Are 3D movies toast?

[purpleoscar]

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. - Roger Ebert's Journal

I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch

 

[Lancemc]

I'm not yet sold on 3D, though I don't see why it can't have potential as a possible artistic, and certainly stable entertainment option. Cameron did it well, though the degree to which is enhanced the film is probably negligible. He did prove it can be DONE well, and without (almost) all the problems Murch brings up. For one thing, Cameron did always make the point of convergence and focus the same, which eliminated half of that problem. There's still no getting around the first part of it Murch mentions, at least not with the current 3D technology (curious to see how glasses-free 3D evolves and if it makes things easier), but I think he's overselling the "pain" of watching 3D, at least when it's done right, and for people who are physically able in the first place. As for the "darkness" issue, it's really not one, since the projected 3D imaged typically have their brightness enhanced to compensate, though I read that does have its effects on color balance and such. But that is adjustable as well to compensate. Glasses-free 3D will reduce that issue as well I assume.

So yeah, it's a bit more work and it's certainly more expensive (at least until it, possibly, becomes common to the point where theaters can't get away with charging so much extra), but I think it could be worth it in particular projects. I don't want to see every film in 3D, nor the majority of them. But I'll wait until I see what Coppola, Herzog, Scorsese and Spielberg can come up with before I fall on one side or the other.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Where are ya, Deep?

In all seriousness though, I really think 3D only has a couple years at most (if not less) before people tire of it. It's a gimmick - an admittedly cool one, when done right - and nothing more. I think what will really kill 3D are the crappy conversions

 

[Lancemc]

It is a gimmick. But gimmicks aren't inherently bad. Simulated-motion amusement park rides are gimmicks, and they're among the most popular attractions around. Hell, they're a blast and they don't seem to be going anywhere. I think filmmaker's eagerness to sell 3D as a passively-immersive layer to cinema turned out to be a failed experiment. As I said above, I'm willing to see what particular artists can do with it beyond adding a mere layer of "depth" to the image, which most will agree doesn't really achieve that anyway. I wish people would embrace it for what it does accomplish though, which is allow for some fun thrills, and work with that dimension *cough* to explore possibly creative new uses for it. Now, that's not what Herzog is doing, it seems, but if anyone can make the "passive" application of 3D work it's him. And I'm sure Coppola is cooking up some nutty stunt for it with his announced new film. I expect Scorsese and Spielberg's films to be somewhere in between, but I can easily see them applying their master's touch in perhaps more subtle ways that still reap its benefits. We'll see.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I gotta say, I was on the 3D train until I saw Clash of the Titans. It definitely soured the experience for me. Maybe I just need to see another one that was meant for 3D from the start.
Even though it looks like it's probably a typical action adventure type movie, I kinda want to see that cave exploration movie in 3D if just for the atmosphere

 

[bono_212]

As Lance was saying, I'd love to see a more "passive" approach. Nothing takes me out of a 3D movie more than them throwing something out of the screen just because they can.

 

[Lancemc]

Heh, I'm actually saying, I think a lot of films are trying the passive approach already, like Avatar and most of the Pixar films... and I don't think it really works. At least not yet. Or... it works, but doesn't really enhance anything. I think the most successful uses of it thus far (not that there are many... if any at all) actually try to take advantage of the dimensionality. U23D probably achieved this best of anything, making use of the outward and inward space, creating some truly exciting and expressive compositions - placing you in the crowd, heightening the light and stage effects of the show in more purely cinematic ways, the overhead shots which transformed the stageiness of concert film into something between live performance and cinema. It wasn't merely a passive varnish placed over a standard film, but it wasn't as cheap as throwing things out of the screen and making you duck. This is the sort of 3D I'd like to see more filmmakers play with. Unique expressive, potentially artistic applications which might validate the gimmick.

 

[bono_212]

That was kind of what I meant, I'm really out of it tonight, my iron's really low, and I just hoped the post would stand on its own, but obviously not if I'm using the wrong wording.

What I don't want is for 3D to attempt to just be a quick little magic trick, like the popping things out of the screen like I said.

What I meant by passive, is a lot like what you're saying, using it to enhance and draw you further into the film. But passive isn't the right word, because you do want to understand it's going on to an extent. Just not to the point of it being invasive.

 

[Lancemc]

I hear ya.

 

[bono_212]

Excellent.

 

[Lancemc]

All that said though, My Bloody Valentine 3D was kind of awesome.

 

[powerhour24]

Yeah I don't think the gimmick has been explored as an artistic tool yet, but Hollywood's eagerness to jump on the Avatar bandwagon has definitely turned 3D into a but of jokes a lot of the time now. Weirdly enough, the culprits in the Clash of the Titans conversion fiasco, WB, shied away from releasing the completed conversion of Deathly Hallows Part 1 for fear of the quality. Surprising, given that they'd had over a year to do it since that was a plan a long time ago unlike the 2 month notice situation with Clash. Also, it's the moments of 3D in WB's prior 2 Potter installments and Superman Returns that show conversions actually can be done really well. I am excited to see how Hugo Cabret uses 3D. It'll be harder to gauge what Spielberg does with it since TinTin is animated.

While 3D added nothing to Avatar as a film, it did distract the audience from the film's myriad of cliches, and propelled it to a $2.5b gross.

I think Disney has it right, with the way they've projected perceived depth into Tron Legacy, and their conversion of Pixar's last few, seeing into the screen is a lot less stressful on the eye, an a lot less gimmicky.

Did I miss something Lance, are you talking about upcoming Coppola and Herzog films made in 3D???

And yeah, to this day U23D is the most impressive use of 3D I've ever seen (and I had seen many before that, and have seen a lot since), that would be true for the fact that there was zero ghosting alone, something no 3D experience even Avatar can claim from my viewing.

 

[bono_212]

All that said though, My Bloody Valentine 3D was kind of awesome.

Nothing grates on me more than the fact that I missed that. (Ok, some things do, but in the context of THIS conversation)

 

[Lancemc]

Herzog made a documentary in 3D. Looks incredible.

YouTube - Cave of Forgotten Dreams trailer

Coppola's new film is said to feature just a particular segment in 3D with the rest in 2D. I'm imagining a sequence or more not unlike the colored memory/fantasy digressions in Tetro, in terms of 3D providing an expressive counterpoint to the main body of the film. This is all speculative on my part of course, but yes, he's using 3D for part of his next film.

 

[powerhour24]

Holy shit, I've been out of touch lately. Herzog is one of my favorites, and that is an amazing trailer. Interesting to hear about Coppola's use of it. I was really disappointed when it turned out Soderberg's Contagion wasn't going to be 3D, that would have been the first use of it by a real maverick artistic filmmaker.

 

[Lancemc]

that would have been the first use of it by a real maverick artistic filmmaker.

Yeah, but Herzog's more interesting.

 

[powerhour24]

Well, I would agree, but I guess I should have been more specific and said in a narrative!

 

[Lancemc]

Ok, you got me there.

I'm disappointed The BERGH!'s proposed 3D Cleopatra musical fell though. Because it probably would have been atrocious and amazing and ludicrous and omg.

 

[powerhour24]

Oh agreed, set in a 1920's speakeasy right? That sounded like one of the most brilliant trainwrecks ever to be. One can only hope that he doesn't retire and that it will come to fruition one of these days.

 

[bono_212]

The stuff that cult films are made of right there. Holy shit.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Come on now.. Great Gatsby in 3D?



What some consider The Great American Novel is now set to get the Great American Multiplex treatment, as director Baz Luhrmann's upcoming big screen version of "The Great Gatsby" will be filmed in 3D -- and in Australia.

The Sunday Telegraph of Australia broke the news on Sunday that the director's new film version of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel had chosen New South Wales, Australia as his filming location, signing a deal with the government on Friday.

As previously announced, Leonardo DiCaprio will take on the role of Jay Gatsby, the mysterious millionaire, while Carey Mulligan will take on Daisy Buchanan and Tobey Maguire will play Nick Carraway, the book's narrator and protagonist.

The 3D announcement should come as no surprise -- back in January, it had been discussed as a possibility for the film. This will be the largest scale production of "The Great Gatsby" since Francis Ford Coppola made a 1974 version of the film starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Damn, I remember hearing that Blake Lively might be cast as Daisy. That would have been brilliant.

But, as I'm reading, it looks like the decision to cast Mulligan was made a few months ago. I'm out of the loop.

 

[purpleoscar]

Maybe 3D won't be dead yet.

James Cameron 'Fully Intends' to Make 'Avatar 2 and 3' at Higher Frame Rates - The Hollywood Reporter

Cameron said that shooting movies at a higher frame rate than the standard 24 frames per second will give them an added sense of reality. Katzenberg explained how advances in computing power are affecting how computer graphic artists create stories. Lucas related to the packed session that 2d to 3D conversion takes time and creative talent.

As evidence of his belief in increasing frame rates, Cameron said he "fully intends" to make Avatar 2 and 3 at higher rates and is looking seriously at 48 and 60 frames per second. "When you author and project a movie at 48 or 60, it becomes a different movie," he said. "The 3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window. In fact, it is just reality. It is really stunning."

$$$$

 

[Jive Turkey]

Makes sense for 3d since the fps is essentially being cut in half with the flickering of the signal. But I don't really want to see ultra smooth film at 60 fps. I'm not really interested in seeing things closer to the way they look in real life. When has that ever been the goal?

 

[Lancemc]

Yeah, I'm not particularly interested in that for many regular 2D films really. 24fps is pretty definitive to the very feel and look of cinema. Hell, digital video cameras have even gone pretty far out of their way to reproduce the effect. I don't think most of the very serious filmmakers are going to be willing to make that leap just yet, especially considering how many still refuse to even touch a digital camera. But there's surely room for both, just as there's room for both a film purist like Tarantino and a progressive techno-formalist like David Fincher. Anyway I could see the higher framerate being pretty useful for most big tentpole blockbusters and action films and such, since the traditional film does get a bit jittery in really quick movements and such. And yeah, it goes without saying it's a fantastic idea for anything shot in 3D. And said films are already a pretty big step away from the traditional film experience anyway, so might as well push their particular niche even further and make for a more comfortable viewing experience.

 

[purpleoscar]

Boy some people are moving fast:

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150222861171558

Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!

Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades--not because it's the best film speed (it's not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.

Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.

Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!

I'm certainly not on the 3D bandwagon but I'll definitely have to see this before I make my mind up.

 

[Jive Turkey]

The vinyl to CD analogy seems like a poor one

 

[purpleoscar]

Yeah Blu-ray would be a better analogy if the quality is as hyped.