3D: gimmick or not?

[Nexus]

I really need to pick up one thing here that a lot of people keep banding about, and that's the image being darker. I feel I can make this comment with a little more authority given that I've been involved in managing the 3D Conversion of three major blockbuster films for two different Studios.

Yes if you take your glasses off it's going to be brighter, but that doesn't mean what you are watching with your glasses on is wrong. The 3D version of a film will have it's own separate 3D Grade, often done by a second Colourist working in harmony with the main Colourist on the 2D version. The idea is that they match exactly how the grade looks in the 2D version, but suitable for 3D with your glasses on. So you are not watching a darker film!


Regarding 3D as a whole, it's not practical for home usage at the moment. There are too many different standards by the manufacturers and the need for glasses while sitting at home isn't particularly favourable right now. It will get there though because pretty much every high-spec tv coming out now is 3D compatible, just like how HD was and you were only getting 1080p if you bought a top spec one.

In Cinema terms, it's not going away, there is just too much extra money in it for the Studios. The film I recently finished working on was going to make an extra profit in the billions for the 3D version, the numbers are barely even imaginable.

If 3D is used right, it can enhance the film.
I know that there are many people who don't like it, and that also includes some Directors and Producers. There are obviously some who have enough sway to go against 3D, such as Nolan with Batman, as you can be sure Warner Bros would want that in 3D, but if it's at the cost at loosing their star Director, then they have to weigh that up.

One of the Director's I worked with was quite staunch of his dislike of 3D, but by the time the film was finished he actually said the 3D version was the better version and really enhanced the film.

3D in the cinema isn't a gimmick, it's just undergoing something of an evolution.
A lot of people moan that post-converted films aren't 'proper' 3D, but post-converted actually has a lot of benefits that shooting in 3D doesn't.

Namely the biggest thing that needs to change is that many films natively shot in 3D are focusing on scenes that really enhance the 3D, but then look pretty rubbish on the 2D version because they are obviously staged for 3D... I'm looking at you Resident Evil: Afterlife.

It's been a huge boom in the industry at the end of the slump with the credit crisis. There are however a lot of cowboys showing up, which is why some 3D films look terrible, however it's only something that is going to get better with more experience.

The future of 3D is going to be films that contain a mix of natively and post-converted 3D which is used to enhance that version of the film subtly, rather than it being all the film is about.

 

[The Big T]

I've only watched one film that its suited and not been intrusive which is Tron Legacy.

They rest including Avatar I've enjoyed more in 2D.

I don't think its going anywhere but film makers need to get over the "WHOA ITS IN YOUR FACE" to give it any credence.

 

[benneh]

snip

Hey dude, I'm not sure that I agree. There's no across the board standardization for a start. Most of the glasses seem to offer different levels of absorbance, and there's no real strict quality control governing luminosity, especially in ageing cinemas, or cinemas a little off the beaten track. Plus ofc the age old issue of screen-focus drift and the seeming inability of any less than major cinema to employ a competent projectionist, and it's massive massive impact in 3d. I understand your point, I trained as a colourist and have worked as a cinematographer (Although not in 3d!). There is supposed to be an indistinguishable character between the 2d and 3d transfers, but for the end user it very rarely (read: never) ends up that way IMO.


"The future of 3D is going to be films that contain a mix of natively and post-converted 3D which is used to enhance that version of the film subtly, rather than it being all the film is about."

That's probably quite close to the truth yep. I don't believe that it will be using the technology we have deployed currently, though.

I'm well aware of the numbers, that doesn't have an influence of it being a gimmick or not.
Or is there yet another definition of gimmick that adds user uptake.

It's a gimmick. Homer Simpson saying 'Doh', whilst having a massive uptake, and penetrating the collective popular culture deeply, is still a gimmick. And comparing a necessary increase in screen resolutions to an illusion of depth perception as some sort of example of the progression of motion picture just makes you look silly. The amount of money spent on 3d installation, by the industry, has no bearing on whether or not it's a gimmick. You can spend as just as much money on a gimmick as you can on a none gimmick. Evidenced by the fact that they're spending so much money on this gimmick.

 

[Glaucus]

Of course 3d adds merging, just like surround sound, increased resolution and colour tv.

Let's leave this thread for a decade and see if it's a gimmick that dies, or a useful tool in industry and an accepted part of film, which adds a great deal to the emersion.

Your right the cost doesn't have a bearing on what it is, that was aimed at it's going to die a death.

 

[benneh]

Of course 3d adds merging, just like surround sound, increased resolution and colour tv.

Let's leave this thread for a decade and see if it's a gimmick that dies, or a useful tool in industry and an accepted part of film, which adds a great deal to the emersion.

Your right the cost doesn't have a bearing on what it is, that was aimed at it's going to die a death.

I think you mean immersion, which for the majority of people it doesn't.

But the issue is that whilst the gimmick can add some illusion of depth/fov, it also takes away from the experience for a lot of people, sharp reduction in image quality, headaches, lower luminosity, even rainbow effects and whatever else, and that's to say nothign of having to wear clunky unstylish glasses (which at £7-10 a pop is so unacceptable, it's beyond words).

Your examples (surround sound/higher resolution) were developed standardized increases in quality, the quality of the medium. This isn't. This is the equivalent (when framed in your example) of asking you to wear a vibrating wrist band so that you feel the explosions a little better in the cinema.
It's interesting and has some great uses, but not something that should be adapted as a standard method of film/delivery, and unfortunately the studios would have it that way, because it impacts piracy positively, for them, and people like yourself when they see the letters '3D' on the poster feel they're experiencing something modern and technologically advanced, and so they pay £3 more.

I'm not totally against 3d, I'm just against the current technology, it's use as a marketing tool, and it's effect on my ability to go and watch a new release in 2d, for under £7, without getting a headache. No doubt when we get true 3d/holographic projections I'll quite enjoy it!.

 

[Glaucus]

So you only see negative, rather than what it actually does do. Many of the negatives aren't a real issue on films that are filmed right. It is nothing like just reducing the quality. It also adds something.

As I say come back in 10years and say it's still a gimmick. It has real world uses and is yet another addition to film to make it more like real life.

Ah good assumptions without reading the thread. I've already said personally I don't like 3d and that the extra price is silly and am not prepared to spend it. After seeing what it's like.

 

[benneh]

Well, we'll see. 3d will catch on in some form or other I'm sure.


But for the record, some of us don't really want film to be experienced in the same was as real life.

 

[Nexus]

Hey dude, I'm not sure that I agree. There's no across the board standardization for a start. Most of the glasses seem to offer different levels of absorbance, and there's no real strict quality control governing luminosity, especially in ageing cinemas, or cinemas a little off the beaten track. Plus ofc the age old issue of screen-focus drift and the seeming inability of any less than major cinema to employ a competent projectionist, and it's massive massive impact in 3d. I understand your point, I trained as a colourist and have worked as a cinematographer (Although not in 3d!). There is supposed to be an indistinguishable character between the 2d and 3d transfers, but for the end user it very rarely (read: never) ends up that way IMO.

While I totally agree with you that projections can vary wildly, that's just as much the case as it is for 2D versions as it is for 3D versions.

You can spend months working on a film only to go into a cinema and find it looks nothing like it did in the screening room. In general though most people are never going to know, unlike how people are assuming they are watching a 3D film wrong because it's darker when they put the glasses on.

Ultimately a 3D film is going to look best on whatever System it was graded using. To date Avatar I believe is the only film that had a version created for every different 3D projection System. It's just too expensive to do that though, which is why it remains the only one. So if something was graded using XpandD, it's going to look better than Dolby and visa-versa.

 

[nicktay2605]

Following on from my first post, who here actually enjoys 3D? I agree that it's here to stay, despite the poor performance for some films that opened only in 3D this summer, but do many of you actually enjoy it? I guess that's what I was curious about to begin with. I personally haven't enjoyed it in more than maybe two films so far.

 

[weringo]

3D is closer to a backwards step than an advancement. Five years ago when I went to the cinema I never had to worry about watching a darker, blurrier image or being forced to sit through a 2+ hour with with a pair of glasses on.

The amount of money invested into it is irrelevant. If it doesn't sell then they'll have to stop making it eventually.

It's a gimmick which has overstayed its welcome thanks to hollywood's desire not to let it die.

 

[benneh]

I don't pay for 3d showings.

We were so close to having 4k as a base 2d standard too. This [------] close.

 

[Squark]

In it's current form, gimmick

 

[Jabbs]

When tv manufactures stop producing 3D tv's then I will say its a gimmick but they are still coming out fast.

My next tv would certainly be a 3D tv for sure.

 

[krooton]

Have any horrors been done with 3D, doesn't make the dimming as much of an issue, and something like The Ring/Paranormal Activity would be extra creepy if there was DOF.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I used to operate the 3D equipment at my workplace and I could wager that 10 minutes into a session at least 50% of the people would have their glasses off.
Does that happen in a cinema?

 

[iamtheoneneo]

yes a lot, the screen IS darker (despite a comment above) and generally you find that a lot of people just cant stand it and the general strain that goes along with viewing somethig your eyes werent designed to do (clever that).... which is why i guess most people go out of their way to avoid 3d showings now.

3d will disappear soon enough, the money is literally being drained from it already.

 

[Nexus]

^ Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about.

The image is darker with your glasses on, but the grade you are watching with the glasses on is how it's supposed to look.

I think you will find quite the opposite, the money being put into 3D is huge, even here in the UK. Infact one of the most successful companies from the 3D boom has just bought an entire central London building.

 

[Nexus]

I don't pay for 3d showings.

We were so close to having 4k as a base 2d standard too. This [------] close.

4K will never be a base standard anytime soon. As much as it would be nice to have that huge resolution, the industry simply can't deal with it at the moment until faster computing and transfer speeds are applicable.

Data sizes and rates for 2K are already enough as it is, 4K effectively doubles that and it's not really going to return you any extra profit at the cinema.

As much as many of the digital cinema camera manufacturers like to push that they can shoot in 4K or higher, there is little point as there aren't even many places that will even be able to show a 4K image.

 

[Amp34]

3D in the cinema isn't a gimmick, it's just undergoing something of an evolution.
A lot of people moan that post-converted films aren't 'proper' 3D, but post-converted actually has a lot of benefits that shooting in 3D doesn't.

Namely the biggest thing that needs to change is that many films natively shot in 3D are focusing on scenes that really enhance the 3D, but then look pretty rubbish on the 2D version because they are obviously staged for 3D... I'm looking at you Resident Evil: Afterlife.

It's been a huge boom in the industry at the end of the slump with the credit crisis. There are however a lot of cowboys showing up, which is why some 3D films look terrible, however it's only something that is going to get better with more experience.

The future of 3D is going to be films that contain a mix of natively and post-converted 3D which is used to enhance that version of the film subtly, rather than it being all the film is about.

This is what really annoys me. I love 3D done properly but when films purposly have thingss flying out the screen etc then it really puts me off. Save all that rubbish for the 4D cinemas in themeparks.

My take on 3D is that it should be another tool to add depth rather than gimmicks (like flying out he screen). Avatar and Tron got it right, stuff like Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine got it totally wrong in that respect.

 

[Amp34]

I think you mean immersion, which for the majority of people it doesn't.

But the issue is that whilst the gimmick can add some illusion of depth/fov, it also takes away from the experience for a lot of people, sharp reduction in image quality, headaches, lower luminosity, even rainbow effects and whatever else, and that's to say nothign of having to wear clunky unstylish glasses (which at £7-10 a pop is so unacceptable, it's beyond words).

Your examples (surround sound/higher resolution) were developed standardized increases in quality, the quality of the medium. This isn't. This is the equivalent (when framed in your example) of asking you to wear a vibrating wrist band so that you feel the explosions a little better in the cinema.
It's interesting and has some great uses, but not something that should be adapted as a standard method of film/delivery, and unfortunately the studios would have it that way, because it impacts piracy positively, for them, and people like yourself when they see the letters '3D' on the poster feel they're experiencing something modern and technologically advanced, and so they pay £3 more.

I'm not totally against 3d, I'm just against the current technology, it's use as a marketing tool, and it's effect on my ability to go and watch a new release in 2d, for under £7, without getting a headache. No doubt when we get true 3d/holographic projections I'll quite enjoy it!.

Impotant bits in Bold.

Firstly it isn't £7-10 a pop for the 3D glasses, it's about £1-2 and you can reuse your glasses and get a reduction in the ticket price. I think cineworld and Vue work out around an extra pound for the 3D version if you take your own glasses.

I also have issue with your "majority". I think in reality you mean "some". Alongside that certain people can't see colour properly and certain other people can't hear properly, doesn't mean all films should be in B&W with subtitles and no sound does it? It means those minority of people (and lets face it it is a minority of people that have the headache and other issues) should go to viewings that are in 2D, much like visually impared or deaf people go to specific viewings. To sound a bit crass technology shouldn't aim towards the lowes denominator it should aim towards the middle ground, with some help for those below that. The middle ground is firmly in the 3D is fine camp (if it wasn't then cinemas would certainly reduce the number of 3D films showing beause it would impact their profits, alongside that of the distributors and film studios).

How does it impact piracy positively? I can see two reasons for this...

Firstly people won't just download or buy a dodgy copy they will go to the cinema instead due to the 3D. I can't see this happening because most dodgy copies (when films are actually showing in the cinema) are appaling in sound and video quality. People who watch these watch them because they are cheaper than the cinema, they don't care about the quality so the extra 3D is not going to help (in fact I'd suggest it hinders because of the extra pound or two).

Secondly I guess there could be an argument to suggest it's harder to record 3D films in cinemas? Harder in the sense of having to buy a cheap polariser to stick on the front of your camera lens? Harder in the sense of just going to the 2D showing?

TBH for me, if I see a film advertised as being "3D" like it's a major appeal then I generally avoid them. When they were first coming out not necessarily so due to the reduced number of films in 3D, now on the other hand it normally means they are full of the gimmicky 3D I don't like rather than the subtle 3D I do.


One more thing, for those that really don't like 3D I'm certain there are cheap glasses that will remove the 3D ness of films in 3D showings. In fact I'm sure you could easily make your own pair with a pair of glasses and a couple of polarising lenses. That brings me to the final final question... I wonder if a lot of the issues people have with 3D could be solved by higher quality 3D glasses. It wouldn't cost that much for a company to produce a pair of reasonable frames with glass lenses instead of those cheapy easy scratch ones you get at the cinema. A decent pair of glass lenses wouldn't cost that much and photography grade glass would probably make a huge difference.