Jump to content

Roger Ebert on 3-D


Justin Hayward

Recommended Posts

3D is easily the biggest buzz kill for me in my lifetime. I have seen far fewer films this year than in any year prior. Why? Because I despise the Real3D image that is dim, dark and dank. It does not look good and if I want to see a non 3D version of said film, I am forced into the much smaller auditorium with poop sound because the 3D version has the best screen in the building.

 

My beloved Ziegfeld Theater displayed the horrific 3D version of CLASH OF THE TITANS and I walked out after 15 minutes (demanding and receiving a refund).

 

3D is not all bad. I did enjoy AVATAR and TRON, but I saw both in real IMAX 3D, where the image is bright. That being said, I watched the 2D portions of TRON without the glasses and yes, the screen was brighter. And better.

 

Being forced to pay nearly $20 in NYC to see 3D films on non-IMAX screens is an abomination and I just won't do it. When I have I have been disappointed at best, angered at worst. I pray to God that this fad ends quickly.

 

Amen to that.The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On the one hand healthy debate is to be welcomed. On the other, the way some self-appointed pundits, especially Ebert, keep banging on that 3D is a 'fad' and producing one poorly argued 'proof' after another that 3D doesn't really work is now way beyond tedious.

 

First it has to be understood that 3D is not really 3D. It's stereoscopy. It's an illusion. In the same way that stereoscopic sound produces an illusion of audio width (and some depth), stereoscopic cinema produces an illusion of 3D. True 3D is the province of sculptors and architects, not film-makers. So to pick holes in it's ability to reproduce real 3D is somewhat missing the point. Cinema always was a creative verisimilitude of reality, and never the real thing.

 

Likewise to say that 3D imposes limitations not experienced in 2D is a failure to see that it is not really the same thing. 3D offers a different experience, and is not something you should just bolt on to a 2D production to boost sales - though many productions currently do, and with dire results.

 

The example Murch quotes of his experience of editing a 3D theme park ride during the 1980s is, what can I say?, hopelessly inappropriate and outdated. Things have come such a long way since, and are getting better all the time. The problems he is unhappy with are due to specific systems aiming to produce the illusion of 3D, and don't apply to all 3D. A quick example - the irritating strobing you get with single projector systems like Real-D isn't experienced in dual-projector systems. And James Cameron is now talking about projecting Avatar 2 at 60fps, which many current projectors are already capable of doing. Problem thus 'solved'.

 

3D has suffered a dip in popularity since interest peaked a year ago, but it is not going to fade away. Mid-2009 there were 5,000 3D movie screens worldwide. Now there are over 22,300. The number of 2011 3D titles is approaching 60. 50% - 70% of box office revenues are generated by 3D titles.* This is not a fad. The train has left the station.

 

The situation is akin to the introduction of sound, or of the change from monochrome to color. Both had their vocal critics, who now look somewhat quaint. I respect Mr Murch immensely (really!) but his 'salt shaker' example is a little baffling. Has he worked in 2D for so long that he now thinks we actually see the world that way? We do not. 2D is a set of conventions that have evolved over thousands of years from cave paintings, to Old Masters, to Orson Welles. But it's not how we see the world. Is he really unaware of the double images we get naturally, all the time? Here's a quicky graphic:

 

http://bit.ly/HowWeSeeTheWorld (the top two are Murch's own graphic)

 

As to his criticism that the 'problem' of convergence and focus are insoluble, he is talking rubbish. Avatar, regarded among stereographers as a very conservative application of 3D, locked both on to the screen plane. Again, problem 'solved'. And there are other, better, and more elegant solutions to the problems surrounding the viewing of 3D such as 'active depth cuts' ** and 'floating windows' which were unavailable to Murch 30 years ago, and which are now regularly being used.

 

One significant thing I have come to realise, more so since I've started actually doing it, and which seems to have eluded Ebert and Murch (and to many of those actually involved in 3D production!) is that 2D and 3D are entirely different animals. To extract the best from either requires a substantially different mindset. A good 2D movie will never really work in 3D, and is somewhat pointless, and a bit of a con. Nor can a 2D movie simply be made by using only, say, 'the left eye' from a competent 3D movie. So seeing a 2D version of Scorcese' Hugo Cabret will simply miss the point. Many producers, with an eye to revenues, will try to tell you otherwise - that you can shoot 2D and 3D at the same time. I believe they are fundamentally wrong, and their thinking that way will produce compromises that will (more often than not) hinder the acceptance of 3D. It's an issue that, as 3D techniques evolve, will receive increasing debate.

 

Fact is that the Ebert/Murch arguments are about why 3D shouldn't work (hell, by the same token 2D shouldn't work either!) but the fact is it does. What's currently letting 3D down is a glut of bad movies - like the early days of sound, or of TV. Once we move on from that we can start having proper debates here about how to make good 3D even better rather than this boring "I hate 3D" "Yeah, so do I.". Yawn.

 

My 2p.

 

 

Sources:

* '3D: The Goose That Lays The Golden Egg?' - Price Waterhouse Coopers http://scr.bi/fNb1eI

 

** '3D Movie Making' - Bernard Mendiburu http://bit.ly/3D-M-M (see page 154 'Active Depth Cuts')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see much in 3D. Everything beyond 100cm is practically 2D in my vision, very similar to what a single eye sees. I would only care for 3D if I was a joggler working very close to my eyes. 3D effect in cinemas is way beyond realistic vision. Very exaggerated.

 

Since those who have lost vision in one eye usually complain about the dramatic angle of view loss and not 3D effect or positional clue loss or anything similar, I would say the only reason for us having two eyes is because with two eyes we could avoid danger more effectively by having a wider angle of view, and because 2 eyes increase the odds of vision surviving trauma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in university I saw some old stereoscopic viewers in which you could use two photos taken from a plane at an interval of many meters.

 

When seeing the normal 2d photo with both your eyes, you couldn't really see much information on the ground morphology. When you used the stereosopic viewer, perspective opened up and you could spot even tiny details, you had a great 3d view of the mountain or whatever was the subject. Very useful for the application but not realistic.

 

If you were on the plane next to the camera, you would see a flat 2D image of the ground, just like when seeing a 2D photo with both eyes. The stereoscopic viewer placed your eyes 100 meters apart and that's not how we see the world. If 3D cinema actually went for realism, there wouldn't be much 3D effect left in the shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Since those who have lost vision in one eye usually complain about the dramatic angle of view loss and not 3D effect or positional clue loss or anything similar, I would say the only reason for us having two eyes is because with two eyes we could avoid danger more effectively by having a wider angle of view, and because 2 eyes increase the odds of vision surviving trauma.

 

I once knew a guy who lost an eye in WWII. He was able to get some 3D perception back just by bending his neck from side to side.

 

We have two eyes with overlapping fields of view, as do most carniverous predators. Prey species tend to have non-overlapping fields of view, so they cover more territory, which is better for avoiding the predators.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch angle 2D to 3D John? Lets's hope the industry does not find out!

 

Theory aside, in my vision, covering one eye makes no real difference. I see no handicap other than the angle of view loss which will be important in things like driving and sports. I don't see any other loss really. I don't even need a second of adjustment to the new vision paradigm. My perception does not appear to rely much on binocular vision.

 

What my left eye sees appears to be ignored in most cases. The right eye provides the actual viewpoint I see when I use both eyes, the left eye only takes over if the right eye is covered. If the left eye provides something, it does not appear to be important for our lifestyle. If we were hunting and trying to grab our prey using our jaws, when milliseconds were impotant and we only got one chance, the difference could be important to survival, but such distances are very rare in modern lifestyle. We don't follow spoons coming to our mouth, right? And by savoir-vivre and practicality, we don't dive into food, we bring the food to our mouth:)

 

Binocular vision is nothing like the 3D movie exaggerated gimmick. The only usefulness I see in binocular vision is a blurry extra coverage that allows me to notice something hiding behind an object even though the right eye does not have it in its viewpoint. Try hiding a LED light behind the edge of an object so your right eye does not see it but the left eye does. The LED will be visible but it's nothing like a 3D movie effect, it's like two 2D images added one of top of the other. Exploiting binocular vision so that it will be noticable 3D for filmmaking purposes requires massive exaggeration, an unrealistic difference between left and right eye images. This is why it gets tiring after a while and why it will never be a standard way to shoot. 2D is far more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What my left eye sees appears to be ignored in most cases. The right eye provides the actual viewpoint I see when I use both eyes, the left eye only takes over if the right eye is covered.

 

Have you discussed this with your doctor? You may need to see a specialist.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you discussed this with your doctor? You may need to see a specialist.

 

-- J.S.

 

I hope that was humor John:) If you see differently, science would gain a lot by studying your vision. I don't know anyone without a dominant eye. I know a few people with cross dominance but that's still one dominant eye (and a viewfinder problem).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By googling I found the english word for it, Amblyopia. Is that what you are talking about John? Amblyopia is an extreme form of eye dominance, very rare. If you have it, chances are you are not discussing 3D because 3D projection methods do not even work for you. One eye has to either provide limited feedback while your brain is developing or be very inferior to the other eye in order to be effectively discarded.

 

The normal eye dominance is a survival mechanism. The eye learns to select one eye when the focus is on distant object to help aim when throwing things at predators and other humans:) It also allows using limited brain resources to build skill in one eye and one hand that will handle the job more effectively. In its most effective form it's combined with hand dominance. Right handed and left eyes or left handed and left eyed. This allows aiming and also keeping both eyes open when aiming. If you focus on a distant object and point to it with your finger without thinking about it and without switching focus to the finger, you will see two images of the out of focus finger and one image of the subject, and your finger will have automatically landed so that the dominant eye view of the finger is in front of the subject.

 

Humans without this mechanism would get a more confusing view of the world and would have problems aiming without closing one eye. They would enjoy 3D cinema fine though, even better probably. They wouldn't be so annoyed by the exaggeration of difference between the two eyes. IMHO this is why we get tired of 3D easily. Exaggeration itself, and how exaggeration discards eye dominance.

 

The very existence of the eye dominance mechanism supports the view that binocular vision is not very important to humans. We have to live with binocular vision that provides a wider angle of view of the environment but we learn to ignore it when parallax becomes a problem in important survival skills. What's the point of the feature then? Enjoying flowers in their 3d glory? :) Perhaps binocular vision was planted there in case we get so advanced that we can totally isolate the eyes and see Avatar...

 

I believe that in a few years, studies will show that watching a lot of 3D material with its exaggerated parallax is damaging to vision. They will recommend against allowing kids to watch more than 1 hour a day, that sort of thing. Artifical 3D is certainly not a normal way to see the world.

 

Mark Pesce, one of the early pioneers working for Sega, Silicon Graphics and other on 3D technology wrote this:

 

"I helped Sega develop a head-mounted display (fancy VR headgear) that could be plugged into the Sega Genesis (known as the Mega Drive in Australia). Everything was going swimmingly, until we sent our prototype units out for testing."

 

"Your brain is likely to become so confused about depth cues that you'll be suffering from a persistent form of binocular dysphoria. That's what the testers told Sega, and that's why the Sega VR system - which had been announced with great fanfare - never made it to market."

 

"Either 3D television will quickly and quietly disappear from the market, from product announcements, and from broadcast plans, or we’ll soon see the biggest class-action lawsuit in the planet’s history, as millions of children around the world realize that their televisions permanently ruined their depth perception. Let’s hope 3D in the home dies a quiet death."

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

By googling I found the english word for it, Amblyopia. Is that what you are talking about John?

 

Yes. If it's extreme enough that you notice it in everyday life, it should go on the list of things to ask about at your next checkup.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. If it's extreme enough that you notice it in everyday life, it should go on the list of things to ask about at your next checkup.

 

 

I know what it is but I don't have it and I even met anyone that had it. It can't be very common. If you read my post a little more carefully you will see that my point is 3D cinema is not realistic. Humans learn to ignore the limited 3d effect of their vision, it's how the brain fuctions. Cinema exaggerates it so much that they require a period of recovery after watching the large screen 3D extravaganza.

 

I have talked with people who had their vision drastically improved after surgery or optical correction. It's hard to notice the differences while recovering from surgery but when it's corrected by lenses, many can see an interesting difference. They notice a 3d effect after recovery, they see the world as separate layers in depth, it is very pronnounced. After a couple of days the effect wears off because the brain adjusts to ignore it. They are back to normal vision, where one eye dominates the perception on the focus point. You can't argue with survival mechanisms:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't realize just what an amazing thing the human eye is. How we take good vision for granted. Over the years we really abuse our eyes and it can come back and bite us in the ass if we are not careful. Cameras try to replicate how we see things and they still cannot get it 100% right.

Edited by Markshaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, John obviously doesn't like my point of view on 3D and tells me to check my eyes (and brain in the amblyopia case!). You don't have to join in with your mom's advice even though it's solid advice :D:rolleyes: Even though I'm still discovering the english terminopoly I have studied vision in depth. What I'm describing is well documented. I don't need any advice on the subject of health and providing it used to be bad etiquette.

 

Markshaw, I agree. One could potentially damage his vision with 3D viewing of action films. Anything that doesn't feel natural and requires recovery is potentially harmful. I wouldn't want my kids to watch 3D 12 hours a day. We know the typical action videogame is not the best thing, lets not make it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, John obviously doesn't like my point of view on 3D and tells me to check my eyes (and brain in the amblyopia case!). You don't have to join in with your mom's advice even though it's solid advice :D:rolleyes: Even though I'm still discovering the english terminopoly I have studied vision in depth. What I'm describing is well documented. I don't need any advice on the subject of health and providing it used to be bad etiquette.

 

Markshaw, I agree. One could potentially damage his vision with 3D viewing of action films. Anything that doesn't feel natural and requires recovery is potentially harmful. I wouldn't want my kids to watch 3D 12 hours a day. We know the typical action videogame is not the best thing, lets not make it worse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think you misunderstood what John and Myself were saying Otis. We were not attacking or ridiculing you at all, just sting that you may well need to seek advice if there are any issues with your vision. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray to the gods that I never lose my vision. I have to use glasses to read or use the computer but other than that I'm good.I did get headache when watching certain 3D movies though, especially Green Hornet and Clash Of The Titans. May put this down to poor 3D conversions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray to the gods that I never lose my vision. I have to use glasses to read or use the computer but other than that I'm good.I did get headache when watching certain 3D movies though, especially Green Hornet and Clash Of The Titans. May put this down to poor 3D conversions.

 

Or that both movies were CRAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains a gimmick, and as we all know, gimmicks must either become something MORE, or audiences will soon tire of them and go searching for the NEXT gimmick.

 

I think a closer analogy to modern 3D is the Technicolor craze of 1929-1930. Coinciding with the still novel "talkie," 1929 and 1930 saw an explosion of the use of an early variant of Technicolor that used only two primary colors: red and green. Contrary to popular lore, while two-color film was limited in its tonal palette, it was by no means impractical. Facial tones were quite normal, and within the possible range of colors, those shades were quite rich. With proper lighting and costume and set design, you could do much.

 

However, the color boom quickly faded. Not, as some mistakenly assume, because of the Depression. The effects of the stock crash would not really hit Hollywood until a year or two AFTER the Technicolor boom had faded.

 

No, the problem was there was little effort to explore the use of color cinema beyond a flashy gimmick. It was a marketing device: "All Talking! All Singing! In 100 Percent Natural Color!" was the spiel of "On With the Show," the first talking, color picture (now lamentably surviving only as a b/w dupe print). It was flashy, style without substance.

 

Excellent example, Brian, and before Technicolor there's the fate of Kinemacolor in 1914. Although they produced dramas, according to Karl Brown in his autobiographical book, they mostly showed short films showing off color for color's sake. A fire, British soldiers in their colorful regimental uniforms etc. The visit of George the V to India was a huge financial success, but otherwise, the audience preferred Griffith's B&W films and others like them.

 

Granted, needing the special projector didn't help, but if color wasn't seen as a gimmick by the public, more theaters would have been able to convert to the kinemacolor projector.

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

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...