance of the closest object.


Let's say, then, that the closest object is going to be two feet away from the camera. (I'm an American. For all but the shortest spans, I think in feet and in miles. That's just the way it is.)

24 inches/30 = 0.8 inches (about 20 mm)


Imagine! Shooting with a teeny little 20mm interaxial. But you know what? When I see some of these recent films with their incredible shrinking values for parallax, I can totally believe it.


Your thoughts?

Mike Ballew said:

I want to present an idea and find out your reactions. Agree or disagree, I want to hear your opinions.


We all know that, in everyday life, stereoscopic depth perception falls off beyond a certain distance. Even the sharpest-eyed person is going to have a clearer perception of binocular disparity (and therefore stereoscopic depth) within a closer range. Speaking subjectively, even though I can distinguish stereoscopically between objects 50, 75, and 100 feet away, the most dramatic and pleasing depth perception comes when I look at the world within, say, 50 feet of my person.


Here is my book, two feet from my eyes; my beautiful fiancée, five feet away; my little dog, ten feet away and closing fast, leaping into my lap; and there, on the far side of the room, is my television. My own living room is a stereoscopic wonderland. But outside my window, there's a car on the far side of the street. Behind it, a fire hydrant. Beyond that, a tree, and a little further on, the little church on the corner. I can distinguish depth between the car, the hydrant, the tree, and the church, sure, but it's not nearly so visually dramatic, nor so pleasurable, as the spatial relationships of objects in my near vicinity.


Now consider the fact that so many 3-D filmmakers today are very, very reluctant to transgress the planar boundary of the screen in any way, shape or form. They avoid negative parallax at all costs. They are not merely rejecting "gimmick shots"—the paddle ball, the floating beer tray, the spears and flaming arrows; they are rejecting the depiction of any object that leaves the screen and enters theater space, no matter how naturally or unobtrusively this is done. They are declaring off-limits an important part of the stereo playfield, if you will. And I think this is being done arbitrarily, or at least without sufficient consideration.


Now consider this: Most audience members sit, what would you say, 20 feet back from the screen? Thirty? Forty? More than forty feet, in some cases? Which means that, if no object in a given 3-D movie ever violates the plane of the screen, it naturally follows that no object in that 3-D movie ever appears to come closer to the viewer than 20, 30, or 40-plus feet.


If the perceptions of other audience members are similar to my own--if many other people besides myself take the greatest pleasure in stereoscopic depth perception when surveying objects in their near vicinity--then does this not mean that a 3-D film conforming to this arbitrary limitation is in effect choosing not to stimulate the very sense (stereopsis) for which it was ostensibly made?


Leaving aside for the moment questions of narrow interaxial—I and others are convinced that most native, live action 3-D movies nowadays are shot with incredibly narrow IA values of perhaps one inch or less—does not this across-the-board rejection of negative parallax (parallax that places objects in theater space) diminish the effectiveness of 3-D movies and contribute to increasing audience apathy?


Discuss.

Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant assessment. Spot-on!

If the suits snobbery and foolishness was the same for audio, we'd all be listening to mono.

The reason is people like this, and his ilk:

Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies​