Why 3D is truly EVIL!!

[Antti Näyhä]

From a color correction standpoint, there would be a few side-effects to correcting and projecting at 7-11FL.

Thanks for the insightful post, and sorry for hijacking the thread! It’s just that ”it’s too dim” is still the most common complaint that I hear about 3D. So I’m still wondering about the side-effects to grading at 3.5–4.5 fL and projecting at 7–11 fL anyway.

 

I think Technicolor still makes small handfuls of over/under prints for release in obscure areas, but they never have been touted as being anything worth looking at.

Technicolor is actually marketing an improved version of their over-under system now, as a cheaper alternative to digital 3D. Not sure how it’s selling, though. Quoting a salesman: ”According to independent research in North America and Europe, audiences rated Technicolor 3D quality and viewing experience comparable to digital 3D”

[Keith Walters]

 

Again though, I think this thread was more about how the brain is tortured by simulated 3D. We've all had those 3D (meaning 3-Day) headaches from poorly mapped 3D. I'm not sure light levels or color correction hava a real influence on that aspect.

 

Hope all this makes sense!

It does seem that there is a general lack of understanding of the principles involved in producing convincing 3D, but I guess that's not all that different to understanding how to best convey a story convincingly through the medium of a flat image on a big movie screen (or a flat image on a flickering TV screen).

 

I suppose eventually, there will be rules of thumb worked out for doing this, but we're still pretty much in the Nickelodeon era.

 

For me, the biggest failing is the apparent lack of appreciation of the importance of depth of field in producing an illusion of depth.

The classic example is the "animated cardboard cutout" effect. This is due to the lack of correlation between the perceived parallax of the image, and the expected shift in focus between the slightly closer and the slightly more distant parts of an object sited at the distance the parallax suggests.

 

If the parallax tells your brain the person is 10 feet away but his nose focusses in exactly the same plane as his ears, it concludes that it must be a flat cardboard cutout walking around.

 

The only way this could be avoided would be to use wide-open lenses, and preferably on a 65mm-size sensor (or film).

Either that, or generate Post Production algorithms for simulating shallow DOF.

[Keith Walters]

We shot pretty extensive tests on a recent project, and I learned enough to recommend we avoid it.

That reminds me of the problem I kept running into when I worked for Panavision.

Quite often people would be totally unaware that certain problems existed (eg you can't usually shoot sync-sound with a CRT computer in shot). So we worked out engineering solutions which we hoped would solve problems that nobody else would have the resources to solve, and thus cement our reputation as the "go-to guys" and so on.

The trouble was, you also need to explain ahead of time exactly why people need our expensive but miraculous solutions, but once we did that, people just said: "Is that right? OK, well we won't try to shoot that! Thanks for the tip guys..." :angry:

[Markshaw]

Due to a number of factors rising ticket prices, noisy idiots in auditorium, 3D being rammed down our throats and the fact that my 9.1 HT kicks any cinemas ass I am going to stop going to the cinema or at least drastically reduce my trips.

[Phil Rhodes]

What's a 9.1 BY?

[Marcus Joseph]

I think that 3D has not had a real chance to be widely accepted since there is no real 3D projection standard in terms of brightness. We researched this completely before doing our 3D color correction for Captain America. The lab recommended a projection level of 4.5 foot lamberts as a good starting point. Since Marvel had a tough time with Thor, which was color corrected at 4.5 FL as far as I know, we color corrected Captain America at 3.5 foot lamberts. We took test footage to random theaters and ran it as low as 2.9 FL and it looked fine. If that movie is looking dark, the theatre is running probably in the area of 2 FL which is inexcusable.

 

By the way, the foot Lambert reading is made measuring THROUGH the glasses. We color corrected using the Expand-D system, but the 3D DCP should set up properly depending on whatever 3D system the individual theater is running.

 

I saw Captain America at The Arclight, Hollywood in the Dome, and it looked very dark. Its a huge space and a long throw. They use the Expand-D system there. I've also seen it in Real-D with the silver screen and although it was bright... it had an enormous hot spot in the middle and unacceptable fall-off on the edges.

 

I'm not sure what else can be done to give the theater owners a better product. Marvel was diligent and put allot of work in creating the best 3D product possible... and it is enormously frustrating to see negative statements made about a good film, expressly for reasons of poor presentation at the theater level.

 

I would say for you to see it in 2D... but Matt makes a good point where, through lack of proper set up, some theaters are showing 2D films through their 3D projection lenses.

 

At this point, I think the burden falls onto the theater owner. If you don't like the way the theaters are presenting the movies that you spend money to see, then make some noise about it and get them to clean their equipment. change their bulbs and calibrate their systems properly. It's ridiculous to think that studios are releasing dull, dark images for a release of a major tent pole offering.

 

3D can be an enormously expressive medium. I'm not against 3D... but I think it needs to be presented properly to see it's potential. If it fails to project in a credible way, I think it's best to avoid as a storytelling element.

I found that to be a similar problem when I saw Captain America, mainly the darkness, I also found my eyes straining to focus on the image, I am still thinking it might have been my recycled cheap realD glasses that caused the strain.

 

Do you feel that 3D is changing the way we compose and photograph? It seems as though rather than utilising focus to draw attention, you have to instead converge and deal with a more cardboard cut out field of view. I certainly feel at the moment it hasn't added much to the cinematic experience, besides making CGI look a lot more realistic in a distracting way. But I am unsure whether the technology will improve or die out, maybe I just haven't seen it projected well enough yet.

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

Hi,

 

Well, RealD is not the best 3D system that I've seen. We color corrected with ExpanD glasses and white screen. RealD uses a silver screen and this has a tremendous hot spot then dramatic... and in my opinion, unacceptable, fall-off towards the edges. Unless you are back centered in the theater and in row 40, you will have a compromised experience with RealD. When I saw a RealD version, I was not all that impressed to tell the truth. RealD looked allot more digitally enhanced... almost like there is sharpening in the workflow in the DCI for RealD. I have no idea if there is any sharpening, but to me, the RealD versions seemed to have the affects that over-sharpening brings to an image. ExpanD did not have this look. As far as I know, RealD is more present in theaters, as the glasses are far less expensive.

 

It should be noted that Captain America was a 3D conversion. We did not shoot in 3D. We did not really concern ourselves much with 3D as we shot it, but then Joe and I seem to shoot using depth in the frame in 2D anyway. It was not Joe's desire to make the film a gimicky 3D experience. He just wanted to tell a story, and that was our focus. The film was shot in 2D and is a 2D movie. Best to see it in 2D if you're at all on the fence on feeling positive about 3D.

 

To be honest, I'm seeing there are allot of people who do not like 3D, yet they continue to see films in 3D when they have the option to see it in 2D as it was shot. Curious why that is. If a viewer is against 3D, then wouldn't it be better to simply enjoy the 2D version? I can understand the frustration with handing out all the extra money for 3D (at the Arclight, I believe it's a 5 dollar up-charge for ExpanD). But if CA looks dark, please know it was timed at 3.5 Foot Lamberts. That's as dark as we could color-correct and still maintain an acceptable amount of color fidelity. If it's dark, then the theater is far far far below any normal brightness level, and the audience has a real argument for a refund.

 

In our tests shooting 3D, Joe and I rather liked approaching it with a light hand. In the test, however, I did all the things you are not supposed to do, but are techniques that Joe uses frequently. I flared light into the lenses, shot long lenses to find ways to deal with the cardboarding, shifted convergence rather aggressively thru moves, moved thru smoke and highly reflective areas. a mired of different things. I kept close track of our technical settings as well as extra time it took for lens changes and set-up. I then presented the pros and cons to Marvel, and they agreed with my recommendation that shooting 3D on that project was not a fit.

 

They did still want a 3D release because that figured into their profit needs and was a factor in getting the film made, so a conversion was the best answer for them. The conversion on CA is actually pretty good... especially if you want to research the steps it takes to do a quality 3D conversion.

 

In this case, we didn't just take someone else's ideas and decide they were not for us. We tested that format on a grand scale and made our own evaluations based on the state of the art at the time (over a year ago, which is ancient history in 3D-land).

 

To me, the brightness is 100% a theater owner's issue. No studio is going to release a murky film. No cinematographer will last long on any project if he is turning in dailies with the kind of defects people are seeing in 3D. It's a theater owner's issue and that's just the fact of it. When the Dome is running at 2 FL or below, what is the studio supposed to do other than re-tool the theater themselves? What is the cinematographer supposed to do when he has invested 10 months of his life in the shooting and color correcting of a film, to only see it displayed with such disregard for the image?

 

When I saw the film at the Dome, I made some noise and insisted on my money back and insisted they get that theater up to some kind of acceptable level. We'll see what happens.

 

In the meantime, there's always 2D. It's the same movie... and you can see it clearly.

[Matt Stevens]

Shelly Johnson ASC stated: In the meantime, there's always 2D. It's the same movie... and you can see it clearly.

 

Shelly, I hate to tell you this, but your film is being butchered in theaters by horrendous practices, such as projecting the 2D film through a 3D setup.

 

Both theaters I tried to see the 2D version of the film at were projecting through the 3D lens setup. I do not know the technical terminology, but it was obvious (and managers did admit it when I pushed them on the issue).

 

The screen was so dim, so dark, so murky, that it might as well have been projected by a single 40 watt lightbulb. Daylight scenes were not bright and anything at night was unbearable to view. The first time I walked out (42nd street AMC theaters).

 

The second time was in NC and I drove 65 minutes to get there (Carmike Cinemas, Greenville, NC). Rather than leave I endured and was miserable throughout. The film I most wanted to see all summer was ruined.

 

Prior to 3D these theaters had superb projection and never lowered the brightness of the bulbs. However, with 3D projection and teenagers running the show, they are just leaving ALL projectors set up for 3D to make it easier and projecting as is. 2D or 3D.

 

 

Note: The first time I tried to see CAP was at the AMC on 34th Street in NYC and I had to leave because the center speaker was not on. It had been blown out weeks prior, so all dialog was coming out of the left side of the wall. A shame because the image was properly bright.

[Keith Walters]

 

It should be noted that Captain America was a 3D conversion. We did not shoot in 3D. We did not really concern ourselves much with 3D as we shot it, but then Joe and I seem to shoot using depth in the frame in 2D anyway. It was not Joe's desire to make the film a gimicky 3D experience. He just wanted to tell a story, and that was our focus. The film was shot in 2D and is a 2D movie. Best to see it in 2D if you're at all on the fence on feeling positive about 3D.

 

Well I've just got back from seeing it in 3D (in a cinema with consistently high standards) and I have to say it's by far the best live action 3-D movie I've ever seen.

 

Frankly I wasn't expecting a lot after the experience of "Thor", but this demonstrates what can be done WITHOUT special 2-camera rigs. The 3-D effect is so convincing that at times I found myself forgetting that most of the scenes aren't real!

 

I'm not a great fan of the Genesis for movie work, but other than that it is hard to fault the movie. Does anybody know what "The Avengers" is being shot on?

 

There were quite a few 3-D trailers on before Captain America, but none of them up to its standard. In particular, I hope "The Amazing Spider-Man" is going to be better than its trailer!

[Phil Rhodes]

Y'know if this continues I'm going to have to go and see it just for the sake of being able to make an informed comment.

[Keith Walters]

Y'know if this continues I'm going to have to go and see it just for the sake of being able to make an informed comment.

If nothing else, if you (like me) had been assuming that 2D to 3D conversions are just a low-rent cop-out, this film will completely shatter that notion. I'm serously beginning to wonder if 2-camera 3D rigs will actually turn out to be the el-cheapo option.

[Markshaw]

What's a 9.1 BY?

 

9.1 is the same as the standard 5.1 plus the 2 Back Surrounds and 2 Front Height channels. Very good when watching movies with rain, thunder and overhead air craft. Top one being the initial battle scene from Terminator Salvation, it's a killer.

[Marcus Joseph]

Well I've just got back from seeing it in 3D (in a cinema with consistently high standards) and I have to say it's by far the best live action 3-D movie I've ever seen.

 

Frankly I wasn't expecting a lot after the experience of "Thor", but this demonstrates what can be done WITHOUT special 2-camera rigs. The 3-D effect is so convincing that at times I found myself forgetting that most of the scenes aren't real!

 

I'm not a great fan of the Genesis for movie work, but other than that it is hard to fault the movie. Does anybody know what "The Avengers" is being shot on?

 

There were quite a few 3-D trailers on before Captain America, but none of them up to its standard. In particular, I hope "The Amazing Spider-Man" is going to be better than its trailer!

What theatre did you see it in? One of the best theatres I've seen 3D in was the one at Reading in Rouse Hill, quite impressive from what I remember. Wasn't that cheap reald stuff.

[Chris Keth]

It's also discriminatory against cyclops and eye-patched pirates.

[Keith Walters]

What theatre did you see it in? One of the best theatres I've seen 3D in was the one at Reading in Rouse Hill, quite impressive from what I remember. Wasn't that cheap reald stuff.

The very place!

[Adrian Samuals]

The main problem with 3D is the fact that you are always waiting for the next "WOW" moment and you are not actually watching the movie for what it is. You are distracted by cheap parlor tricks and gimmickry. Give me a great IMAX experience over 3D any day.

[Markshaw]

More IMAX less 3D. Simple.

[Martin Hong]

Bring on 4D and see what happens

[Brian Hulnick]

Bring on 4D and see what happens

 

You mean with the smells? Great, remind me NOT to watch the toilet scene in American Pie or Dumb And Dumber.

[Brian Hulnick]

I have to admit that I am seriously impressed with Epson's new line up of 3D projectors. If they can produce 3D images that can surpass their 2D images I am sold.

[Brian Drysdale]

Seems 3D also affects your memory: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13809734

[Adrian Samuals]

I had a feeling that 3D would affect your..............

Now what was I saying?