Slashdot Mirror
Has 3D Film-Making Had Its Day?
dryriver sends this hopeful note from the BBC:
"'It's three years since audiences around the world swarmed into cinemas to see James Cameron's Avatar. It rapidly became the biggest grossing film of all time, in part because of its ground-breaking digital 3D technology. But, in retrospect, Avatar now seems the high-point of 3D movie-making, with little since 2009 to challenge its achievement. Three years on, has the appeal of 3D gone flat? Nic Knowland has been a respected director of photography in Britain for 30 years. He's seen cinema trends and fads come and go, but never one for which he's had so little enthusiasm as 3D. 'From the cinematographer's perspective it may offer production value and scale to certain kinds of film. But for many movies it offers only distraction and some fairly uncomfortable viewing experiences for the audience. I haven't yet encountered a director of photography who's genuinely enthusiastic about it.'"
It's not popular because it's false advertising. Holograms or bust.
Nor will it EVER have its day until there is a real 3D display system.
Now, stereoscopic filmmaking may be over, but that's hardly 3D except in the eyes of the bewildered.
I guarantee you, when a 3D production can be made, distributed and enjoyed, the day of 3D will begin, and it isn't likely to *ever* go back to 2D (or the pale imitation that is stereoscopy.)
Also, happy solstice + 3. I wish you a suitably bacchanalian event, complete with frolicking, consensual partner of your choice.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The use of such high visual fidelity should be for things where visuals trump all. Sports (god I hate sports) benefit because you're watching the action. Nature shows (various National Geographic things or the Planet Earth series) benefit because... it's fucking nature and the only sensory experience you can get from a TV is sight and sound. Action flicks or CGI wankfests (Transformers, blah), again, because you're watching the spectacles, not the shitpoor Bruckheimer dialogue & acting.
But now what's the point of high FPS in a drama? Would Downton Abbey be that much better in 3D? Is a comedy going to be more hilarious in 1080p?
As much as I hate to say it, the 3D format for film will probably be the future. Even if this current fad dies down, the next iteration of 3D technology will probably carry it forward into the future. It's essentially the next logical step in production, the same way colorization was when it first came out. This is not to say I LIKE the 3D element in films that have been produced recently - I have seen The Hobbit and the Life of Pi in the past two weeks, neither of which where really enhanced by 3D. In fact, when I saw the Avengers in 3D, I wanted to puke from the crappy usage of post rendering. However, if you look back at early usage of colorization, it was gimmicky, and often extremely unrealistic. It took many many years for it to develop into an actual viable tool. Before everyone starts whining about how awful 3D is, there are many techniques for proper 3D rendering that modern artists haven't mastered, or have actively chosen to ignore. As an example, using deep focus to prevent blurring of items in the frame helps the human eye in 3D movies, but it contradicts pretty much most of what modern film theory tells us so far, and as such it's how we've learned to both make and perceive film. It's going to take a great deal of re-working and re-imagining to make 3D an augmentation, and not just an attraction. And this isn't counting the technological constraints of 3D, which still haven't quite made it to critical mass yet. The point is, see The Hobbit in 2D. You'll be much happier.
For rendered movies are they really conversions and not re-renders?
The sooner it goes away the better.
The primary deleterious effect of 3D in my local movie theaters is that the 2 or 3 popular movies at any time now occupy 4 or 6 screens, for the 3D and non 3D versions. This pushes out 2 or 3 other options, so there are fewer options available. This is not a good thing.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
There are major, but short-lived, bursts of stereoscopic 3D movies seem to come every 15-20 years or so, as another new generation is available to be briefly wowed by a technology that's not new and that doesn't really add anything to the moviegoing experience. People get over it and we move on.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
People aren't buying expensive TVs because they are 3D; they are buying high end TVs which mostly happen to have 3D.
Now if these 3D TVs had real 120 Hz input (for two frames of 1080p60 in 3D using shutter glasses) it might be a useful feature to use without the glasses on. But so far I think they all only support two frames of 1080p30 at most - standard HDMI doesn't have enough bandwidth, and newer spec hardware and cables are required.
With 48 fps movies, we may see more TVs using 240 Hz, but probably none with any high-bandwidth inputs, especially if 3D goes away.
3D in a TV isn't all that expensive. You just need a TV that can handle a high enough refresh rate, and some cheap electronics to sync with shutter glasses. The rest can be handled by software.
Expensive 3D TVs are expensive because it tends to be a gimmick added to high end televisions.
The sooner it goes away the better.
Seconded. I *always* go see the 2D version of any movie I want to see.
And even those suffer, because of the scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version. Very distracting and annoying, even in 2D.
Like so many other applications of technology, we need a better reason than "because we can".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I know they target the normal vision for these movies, but the fact is that a huge amount of people don't have normal vision and can't watch these 3d movies well. I have astigmatism, and most others I have talked to with a string astigmatism have a hard time with these movies. Personally, my eyes can't focus well, but I know others that get dizzy or headaches. It isn't main steam because they ignored a huge population base!
I have a 3d vision projector. Playing Skyrim in 3d is pretty badass. Video games have to store the render geometry somewhere, so it is available to use to create 2 views into a single render scene. No new tech needed, no hard to use filming techniques required, no massive infrastructure investment necessary.
The same projector, when used in movies, generally sucks. Avatar is basically impossible to buy, and the other movies are mostly terrible. For movies, 3d seems best on documentaries (especially space) where it adds an extra tiny hint of wonder.
I don't care whether it's 2D or 3D, or even wowza effin' holograms: it doesn't matter. What matters is the story. Shit, son, I can be thoroughly entertained by a book - imagination required. The vehicle of delivery means naught if the story doesn't compel. If the story is compelling by itself, I don't need the video embellishments. One could say that if you, as a film maker, have to resort to some form of 3D to draw an audience, that you have failed: you should not rely on the presentation to rescue your ass. Unfortunately, we'll have to learn this lesson over and over again.
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart. The problem with 3D isn't that it is a gimmick it is that it's been marketed as one and it is a relatively poor gimmick. It isn't some stunt to deliver better graphics. Watching a movie in 2D vs 3D is like watching a play vs watching a movie. You are suspending belief which is fine and there is content worth suspending belief to consume. But I'd rather not have to and that same content would be enhanced if I didn't have to. Close one eye. It isn't a horrible view of the world but it isn't what things look like. For the most part you don't notice the world is 3D vs 2D and things aren't jumping out at you all the time. In most cases the difference is subtle. But it is there and there is no content that isn't more enjoyable looking the way it is supposed to.
Just because something isn't flashy doesn't mean the experience isn't enhanced by a high quality image, at high fps (subconsciously you see the flicker on 2D too and it tires your eyes), and 3D. The entire point of a movie is the same as a book. To escape into an alternate reality for just a bit. Look around you. Anything less three dimensional, lower resolution, at a lower frame rate, or with a lower quality of audio is less immersive. The closer a drama hits on these points, the more you feel the moment and the more dramatic it is. The more in the moment I am, the more hilarious the comedy.
Is it more dramatic when a jewelry box is opened to reveal cut glass or the sparkle of a diamond? The visual impact has a dramatic impact quite aside from the monetary one. Why would dramatic film be any different?
can't be made better with 3D.
Instead of remking shit like Red Dawn into a bigger pile of shit 20 year later give us some fucking good shows and fuck the 3D. No wonder so many people pirate. They'd rather pirate in the privacy of their own home then be seen in public watching crap.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
What I mean with drama is that the kind of subtleties, the emotional responses, the dialogue, those things are not enhanced with greater FPS, resolutions, or stereoscopic "3D". It's a seriously flat plateau as far bang for buck when it comes to quality in genre. Yeah, you probably don't want to watch an old realmedia video with massive blocking artifacts and muffled sound but once you hit SD resolution and stereo sound, that's enough. Minor jump in enjoyability for DVD quality but then after that is just a waste of storage space, bandwidth, and/or CPU use.
Also, I would say that for any sound, when given quality source files, higher quality sound systems is always better for for anything. You (a rhetorical you) could say that modern, overcompressed and low dynamic range music wouldn't benefit as much and that's probably true. ...but then I'd also say that anything over stereo would be a waste since I only have two ears anyway but whatevs.
Anyway, I feel you're missing the important distinction between emotional connection with viewer and visually immersing the viewer. Just as I don't need to be 1080p with 7.1 surround sound to mourn the death of a character, I don't even need it to be real. It could be CGI, a handdrawn comic, or just a combination of letters on a surface. It's not the number of pixels or how many are flashed at me in a second that regulates the impact it has on me.
I'm tired of another one trying to prove that 3D is money grab scheme, or just pompous extra to pay more for ticket. Essentially, *any* technical improvement ends in that bin, so please stop speculate. It all depends how it's used.
I have seen quite a number of 3D movies for these last years and as usual, it all depends on talent. "Prometheus" was just so well done in 3D - you can discuss about acting, script, but 3D was awesomely done here. Thing there and there, not overdone, but done at right time and place it made wonders.
"Hobit" 3D with all 48 FPS was also beautiful. It took time to adapt, but when I "forgot" that it moves too fast, it was amazing.
"Transfomers 3" in same time was kinda shitty, only few scenes like done specially for 3D looked good, but also not immersion, but "ohh nice 3D demo" wise (not that I'm against nice 3D demos, but that's not worth the ticket).
What about 3D scientific movies (nature movies, ocean movies)? What about Cirque du Soleil new 3D movie, which looks so artistic that I can't hardly see money maker there? What about Life of Pi?
Look, 3D is technology, essentially it's a tool - as 48 FPS, or Doubly Surround. It all matters how it's used. 3D won't make shallow movie enjoyable to me. But it sure can make movie I like more spectacular.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
...to force theaters to switch to digital projectors, and pay for it themselves. Digital distribution is orders of magnitude cheaper than 35mm film distribution, which is why the studios wanted the change. They could say to small independent theaters, "We're not sending you 35mm prints any more, so you better switch or you'll go out of business." But the MPAA needs the big chains like AMC and Regal as much as AMC and Regal need the MPAA. If AMC stops showing Universal's movies, AMC goes out of business, but so does Universal. There were originally negotiations about sharing the cost of the equipment rollout, but no agreement was ever reached. So the studios started making boatloads of 3D movies and hyping them to death so audiences would demand the change. Audiences are starting to catch on that it's just a gimmick, but it's done its job. Most theaters are digital now and the last few exceptions will be switching within the next year or so. And the studios didn't have to contribute a dime.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have the impression that around 50% of the people like 3D and the rest doesn't. Because theaters have invested a lot in 3D this means it won't go away for a long time.
-- Cheers!
But the boat still sunk, right ?
Just saw "Rise of the Guardians" in 3D with the entire family. Visually fantastic, and without doubt the best 3D film I have seen. So the clear answer to the OP question is simply "No".
It may just be that the filmmakers need to learn how to best use 3D, the same way they had to learn using color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor
When "Technicolor" was first announced to the world it was BIG NEWS.
Folks flocked to watch movies shot in "Technicolor" just because they were not black and white.
Even lousy movies, movies that are worthless/meaningless, raked in truckloads of cash, just because they were in color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Technicolor
Then, the fancy died down.
This 3D thing is of course no different.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Sorry, it's called Dolby 3D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D - it really is MUCH better than polarization-based 3D.
I was searching if anyone mentioned hr3d, to mod him up. But unfortunately not, so instead of modding i have to mention it myself.
HR3D (high rank 3d display, where rank stands for high rank matrix used in calculations) is the future of 3d displays. It uses the parallax effect, but to much higher extend, using dual or triple stacked LCD displays. Where each display is serving as a special parallax barrier. HR3D is calculation intensive currently, this is why it is not widely adopted. But the computations costs will decrease, and it will become popular. It is not only two viewing angles for two eyes. It can have 16, 25, 36 or even more viewing angles. And you could look from far above, from far below, from far left from far right. And even look behind something. Though generating content for hr3d requires having 16, 25, 36 or even more cameras (each recording from another perspective) instead of just two cameras recording for two eyes. So it is mostly suitable for digital content, or simply put an OpenGL driver to display OpenGL graphics in real 3D. If a movie director wanted to make a movie, with actors, his camera would look like an insect head, due to so many cameras required. Or maybe some special 3D-camera that records everything and recalculated whole scene in 3D.
I am watching their progress, and can't wait when I'll be able to buy some hr3d display with OpenGL drivers for linux. Also if they went IPO I would buy their stock immediately.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Imagine if the Star Wars universe was "updated"* to reflect the latest recording technology. Not only would R2D2 have hi-def, but everyone would be walking around the Star Wars universe twittering and watching movies on their smartphones. If the population of Alderaan was a bunch of smartphone addicts then when the Death Star wipes them out a million souls would text in terror "OMG! WTF!" and rush to update their Facebook status before they were vaporized, but a billion more would cheer the Death Star on.
* Don't worry. George has sold it to the Mouse. He can destroy your child hood memories no more.
> scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version
Why are you blaming better technology for what is in essence just bad film-making?
I hated the sounds of early CDs, I was a vinyl lover, and it was only later when talking to a hardware engineer who'd worked in the digital audio field that it was revealed to me why I hated the sound - because they were deliberately engineered to sound as unlike vinyl as possible. And in part, that meant deliberately screwing up the frequency response. So it wasn't the better technology that was to blame, it was humans making crappy products.
You probably don't remember some of the tragically awful repeated pans that infested music production not long after stereo became popular - left - right - left - right - left - right - jeez, I get the message, I've got two ears and you've got a crack-monkey for an engineer, enough already.
The technology is best when you *don't* notice it.
Exactly the same with 3D cinematography. Just wait for the gimmick to wear off, then you won't have to put up with inane gimmickry.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I live in French, where american movies are usually shown dubbed.
While the dub is usually "quite good", the original version, as played by the original actors, is always better, so I prefer watching films in their original language.
The problem is that now, with 3D, you either have the following choices: French in 3D, French in 2D, or English in 3D.
I don't even know why, since 3D and subtitles hardly go well together.
For this reason I'm forced to either watch sub-par 3D, or listen to sub-par voice-over. Or just download from the pirate bay.
Go watch Life of Pi. It's a great example of good 3D. The 3D is unobtrusive, yet beautiful.
its probably your theater
i haven't seen a movie in a few years and went to see The Hobbit in HFR 3D at a nice NYC theater. It was a lot better than a few years back. the 3d didn't hurt my eyes and it added a nice depth perception to the picture
What about the big effing elephant in the room: BRIGHTNESS? One of the things Cristopher Nolan doesn't like about 3D is that the polarized filters in the projector and glasses kills about 2/3 of the original brightness, and they didn't triple the luminance (or whatever) of the projectors to compensate. Everytime I see a 3D flick I feel like I'm going friggin' blind: some scenes in Avengers where apparently made for blind people (w/ dialog only), 'cause the only 5 things I could see where Capn' 'Merica, Thor, Loki, Jack, and Shit. Remember Avatar The Last Airbender? Might as well have been a BBC Radio Show like The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy for all people cared.
What's the point of 3D when I'm seeing more details in the 2D version? We get 90% of depth information from 2D anyway, plus the 3D effects are fscking unnatural: hey is that the Avengers Airplane flying over the ocean, or a TOY AIRPLANE LEVITATING OVER A BUCKET? 'Cause I didn't know I could see stereoscopically that far, with the paralax and all...
Difference is that color actually added to the ability to tell a story, using color to evoke emotion or focus the viewer's attention.
There is no reason why 3D cannot do the same thing if used properly. 3D can create a sense of space or vastness or depth. Flight is inherently a 3D experience which is hard to properly capture in 2D. Just because movie makers have done a generally poor job of using the technology does not have anything to do with the potential uses of 3D if done well.
I have yet to see any 3D scene where the 3D is used as a storytelling device rather than just a fancy special effect.
There's nothing wrong with fancy special effects (color is one) though I understand what you are saying. Bear in mind that movie directors mostly still don't know what to do with 3D yet. They're still figuring out where it makes sense. The only way to figure it out is to try a bunch of stuff and see if it works. This means 3D is going to be used badly quite a bit for a good long while. Eventually they'll settle down as they figure out what works and what doesn't. This happens every time there is some new innovation in movies. Stop motion, bullet time, CGI,
I went to my first 3D over the weekend, The Hobbit. Here's my take. First the technical aspects are challenging, e.g. holding your head properly aligned, objects near the screen edge get funky, fast moving objects can show color fringes, etc. that gave he headaches at times. More importantly though, I don't think the film industry has learned the art of 3D. There were too many gratuitous 3D effects (like objects flying toward you) that are more appropriate at Disney - they do nothing to enhance the presentation of the story. There were times though when the effect was quite nice and made the characters more real. I'll try 3D again but the film industry needs to figure out how to use the technology to enhance the presentation of the story, and not to be the story itself.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
48fps made the 3D better, but the 2D version of the hobbit was still better.
The problem with 3D in The Hobbit is that they created a bunch of unnecessary quasi-floating environments where none really needed to be. There really was no reason for the goblin caves or the dwarf kingdom of Erebor to be a bunch of platforms suspended the way they were. Logically it makes little sense (think about the physics of hollow mountains) and there was no storytelling reason to do that. They did it simply to make it "more 3D" and I don't think it helped the story at all. 3D is fine but it still needs to make sense within the context of the story.
Without the 3d, is Avatar just a re-write of Dances with Wolves?
It's OK as a gimmick once in awhile. If it adds to the story, it could be worth doing. But 99% of the movies I'm going to want to see are going to be 2d. They will rely on story telling to compel me to watch.
I would *love* to see more 3D done using a "deep screen" effect rather than the "things popping out" effect that is commonly used - i.e. the stereoscopy is calibrated to make it look like everything is *behind* the screen instead of in front of it, like you're looking through a window. It's a more subtle effect, but far more consistent. When you try to put stuff in front of the screen you inevitably end up with large borders where only one eye is getting an image of something that both eyes should be seeing, and personally I find the effect quite distracting and uncomfortable. Not that it doesn't have it's uses - when I saw the IMAX 3D Oceans there were incredible scenes where sea snakes, cuttlefish, etc. were floating right in my lap / the center of the screen, but then a school of fish would try to swim across the theater and go all wonky except for the narrow window where both eyes were getting the proper image. Avatar had the same problem - the 3D was actually pretty good, but you still had large, wonky borders because stuff was floating in front of the screen and going invisible to one eye.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Government studies on stereoscopic viewing shows that viewing artificially created 3D can lead to a loss of depth perception. I built 2 different 3D CAVE/powerwall systems at the DOD. Engineers were limited to 5 hours per week which was considered the safe exposure rate. Viewing generated 3D can be used in some cases to treat strabismus, but normal eyes it's known to cause strabismus (more easily termed, permanent lazy eye).
Of course Hollywood would never tell you about such dangers since it would hurt their bottom line. Here is a link of note, which is important to note " 1 + 2 = if you use stereo 3D routinely and intensively, you will develop strabismus, period. Government studies showed that damage is not always from "routine" and "intensive" viewing. 8 hours a week had a very high rate of eye damage which is why we limited Engineers to 5 hours.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.