The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam

An anonymous reader writes "There's a lot of things wrong with 3D movies. Avatar's 3D was well executed, but Alice's 3D was really bad, like all 2D-to-3D conversions. And yet, studios are reconverting 2D movies—including classics—into 3D to milk this fad. On top of that, the theaters are not prepared for 3D, with bad eyeglass optics and dark projections. In this article, a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles calls it as it is: it's all a big scam by the movie studios."

Comments

Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine how I feel about all that hype with only one eye...

Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers

[nigelo]

What's your Grandmother got to do with this? Oh, wait...

Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers

[Wandering Idiot]

You're batshit insane if you think the human eye can distinguish between 60, 90, and 120 frames per second. You're equally deluded if you think 30fps isn't "smooth" when movies are played at 24fps.

You're an idiot. I don't know where this myth came from that the eye has some set limit on framerate, but I'm tired of seeing it from people who apparently never play games. The human visual system doesn't work in terms of discrete frames, it's a continuous information flow (with a lot of processing done on it). For your information, I can tell the difference between a 60Hz and 85Hz refresh rate on a monitor displaying a still image (the former gives me a headache on most monitors), let alone moving graphics. The only reason 24FPS looks remotely acceptable for movies and the like is the motion blur that comes from the relatively long shutter speeds (the time the shutter is open per frame) of movie cameras, something that cgi artists have learned to replicate artificially, otherwise the sequence of crystal-clear rendered images animating at such a low framerate looks really janky. Higher shutter speeds can be used for effect, as seen in some scenes in Saving Private Ryan and the like (moving objects look clearer but seem to jump across the screen in discrete frames), but there's still some blur. Pause a movie during a fast action scene sometime and notice how blurry moving objects are (it's not just from digital compression, it's an artifact of the slow shutter speeds they have to use to make the movement look continuous). Remove the motion blur, and no, the image isn't remotely smooth at 24FPS. Ideally the framerate would be high enough that the individual frames could be perfectly clear (for cgi, or as close as you can get with high shutter speeds on live action), and any motion blur would come naturally from the human visual system (it would be lessened since our eyes are specifically designed to track moving objects to avoid blur), leading to a smoother, clearer picture, but the current framerates aren't up to that. I've always thought that, say, Michael Bay movies would be far more tolerable visually at something like 120FPS, because he seems to ignore the limitations, shaking the camera around and moving objects past it at speeds that turn everything into a blurry mess at 24FPS (which is a technological artifact that never should have remained as long as it has, really).

There's a reason developers on modern consoles brag when they get their games running at 60 instead of 30 FPS (if it made no difference, they could lock it at 30 like most games and get more detail onscreen). There's a reason PC gamers like to have a framerate at least as high as their monitor's refresh rate. There's a reason for 120Hz TV's (although those are using interpolation to "fake" the extra frames, and would provide better results if the original video was taken at 120Hz). The reason isn't that all the above people are deluded, it's because higher framerates look demonstrably better.

Do me a favor sometime, and find a CRT monitor, set the desktop to its highest refresh rate, and wave a finger in front of it without moving your eyes. You see those individual finger-images? That's from the strobe effect of the refresh rate (this doesn't work on most LCD monitors, since the natural lag time provides pretty much constant illumination, similar to how most lightbulbs hide the 60Hz AC rate). The faster you move your finger, the bigger the gaps between the finger images. If you can find a refresh rate at which the gaps are small enough that it appears to be a continuous movement even when moving your finger extremely quickly (hint: you can't on any consumer monitor I'm aware of), I'll accept that as something approaching the limits of the human eye. Until then, shut up.

Well, Yes

[spribyl]

3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.
Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.

Re:Well, Yes

[c 0xFF]

The point of 3D is to provide an experience you can't get at home. Nothing more, nothing less. Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.

Re:Well, Yes

[dunezone]

3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.

For example: Jaws 3 or Friday the 13th: Part 3

Re:Well, Yes

[nmb3000]

Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.

That's essentially true, but I don't think movies are simply about story telling -- movies are more about story immersion. You aren't just being told a story, you are experiencing the story through sight, sound (including the associated physical vibration), dialog, etc. In this way I think that 3D can be more than just a scam. As the summary said, Avatar's 3D really was incredibly well done. It could have been better; I read that Cameron originally wanted to film at about 60 fps but Fox shot him down, but this would have helped with both brightness and strobing issues. Once you become accustomed to the 3D picture, it really was a more immersive experience.

Of course, I think it makes no sense at all to go and "convert" older standard films into 3D, especially because what you get isn't even really 3D. You just can't present more information to the audience than you started with. Avatar was filmed with multiple cameras and therefore had the information needed to present a real 3D stereoscopic image. The Wizard of Oz wasn't.

Personally I think that well-executed 3D is a great boon to theaters because it provides (at least currently) a much needed physical reason for people to go to the theater to see a movie instead of just waiting to watch it at home. Hopefully they don't kill off this opportunity for themselves by overdoing or abusing it.

Re:Well, Yes

[MBCook]

But Avatar was designed, from the ground up, for 3D. I've read bits about the problems with 3D before. Besides the pseudo 3D problem mentioned, there is the fact no one really knows how to use the extra space yet, or the loss of focus it can cause.

Right now, a director can focus my attention on something with focus, but in 3D that doesn't quite work. Either the whole scene is blurry except what they want me to look at (which can be confusing when your eyes can't pull something you look at into focus), or everything is in focus, so I can get easily distracted looking at neat thing X in the background, and not the plot point I am supposed to be focusing on.

We're still at gimmick stage. It's going to take some time before there are many movies where the 3D is actually worth something.

But the whole "take a 2D movie and fake process it into 3D" thing is nearly a scam. I understand if you want to update Gone with the Wind in 3D, you don't have an option (short of a complete reshoot). But when you are starting filming this year, buy the second camera. Either you care about making a 3D movie or not.

Re:Well, Yes

[JWSmythe]

    It's more of the practicality of the modern economy. When people were making closer to $45/hr, it wasn't a big concern to drop $50 on a movie. (3 tickets + snacks)

    Now a lot of people aren't working, or are making closer to $15/hr. That $50 goes from 2.7% of the weekly paycheck to 8.3%. That $50 may be more important for paying rent, food, a utility bill, or gas to get to work. $50 for just over an hour of entertainment vs $50 for food, it becomes obvious which is more important.

    Inflation hasn't been matched by the working wages. It's actually been working inversely. Prices have gone up, and people have less money to spend. If it's different where you are, I'm moving there. :)

Re:Well, Yes

[JWSmythe]

      Movies still have their place. I've noticed that there's a substantial under-21 crowd. It's somewhere to go on a date, where you can be alone in a dark room with her. Parents don't generally tolerate sexin' up your date at home. :) Foreplay in the theater, intercourse in the back seat of the car, and back to moms house by midnight.

    The over 21 crowd usually head for bars and clubs, and then back to their own apartments.

    The over 30 crowd usually have friends over for food, drinks, and to watch movies, and then sexless nights with the wife. {sigh}

    Back to the original statement. Ya, I've noticed that the crowd is rather young, compared to the way it used to be 20 years ago.

Re:Well, Yes

[ArsonSmith]

I noticed that too, it seems like 20 years ago there were a lot more people my age that went to the movies. Now it's all just a bunch of youngins.

Re:Well, Yes

[Opportunist]

Social? Movies? If anything, the people around me are the biggest reason why I would NOT go.

Quite seriously: When I hear "social", I'd expect some kind of interaction. Sitting next to each other watching something and not having anything in common but to be annoyed by the chattering teens behind us is not what I'd consider a social experience.

Re:Well, Yes

[JWSmythe]

    Actually, that number is terribly skewed.

    90% of the population aren't actively collecting unemployment. You only count as "unemployed" if you are collecting unemployment. Those who don't, either because they couldn't (the company fought against unemployment benefits), or have fallen off the books because their unemployment ran out, don't count. They also don't count if they seem to willingly be unemployed. Like, a housewife or retired person isn't counted in the unemployment figures, because they chooses to stay home. The real unemployement number is closer to 25% unemployed but looking.

    "underemployed" don't count either. If you were a senior IT person for years making 6 figures, and have a wealth of experience, but can't get a job doing IT, and went to work for McDonalds making minimum wage, you aren't unemployed. You may not be able to afford your bills, but you're not unemployed. Those count for a very substantial number, probably 15% to 20%.

    There are groups who assemble the more realistic numbers, and they really aren't pretty. Of all my friends, who were gainfully employed a few years ago, less than 10% are working now. The rest are sending out resumes every day, and spending their unemployment money driving around to find work. That includes myself.

   

Avatar pains

[Trent Hawkins]

I don't know about anyone else but I've seen a lot of 3d movies before, but Avatar gave me a splitting headache at the end of it. I don't know quite what it is about it, but watching it was painful (not being sarcastic BTW.).

Re:Avatar pains

[lolocaust]

I've seen Avatar twice (both times were because someone else wanted me to accompany them when they went to see it). Once in a regular theatre, and the second time in an Imax theatre.

I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting. The cheapo cinema used circular polarization, which was more comfortable and caused me no eye strain at all. Perhaps something similar happened to you?

Re:Avatar pains

[nmb3000]

I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.

Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization.

I saw the film both at a normal theater (polarized) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable. The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping: It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.

That's my biggest beef with 3D, actually. Many theaters just aren't built with it in mind. If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen, it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts. Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times (as I said above, the "through a window" effect).

Re:Avatar pains

[Shirakawasuna]

Wikipedia is wrong. IMAX 3D is and has been linear polarization for quite some time now (when it wasn't the shuttered glasses). The only way it could be accurate is if IMAX switched within the last few weeks, which would not represent an Avatar experience anyways.


I know this because I've worked at an IMAX theater for ~4 years. Here's a quick test to see if the 3D glasses you are using are circularly or linearly polarized:

1. Get to pairs of glasses (borrow a friend's).

2. Place one of the lenses of one pair in front of one from the other so that you're looking through two lenses at once.

3. Rotate the glasses, see if the light getting through cycle through black/clear (a period of 180).


Linearly polarized glasses will do this, since it relies on the angle at which you overlap the glasses/projected image. Circularly polarized will not and will be either all-dark or all-light regardless of rotation.

Own them all!

[paiute]

Blade Runner U.S. theatrical version
Blade Runner Criterion Edition
Blade Runner U.S. broadcast version
Blade Runner Director's Cut
Blade Runner 25th Anniversary Edition
Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition
Blade Runner 3D
Blade Runner 3D BluRay
Blade Runner 3D Enhanced Sensory Edition
Blade Runner 3D Olifactory Special Release
Blade Runner Ridley Scott Memorial Edition

Re:Own them all!

[hansamurai]

Blade Runner The Unicorn was a Replicant Edition

I am an audience member.

[onion2k]

I go to the cinema a lot. I watch pretty much all the new releases. I always have. I don't agree that all 2D-to-3D releases are bad. I've rather enjoyed them. Ok, Avatar's 3D effect was better than Alice's. Nevermind, I paid my money and I walked away at the end of it feeling I'd had a good time nonetheless.

I certainly wasn't under the impression anyone had scammed me. I've read the article. I'm still not. I got what I paid for.

But it is +1 better

[gregg]

3 > 2 so 3D must be better than 2D. Personally, I waiting until they 'turn it up' to 11D.

The hidden perk of 3D...

[Manip]

People might think 3D sucks or isn't ready, but if anything gets movies to be shot with two cameras then I hugely support it. While I agree that today, right now, we lack the technology to display 3D well, we might have that technology soon and if we haven't shot our stuff correctly we won't be able to enjoy it that way.

Plus we might get digital media that allows us to "look around" during a live movie. Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on? Plus the cameras can be stitched together to get EVEN HIGHER resolution than HD.

Re:The hidden perk of 3D...

[plague3106]

Most HD stuff is indistinguishable from DVD stuff, at least for normal people at normal viewing distances on normal equipment.

I think you meant crap equipment. I absolutely (and my wife) can tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray at 1080p.

And since we still have SD in one room, we continue to see the difference.

I abhor the current fixation in Hollywood on big-bang graphics and effects at the expense of any real plots or enticing characters.

You must not be seeing the right movies then, because there are plent which are more than big-bang graphics and effects. And as far as 3d goes, i think Avatar shows it can add something, when used properly. It will take filmmakers time to figure out how to use 3d, just like it did 2d, but they'll get there. I'm sure the people said the same thing when they first added color. Sure, B&W might have a great plot, but you're not as immersed as you are with color. I think the same will be said for 3.

Heck, get a copy of Metropolis; shot in 1927 without any fancy technology, it still leaves you deeply disturbed and affected, far more than most of the hi-tech hi-def crap that rolls out of Hollywood today.

You're blaming technlogy for bad movies, when hollywood is doing what its ALWAYS done; making a ton of crap with a few gems. If you haven't been able to find great films in recent years, I suspect you're the problem, not hollywood. They are out there, you just need to find them.

4D the ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE

[wsanders]

Think of the advantages: With 4D movies, if the movie sucks, you'll be able to get the three hours of your life back that you just wasted.

Where 3D works

[Bruce Perens]

3D works for computer graphic animation, given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have. It's pretty simple to move the "camera" point and render again. There will be some tuning of textures, etc., to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points. So, given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor, and it's the labor that is really expensive.

3D works for new live action, given proper cinematography.

Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage, and should rightly be called a scam. Remember colorization? It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on "new" film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film. It wasn't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color. When the tax law changed, colorization mostly went away.

It's not an experience you can't have in your home. Samsung has a "3D ready" 55 inch TV on the market now, for $2300. The price will fall quickly enough.

Re:Where 3D works

[Bruce Perens]

I would imagine they did save the data and backups of the software. But don't underestimate the complexity of this task. There is a lot of one-off software and if you don't have someone who understands it still in house, you might be stuck. When I was at Pixar a technical director had to know 29 computer languages, due to the 30-year continuous evolution of their software. I think in the case of Toy Story there was a lot of conscious work put into keeping the film in a state that it could be re-rendered, simply because the folks involved knew how much faster computers would be in a few years, and they hoped to be able to make a sequel - it was a key to selling Pixar as a film studio worth the investment.

Alice

[Xest]

Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly? I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better. I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.

I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now. I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.

I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.

I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?

Depends on Which 3D Tech...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

There are three main 3D formats out there, IMAX 3D, RealD, and Dolby 3D. IMAX 3D uses linear polarization, RealD uses circular polarization, and Dolby 3D uses the Red/Blue color separation. In the first two, the glasses appear light gray, while the last has obviously colored lenses. I saw Avatar in the first two and Alice in the third.

My personal preference is for the polarized techniques. The IMAX was definitely the most immersive. The Dolby 3D seemed too dark and sometimes lighting made me aware of reflections on the inside of the lenses. Additionally, in the Dolby 3D, some of the colors, particularly greens, just seemed off.

Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech...

[Tacvek]

The IMAX3D is pure marketing. The technology used is not standardized. In some locations they use linear polarization, in others they use circular polarization, and in some places they even use LCD shutter glasses.

RealD always uses circular polarization, although the glasses polarization is actually slightly elliptical. If you tilt you head while wearing them the brightness of the film can vary some, but ghosting does not occur. Of course, tilting your head by too much will destroy the image. (Thing about watching the move with your head at a 90 degree angle to the horizon. The images would then appear to overlap "vertically" rather than horizontally, and since they don't when overlapped) like that...)

Dolby 3D does not use the old 2 color glasses trick, but does use a related trick, where there are two red wavelengths used, two blue wavelengths used, and 2 green wavelengths used. One set of RGB wavelengths is intended for each eye, and the glasses contain filters so only the correct light for each eye enters. This can cause some issues with color perception, as at most one of those could be tuned to the optimal wavelengths for each of the cones in the eye. Further the fact that the different eyes are seeing different wavelengths can result in different perceptions of brightness of two "equal" reds for example.

It's early in the industry, consistency will come.

[PhantomHarlock]

A former vfx animator here and cinema fan. I watched the three hour spectacle that is avatar in RealD with the circular polarized glasses and came away with no ill effects. The brightness was adequate, the new glasses let through more light than the old horizontally polarized glasses, if I remember the older IMAX experience correctly. I also thought the 3D in alice was fine, they did not go with the temptation to put the Cheshire Cat in the forward plane, which they could have because he is a floating entity that can be shown off without touching the sides of the screen, like the bird critter from Captain EO that made you cross-eyed. (with the re-release coming up you can do go to Disneyland and see what I am talking about)

I do agree that 2D -> 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style, it shouldn't be done out of respect for the original film. But the industry will always exploit their properties as much as they can. If you don't like it, don't watch it. And I also agree that movies intended for stereo showings should be shot with two lenses, not converted later. Both processes bring up multiple difficulties in post production, in different ways. With true stereo shooting you can't fake nearly as much stuff, you have to map it in 3D space rather than faking comps in 2D post. With fake 3D you can do more VFX compositing in 2D, but then a thousand monkeys will spend a thousand hours rotoing into 3D.

Last year at NAB I saw some incredible demos of 30" - 50" polarized plasma sets. Every other horizontal line was polarized opposite, and with 1080 lines there was not an appreciable degradation of resolution per eye and it looked amazing. The brightness was there too since LCDs and plasmas can put out a lot of light. The first models were selling for $10,000 etc. but the price will come way down as they figure out how to manufacture it more inexpensively. As a long time fan of stereo imaging, I am looking forward to the new stereo blu ray format. It uses the same RealD circularly polarized glasses. In fact I used the RealD glasses I got from the RealD demo theater earlier in the day. The RealD theaters are powered by the Sony CineAlta 4K projectors...really nice stuff and affordable compared to what digital projection used to cost.

Re:but 3D home theater is next.

[hrimhari]

It's an interesting notion, but I don't think that nostalgia would sell as much as quality + novelty does.

Their current strategy is to show it first, cash as much as they can in 2 months, then launch it on DVD to cash in more, then finally go to TV to squeeze the last drops.

It works quite well, actually. The real problem is that every model has a limited growth potential, and the movie theaters have reached theirs. They're now trying to insert a new model to increase their growth: 3D.

It's not a scam. It may or may not give you more fun than 2D. If it does, and you're willing to pay the extra, then it works for them.

If you prefer to pay less, watch in 2D.

Sometimes the 3D will be good, sometimes less so. Just as sometimes a movie is good, sometimes less so. What's the big deal?

Stop calling it '3D'

[johnlcallaway]

It's a '3d Simulation'. The people on the right side of the theater don't get a different perspective than those on the left. Avatar was not a '3d' movie, it was a 'simulated 3d' movie.

I kinda like the 'depth' that the effect brings to the screen. But what drives me nuts is that I can't bring out of focus images into focus. I think this is why I get headaches, my eyes try to focus on the 'close' stuff or the 'far' stuff and can't. Avatar drove me nuts with the stupid bugs 'in front' of the screen. I don't mind things flying out at me, they are gone quickly enough. But when things are made to appear right in front of my face and stay there, my eyes want to focus on them and can't. I found that my eyes were tired after the movie, and I wondered if that was from an unconscious attempt to focus on things that weren't in focus. My wife said she didn't notice it such an effect at all, and she didn't get a headache.

I saw Alice in Wonderland without the 3d simulation, and in the future will probably skip 3d simulated movies if I have an option. Although I might try an Imax version of Avatar if it's still out in a few weeks after reading some of the responses about not getting headaches at those theaters.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I asked, the surcharge was $5, or an increase of almost 50%. Not worth it for a pair of glasses.

Worse still: when I saw my first new 3D movie in the local theater I asked what the extra cost was for. They told me it was a surcharge for the glasses, so I kept the glasses. When I returned with my glasses to see another film in 3D I was told I still had to pay the extra surcharge since now it wasn't for the glasses, but a cost for the upgraded theater.

milking it

[__aaoyac5342]

Yeah I definitely agree that Alice in 3D was quite terrible 3D work. I hardly noticed I was in a 3D show other than the fact I was wearing the stupid glasses and that the screen looked much darker than normal. Maybe it was the theater I went to but I felt like they had somehow conned me into paying an extra $5 to see the not as good version of the movie.

Dislike it as well

[Strider-]

I dislike the 3D movies as well. Though, in my case, it was because of how they played with the depth of field. Much of Avatar was stunningly beautiful, but half of the time my ADD mind wanted to look at things that Cameron didn't want me to look at, and were thus out of focus. The strain of trying to focus on things that my brain was telling me I should be able to focus on, but couldn't, drove me nuts.

Re:Well, duh

[Tekfactory]

So after the movie you kept the theater right?