Jump to content

New Category?


Paul Bruening

Recommended Posts

Since it's a cinematography forum, my bet is that this category is for on set stereoscopic work. Though of course that is merging more and more with post 3D modelling, so there will be some overlap.

 

I teach a course in Stereoscopic Cinema at CCH in Los Angeles. Can you do your next movie in 3D? Of course, just depends on your budget and delivery format needs. It might not be entirely feasible quite yet for the truly indie (no budget) but if you have any budget at all 3D is becoming more and more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Can you do your next movie in 3D? Of course, just depends on your budget and delivery format needs. It might not be entirely feasible quite yet for the truly indie (no budget) but if you have any budget at all 3D is becoming more and more realistic.

 

The question is why should you?

Not every story benefits from 3D. I would say most don't. 3D is more for a theme park ride, which is what Avatar basically was, a park ride with some story. I was kind of hoping the fad would soon past but as Avatar made a behemoth amount of money it seems the fad will stick around a bit longer as money is the thing most people respect the most, specially Hollywood. But knowing Hollywood they will shoot themselves in the foot by over flooding the market with 3D crap till the gimmick wears out and people see 3D or not films still need a good story and most stories do not need 3D or are made better by 3D. Then the fad will go away as it has many times before in the past. The flood is already in the horizon. The next 3-5 years every blockbuster, comic book movie and 3D animation will be in 3D.

Was never a big fan of Cameron's and am even less now.

But you gotta handle it to him. Took himself to break his own record because we just have too many morons ahead of business in Hollywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrick Nuse
So who here has actually done work in 3D?

 

I'm being asking if I can make the next film in 3D. Oh great more book learning.

 

R,

I've done stills using anaglyph photos. (red and cyan glasses). works pretty cool with digital photos. I am now in the process of trying to use two lcd projectors and polarizing filters for playback I have a couple of polarizing filters that I use with my still camera and I think they are large enough to fit in front of the projector lens. I will use two sony betacams to record with. they can be genlocked to a common sync signal and have timecode jam synced. I'm really curious what the end result will look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who here has actually done work in 3D?

 

I'm being asking if I can make the next film in 3D. Oh great more book learning.

 

R,

Two shorts, one with the the P+S Technik Prism Rig using Sony EX1 & EX3, the other was two RED Ones with a home-brew rig. Also took the first workshop at Rockport on Stereoscopic cinematography. There we had a prototype from 3D Camera Company setup with 2 - 435's and also the another prototype 3D recorder for 2 - SI2K's. The third rig we had was the same P+S Technik and Sony EX's.

 

I would be happy to talk offline

 

The question is why should you?

Not every story benefits from 3D. I would say most don't. 3D is more for a theme park ride, which is what Avatar basically was, a park ride with some story. I was kind of hoping the fad would soon past but as Avatar made a behemoth amount of money it seems the fad will stick around a bit longer as money is the thing most people respect the most, specially Hollywood. But knowing Hollywood they will shoot themselves in the foot by over flooding the market with 3D crap till the gimmick wears out and people see 3D or not films still need a good story and most stories do not need 3D or are made better by 3D. Then the fad will go away as it has many times before in the past. The flood is already in the horizon. The next 3-5 years every blockbuster, comic book movie and 3D animation will be in 3D.

Was never a big fan of Cameron's and am even less now.

But you gotta handle it to him. Took himself to break his own record because we just have too many morons ahead of business in Hollywood.

Michael, this is just the apathy that the 3D people are trying to spot. 3D is not a theme park gimmick... it is the way we see life and every 2D film is using all the tools it can to make you perceive a world of depth. By this I mean depth cues, things you take advantage of and do not realize it. Foreground, middle ground and back ground. Small depth of fields and out of focus backgrounds. Foreground obstructions, foreground crosses... all of these to simulate depth in a scene.

 

Avatar's story sucked... really! ALL movies should start with a good story first. 3D is more or less another way to engage the audience into a story. If you go to a 3D movie looking for the so called 'gimmicks' then your literally missing the picture. UP, fantastic story and fabulous film, 3D or 2D... I still would have cried and laughed with my son. If you think of 3D as only a tool to bring a flat screen into a perception closer to your own native view experience, then you will get where 3D is truly heading in our industry... the 'gimmick' was over in the 70's and tried to revisit in the 80's.

 

-Alfeo

 

IMG_0272.jpg

3D%20RIG%202.jpg

R3D%20Setup-filtered.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...