Roger Ebert on 3-D

[Phil Connolly]

My main issue with current 3d is the light levels, since most cinemas are doing it with a single projector - its generally under illuminated. I imagine a lot of the 3D eystrain issues are due to light levels being about a quater they are for 2D. 3 -4 Foot Laberts Vs 12 -14 Foot lamberts for digital.

 

3d installations are also damaging 2d presentations as well - I saw Robin Hood projected digitaly in an cinema that had installed 3D recently. The new silver screen really damaged the quality of the presentation - with a very noticable hot spot, more noticable marks/texture on the screen. Silver screens also seem to affect contrast in an odd way. Matt white screens look so much better, 2d presentation in that screen, used to be much better before the 3d install.

 

Dolby 3d - gets round the Silver screen issue and uses a Matt white screen, but its very rare as most cinemas seem to be going the silver screen route. Silver screens are much more delicate and hard to maintain - so I wonder what will happen in a few years as the silver screen age - if the typical multiplex will continue to maintain them. We could have a situation that in many places 2D presentation is compromised by 3D installations.

[Ravi Kiran]

Avatar's 3D was quite well done, but that's the only film I've seen that was actually shot in 3D.

 

I haven't seen many 3D films not because I'm boycotting them, but because most of them so far are converted from 2D and/or are uninteresting movies. So I'm not against 3D. I just want to see more films that interest me personally being shot in 3D. 3D was the only reason I saw Avatar, though otherwise its not something that'll get me in the theater to see something that I'm otherwise uninterested in. But I don't think 3D is the monumental leap that color and sound were to cinema. Humans are used to seeing flat representations of the world. Black-and-white and silent films were limitations that we weren't used to, though filmmakers often used these limitations to gorgeous effect.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Ravi Kiran

[Thomas James]

I think what Roger Ebert is saying is that the 3-D film makers play a game of take away and when they introduce 3-D they lower the picture quality in other areas. For example what the film industry needs to do is to embrace 65 mm film or 4K digital but the 3-D film makers like James Cameron scrimp and use mediocre 2K or 35mm film. And also Roger is saying that the frame rate needs to go up. To achieve the real movie look we need a frame rate of at least 30 frames a second otherwise we have a slide show rather than an smooth portrayal of motion. Yet all Hollywood directors seem to think that only 24 fps 35mm film can preserve the film look and that 30 fps 70mm film looks like video. And even if the frame rate is increased to 60 fps for ESPN sports 3-D the broadcasters still end up decimating the resolution down to 640 x 720 in order to fit in a 2-D bandwidth.

 

My personal experience is that 3-D television can look very cinematic.

[K Borowski]

"Yet all Hollywood directors seem to think that only 24 fps 35mm film can preserve the film look and that 30 fps 70mm film looks like video. And even if the frame rate is increased to 60 fps for ESPN sports 3-D the broadcasters still end up decimating the resolution down to 640 x 720 in order to fit in a 2-D bandwidth."

 

 

Thomas, do you literally copy-paste this into 20% of your posts?

[Keith Walters]

Thomas, do you literally copy-paste this into 20% of your posts?

No, he has a custom setup sort of like the censorware thing at Reduser.net that used to turn "7D" into "Betacam", except it automatically detects words or phrases like "frame rate" or "interlace" and inserts an automated 12 line response. :rolleyes:

 

Incidentally, I've just gotten hold of a 1940 edition of Donald Fink's "Principles of Television Engineering". All the original research about frame rates, progressive vs interlaced scanning, (including getting perceived opinions on image quality from hundreds of people etc) that went into developing the Monochrome NTSC system is in there, and while they were well aware of progressive scanning, the unanimous opinion was that interlace was the best option.

 

But Thomas knows better of course.

[Thomas James]

Early 1940's analog progressive scanning systems were problamatic because they only scanned at a rate of 30 frames per second which introduced rolling shutter and they did not have frame buffers that would allow the frames to be displayed twice. Modern day digital progressive scanning systems have overcome these problems because the scan rate is 60 frames per second making it a much superior format to competing interlace scanning systems.

[Freya Black]

Couldn't agree more (and I say that as I'm in the midst of shooting a 3d feature!)

 

 

The link isn't working for me so I'll have to guess what he said, I imagine he was saying that 3d is presently a gimmick. I would agree but personally I don't have an issue with making a gimmick film, I just wouldn't want to do that all the time but I think it could be fun.

 

I'm quite surprised that people will pay extra to see a film in 3d too. I'm not sure I would want to watch a film in 3d on the whole, however I'm curious about the whole avatar thing and would be interested to see it as a one off. Wearing glasses to see a film seems not fun but for a one off experience it's okay I think as long as they aren't made from cardboard! ;)

 

I actually think 3d is kind of cool as it reminds me of old monster movies etc. Fun stuff! I liked the viewmaster thing when I was little too! I tend to see it as a bit of a seperate thing to conventional movies however. More of an event movie thing.

 

So like Stephen I would be interested in making a 3d movie of some sort, even tho I think it's presently a gimmick.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

color. What would Casablanca be in colour? Or Chaplin´s work in colour and audible dialogue? As nonsense as both of these examples in 3D.

 

 

Go figure! My favourite Chaplin film does have audible dialogue!

 

m plain old 2D TV. And, you know, if you´re blind you can´t see the movie were it 2D or 3D. The

 

It's worth noting that a lot of people considered to be technically blind have some degree of vision or sensetivity to light. I understand what you meant tho! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Justin Hayward]

The link isn't working for me

 

Hi Freya,

 

Here you go... http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

[Freya Black]

 

and Michael Ghondry: "I have a lot of ideas. I'm not supposed to talk about that because people have a lot of opinions, but I'm the one who knows what it really means. It's a tool that I'm really excited to embrace and I have tons of ideas. There's one thing that has never been done and I can't wait to do. That can only be done in 3D. I'm really excited to know that the studio is going for it."

What can he mean...? :blink:

 

 

You have me interested now! I think if anyone can make an interesting 3d film it would be Michael Ghondry! Gets my vote!

 

Much as I like the work of Mr Herzog I'm less convinced.

 

Intresting stuff!

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Hi Freya,

 

Here you go... http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

 

 

Thanks! That one did work! I thought it seemed quite well written and balanced actually.

 

love

 

Freya

[Keith Walters]

 

I'm quite surprised that people will pay extra to see a film in 3d too. I'm not sure I would want to watch a film in 3d on the whole, however I'm curious about the whole avatar thing and would be interested to see it as a one off. Wearing glasses to see a film seems not fun but for a one off experience it's okay I think as long as they aren't made from cardboard! ;)

 

I wouldn't think it's too surprising that people will spend a bit extra (not a massive amount) to see something that's being promoted as new and groovy.

 

But as with just about anything else, the measure of success is repeat business, not opening night hoo-ha.

 

Personally I've found some of the fully animated 3-D stuff to be pretty spectacular, (Avatar included) and most if not all of the live-action stuff to be a complete waste of time (Avatar included :rolleyes: ). But that's understandable; something that's rendered on a computer you can go back and re-render as many times as time and budgets permit to get it right, with live-action you only get so many bites at the cherry.

 

For the benefit of retailers one of our Sydney TV stations is continuously re-running a football match that was broadcast live in 3-D about 10 days back. Sales have been less than stellar; possibly because on an ordinary TV it looks like a lot of cardboard cutouts running around inside a fish tank!

 

Unless things change drastically, I suspect the future of 3-D is forever going to be computer animation/motion capture.

 

For people who insist on doing it live, Jim Jannard's ultra-large camera sensors would be the way forward, because much greater control over depth-of-field is one of the necessary keys to more convincing 3-D.

[Brian Hulnick]

I'm in the process of updating my home theater. I was looking to get an Onkyo receiver with HDMI 1.4 and a 3D Ready Front Projector, but after been forced to sit thru the joke that was "fake" 3D on Clash Of The Titans I have decided that 3D is not for me. 3D should stay as a cinematic experience, and only on films that truly deserve it ie Avatar. I do not believe in making 2D movies into 3D, this is just a marketing ploy, an attempt to squeeze a few dollars out of the viewer.

[John Sprung]

The analogy with color may be more apt than its makers realise.

 

The 3D that assaults us all today has, among others, the same fundamental flaw that its predecessors of the 1950's and 1980's had: It requires us to focus our eyes on the screen, but converge them elsewhere. In real life, we always focus and converge on the same object.

 

That's analogous to using two primary colors, while our eyes see with three primaries. (Converting 2D to fake 3D could also be compared to using tinted base and hand-painting flames as was done in early B&W silent films.)

 

Perhaps some day we'll have a technology that works without glasses and doesn't hurt our eyes. That'll be analogous to three strip Technicolor and the multi-layer color negative/positive processes. It'll have to become a lot more natural and comfortable before it'll take over the world of cinema. Until then, it'll be a fine gimmick to use when you want to make monsters jump out at the kiddies.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[ryans]

Here is a very interesting article I came across today. Up till now there is only 1 3D movie that is commercially available any others are only available as part of a BD/ HDTV package. 3D will never succeed at this rate. It seems as though each studio is waiting for the next to make the first move. I prefer to watch my movies at home without glasses strapped to my face.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technology/3D_technology_dying.fortune/index.htm

[Dominic Case]

The analogy with color may be more apt than its makers realise.

Very good points, John. But there's one big difference in the way 3D is offered to audiences, compared with most previous tecnical advances. It's about choice. When colour started to come in - whether it was early 2-colour or full colour systems, there weren't other cinemas down the road showing the same film in black and white. so no-one had the opportunity to gather statistics about audience preferences (as have been quoted in another thread on this site).

 

Imagine conversations like this: Casablanca is opening next week. Shall we go and see it in colour or black and white?". Or "I just saw Henry V in colour at the Odeon. What a waste. Lawrence Olivier and Shakespeare don't need gimmicks. I think I'll go and see it again next week - just the black and white version at the Picture Palace".

 

Or even "Went to THe Wizard of Oz last night. Saw it in black and white, the queue was too long for the colour one. Didn't get the point about the yellow brick road though."

 

ALthough I think the truth of the matter is that the current crop of 3D films aren't Casablanca or The Wizard of Oz, or even Henry V. Sooner or later Hollywood is going to have to accept that 3D won't save a bad film, and it won't even add to a good film unless it's done with relevance.

 

Bottom line - 3D will survive if it's made compulsory :P .

[Leo Anthony Vale]

 

In real life, we always focus and converge on the same object.

 

 

But we can learn to focus and converge at different points.

 

That is how one can free view streo pairs.

[ryans]

Here is a very interesting article I came across today. Up till now there is only 1 3D movie that is commercially available any others are only available as part of a BD/ HDTV package. 3D will never succeed at this rate. It seems as though each studio is waiting for the next to make the first move. I prefer to watch my movies at home without glasses strapped to my face.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technology/3D_technology_dying.fortune/index.htm

 

*********EDIT************ There are actually ZERO commercially available 3D Movies. This is beyond a joke.

Studios get your heads out of your asses and get moving if you are truly serious about the format.

[John Sprung]

But we can learn to focus and converge at different points.

 

That is how one can free view streo pairs.

 

Very true, and I use that cross your eyes and focus trick every time I encounter a side by side pair. Still, any technology that requires the entire audience to learn a special skill in order to see the show has a substantial inadequacy.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Didn't get the point about the yellow brick road though."

 

Actually, it's the ruby slippers that tossed away the point of the whole story. Originally they were silver, but to show off the color system, they were changed.

 

The Wizard of Oz is about -- of all things -- 19th century monetary policy, specifically bi-metalism. The yellow brick road was the gold standard, the emerald city was Washington DC, where they print the green money, gold and silver are measured by weight in ounces, the abbreviation for which is oz, and the USA is the land of Oz..... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Karel Bata]

Heh heh! :lol: An old friend of my girlfriend's wrote a sequel, or re-telling (there are many!), of the Oz story http://amzn.to/Wizoz "The Wizard is a tale for our own times of breauty, love and courage - and small dogs. A modern Wizard of Oz for the days of derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and Goldman Sachs." He now writes speeches for... I'm not allowed to say, but some reckoned he had a decisive influence on our last general election. :huh:

[Brian Hulnick]

Although I too am not really looking into going down the 3D route myself, I am trying to imagine what INCEPTION would have looked like in 3D. I already told my wife when we saw the teasers months ago that this movie would be Blu-ray Porn. I can only imagine what it would have looked like in 3D.....WOW

 

By the way if you get the chance check this out. Definitely Mr Zimmer's best...so far

 

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Inception in 3D would've looked a lot dimmer and washed out. And in reality how much stuff really needs to be "3d" to feel inceptions' world.. maybe the shot of stuff exploding in Paris, but aside from that; what would 3D honestly lend to the film?

[Brian Hulnick]

I don't think it would have looked dark and soft. I watched Inception blown up on an IMAX screen and it looked superb, also it was not a dark movie like the Batman movies. I believe it would have looked awesome. I do however believe they need to be a lot more selective about which movies are released in 3D. Clash Of The Titans looked sodding awful and very gimmicky. Animation and selected action/ adventure / sci-fi movies only. And 3D should be left at the cinema, it's too young a technology with too many IFS at the moment. Plus no software available.

[Markshaw]

The new Tron movie will look outstanding in 3D now doubt. I think I will just steer clear of any "3D" Warner Bros dish out, if its anything like COTT. What a joke.