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.'"

Comments

It's not true 3D

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not popular because it's false advertising. Holograms or bust.

Re:It's not true 3D

[Sussurros]

Now that's the grain of truth at the heart of every comment about 3D. If it's not a hologram it's not good enough. Since the 1950s there has been 3D after 3D after 3D but all anyone wants is the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie.

Re:It's not true 3D

[hairyfeet]

You kinda had it then missed the mark. Its not popular because not only does it not look good it rarely enhances the story and instead what you get is "Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes". Man I wish Candy were alive, he'd have had a field day with this.

But the dirty little secret that they are ignoring or downplaying, which is also why the 3D TVs aren't selling worth a shit, is a LARGE section of the population gets blinding headaches from the crap! I have 4 customers that have bought 3D TVs so far, how many actually use the 3D? NONE, none of them show 3D content on their 3D TV, why? Because at least one person in their family gets a blinding headache from watching 3D which ruins the entire point of having a home theater, the family gathering around and enjoying it together.

In my little shop I get people from all walks of life and all ages and when Avatar and all the 3D hype started i start asking folks about what they thought of it and I found the headaches are a BIG problem, in fact I hadn't met anybody yet who didn't complain about it giving at least one person in their family a sick headache. In my own family while I can watch it okay, although I do feel kinda fatigued afterward, both of my parents and my oldest simply can't watch anything 3D, more than an hour and they are walking out the theater with a blinding skull thumper.

So you have a product that 1.-Costs more, 2.-Rarely enhances the story, 3.-Often is only used for cheap effects, 4.-Gives a large portion of the population a negative experience when using it, and they wonder why its bombing? Maybe when they come up with holograms or at least 3D without glasses then i could see it maybe taking off, but this current tech sucks just as bad as the tech used back in the 50s, it just sucks in a different way. I know myself and several friends have gone out to see a movie and ended up changing our minds because we couldn't find a theater showing it in 2D and from the sounds of it more folks are doing the same, its not worth the bullshit.

Re:It's not true 3D

[mcgrew]

Since the 1950s there has been 3D after 3D after 3D but all anyone wants is the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie.

There are lots of problems with stereoscopic "3D". Your eyes (actually your brain)determine distance both by rangefinding and focus. When the two don't match (and they seldom will in a stereoscopic movie), many people get headaches.

Then there's the stupid glasses you have to wear.

Then there's the fact that 3D isn't really necessary.

But if you like 3D, never fear, it'll be back. It always is. As soon as a new crop of kids come around who think "3D" is new it will ressurect, just as it's done for over sixty years now.

No.

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if there were real 3D, how would you make use of this properly? Current story telling only works because you can limit and control what people see. How will a horror movie work if half the audience can already see the guy hiding behind the rock before he leaps out? (This is just one example of a ton of problems that would arise)

I'm not sure that most people who want 3D know what they are actually asking for - personally I think 2D is perfect just leave it alone.

Re:No.

[zakkudo]

True 3D will also fail as long as we keep the current ADD-style scene changes. (I can barely stomache them now.) Cutting between people talking is a nightmare for 3D and will always be extremely disorienting. The current filming style in Hollywood is prohibitive to anything that isn't straight 2D and I don't see them changing it. That is just the way it is.

Re:No.

[forkazoo]

Now, stereoscopic filmmaking may be over, but that's hardly 3D except in the eyes of the bewildered.

That's a very common opinion, but it's wrong. I've done everything from good old 2D 24 FPS through interactive live theater. Live theater is a close analog to what you are talking about, where you can move around and see shifts in perspective. The experience changes depending on what you do. It'll be an interesting tech demo when we get holoprojectors and holocameras. And, certainly there will be some people who use it to great effect.

But, a key part of the reason that film is so much more popular of a medium than live theater is the fact that the director and cinematographer can ove the camera and make you look at exactly whatever they want you to see. It's an incredibly powerful storytelling tool to be able to show your audience a very specific image. If you look at the original "A Few Good Men" and the movie version, you will see that the writing had to change quite a lot. I think it's a particularly good example of how storytelling changes for the cinema. You didin't need as many expositional monologs in the movie version because the camera could just show you something. That "show" vs. "tell" distinction is fundamental to why just taking a play and shooting it doesn't make a good movie. And, that distinction is why taking away the Director's ability to show you very specific images doesn't improve storytelling, even if it is more 'natural' and more technologically sophisticated.

Stereo cinematography isn't what it could be, but don't assume that it's just a technical problem. It's largely a business problem because doing a great 3D picture, where the cinematography isn't interesting in 2D simply isn't a good business plan. You need to be able to sell tickets in 2D theaters, and you need to be able to sell DVD's in order to make a profit. So, the 2D version has to have primacy, and that means that 3D cinematography takes a back seat. You won't see big studios really interested in 'artistic' stereo until stereo displays are ubiquitous enough that selling a 3D picture is a given.

Re:No.

[GuldKalle]

You shouldn't downmod just because you disagree, anyway.

"3D" has it's uses as does high FPS and resolution

[GrumblyStuff]

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?

Kill it. Kill it now lest it does any more damage!

[TechyImmigrant]

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.

Extreme "Meh"

[evil_aaronm]

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.

3D movies were never more than a Trojan horse

[howlingfrog]

...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.

Films shot in Technicolor

[Taco Cowboy]

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.

Re:Films shot in Technicolor

[Thagg]

I was the stereo supervisor on 30% of Transformers 3, and did a lot of research into stereo as part of that project.

It's obvious once you think about it that stereo 3D is most useful and appropriate at arm's length -- that's what our stereo perception has evolved to do for us. We want to be able to bash that wolf with a club, or pick up a glass of water, or shake somebody's hand -- all things that happen within 5 or 8 feet.

I believe you were being facetious, but My Dinner with Andre would be perfect for 3D. You would be absolutely in the world of that tabletop; many more of the natural depth cues would work synergistically. Give me 6 or 10 million dollars, and I'll prove it :)

Porn is another obvious example that would work for the same reasons. According to people in the market, though, the viewer typically wants to be at some distance from the performers -- they want that wall to be there.

Re:Films shot in Technicolor

[Woogiemonger]

While it is true that 3D has been largely either "poke you in the eye" or "show it in 3D, even though the director refuses to acknowledge it", there are SOME examples to the contrary. The main one that stood out was Coraline, which I made a point of seeing recently. The director, in an interview, confirmed how I took his approach to be:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2009/02/director-henry-selick-on-coraline/

"There was a learning process – mainly not to overuse it. We ultimately used it to help draw the audience into the Other world as Coraline is being drawn into the Other world. The sets in the Other world are actually deeper. In her real world, it’s crushed space with steeply raked floors. For example, the kitchen in her real world is one foot deep. The kitchen in the Other world is four feet deep. I wanted to use 3D in a more subtle way to show what Coraline is going through, that there’s a sense of spaciousness in that Other world. We have a few shots where things poke you in the eye, but when the Other world goes wrong, we crank up the 3D almost to an uncomfortable level to enhance the storytelling."

Great usage of 3D in my book. It's too bad not many good directors are taking 3D seriously.

HR3D

[Janek Kozicki]

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.

"Greedo Texts First!"

[CuteSteveJobs]

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.

Re:"Greedo Texts First!"

[Phrogman]

Well the Death Star would have its own facebook page with millions of people "liking" it for sure.

Ooh, just imagine Facebook as it would be run by the Imperials - oh, I guess not a lot of change after all. nm

Re:"Greedo Texts First!"

[M. Baranczak]

"I am altering the Terms Of Service. Pray I don't alter them any further."

More importantly, it's dangerous!

[s.petry]

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.