Why 3D is truly EVIL!!

[James Steven Beverly]

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health

 

Along with chewing tobacco, Daniel Tosh and heroin, because of it's heath risks, 3D should be banned from the Earth forever!!! :blink:

[Marcus Joseph]

After watching Captain America last night, I partly agree.

[John Sprung]

I'm not in favor of banning it -- let it die a natural death in the marketplace, which it seems to be doing yet again.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[James Steven Beverly]

But John, it's like a VAMPIRE, it's be rising from the grave every 15 years or so to plague mankind with REALLY bad movies based on crap flying out at the audience from the screen. I mean I UNDERSTAND why Cameron was forced to use it in Avatar, because without 3D the animated "Navi" looked like what they were, animation and no one would have taking them seriously (game changer my ass, they were doing this in the 50s, and this from a guy who loves Cameron's films) but every sense that attempt to cover up the obvious, 3D has fallen back into the circus clown exploitation garbage it's always been.

 

I recently saw Resident Evil: Afterlife (I'm a big Resident Evil fan and it is the highest grossing film in foreign markets of the series) in 2D and when I saw the intentional 3D shots, I couldn't help but think, WHY?, it was a decent story, Mila was great as usual, Ali added more spice, why OTHER than 3D was in vogue at the time. DID it add to the film, NO. Did it make it easier to sell, probably but what films lost out on being made during this insanity because they DIDN'T shoot some jinky, trendy bullshit format JUST to make more room for flash at the expense of substance (and again, we're talking about substance in the context of a RESIDENT EVIL MOVIE), therefore, let us put a stake thought this aberration's black heart and salt the earth in which it is buried so that no such evil demonic "game changer" will rise from the grave of this abomination ever again. :o

[Damien Andre]

there will be things in this world that you wont like. get over it

[James Steven Beverly]

there will be things in this world that you wont like. get over it

I don't like liquorish, I don't like Tom Green movies, I don't like Insane Clown Posse music, I don't like French cars, I FREAKIN" HATE 3D bullshit exploitation of the cinematic experience. I'll "get over it" when substance becomes more important than a cheap buck!!! I actually LOVE this business and the more crap shoved down the public's throat by mega-corporations who's ONLY interest is the profit it makes dominates what should be an expression of art, the more our sole is poisoned by unmitigated greed and a self-serving quest for power. I TRULY HATE this s*it, and as an artist, so should you!! B)

[Markshaw]

there will be things in this world that you wont like. get over it

 

Why should we "get over it?" 3D is clearly dumbing down cinema, just to get asses on seats.

[Damien Andre]

3D is not the biggest factor in dumbing down cinema. no film has been ruined by 3D, the bad ones have had a lot more problems than a tackedd on technology that the the viewer can choose to see. and really, is 3D actually being tacked on to truly great films, ruining the experience? besides that not all films come out of hollywood, who historically release very few good movies in a year. most great cinema happens outside of hollywood imo away from 3D and all the gimmicky non-sense. 3D is not the enemy, bad film is. 3D can possibly enhance a movie, but it cant elevate trash, which is what its used on mostly.

 

did people rail against wide-screen and sync-sound like this when they were first invented? claiming it was literally harmful and a scourge on the craft?

[Matt Stevens]

3D is ruining 2D films because 9 out of 10 cinemas just leave the farking 3D polarizer in place and that dims the image substantially so that 2D films look like mud.

 

Today I sat through an impossibly dim 2D presentation of CAPTAIN AMERICA in what is a very good theater. No doubt they never altered the setup from when it was playing Transformers 3D.

 

Nearly ever single movie I have seen this year has been ruined by this disturbing trend. :angry:

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health

 

Along with chewing tobacco, Daniel Tosh and heroin, because of it's heath risks, 3D should be banned from the Earth forever!!! :blink:

 

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm not sure how this stands up worldwide.

 

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/228232/cinemas-charging-more-per-person-than-ever.html

[Matt Stevens]

I'm at the point where I am not going to the movies. And I am a guy who used to go twenty+ times a year. Now I go eight or nine times and most often, the experience is dreadful. Basically, unless it is a true IMAX theater (not a digital LIEmax) I know I will likely be not only disappointed, but infuriated. It was never like this with 35mm prints. They had their faults, but I could at least see the damn image on screen.

 

The only good experience I have had recently was in NYC seeing The TREE OF LIFE in 4k at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema. It was on their best screen and that theater actually cares. They are 1 in a million at this point.

 

I kid you not when I saw nearly ever 2D film I have seen in the last year has been ruined by 3D projection equipment left in place out of pure cheap laziness on the part of the theater owners.

[Keith Walters]

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.

The scientific reality is that about 5% of the population simply cannot see stereoscopic movies as 3-D at all. After all, there are several different mechanisms your eye/brain can use to generate a 3-D image; with a stereoscopic movie all you're getting are fixed parallax and fixed depth of field.

 

You can't move your head to make hidden details come into view or observe differential parallax shift, you can't cross and uncross your eyes or focus on different parts of the image to judge depth, and so on.

 

The extent to which your brain can "suspend disbelief" and accept a stereoscopic image as 3-D various enormously with individuals, and so you are inevitably going to a small segment of the populace who simply don't "get" 3-D, and are going to complain loudly about it.

 

I've gone to quite a few 3-D movies with a large group of people I know, and not a single one has ever complained about the 3-D experience itself. They didn't always like the movie itself, but I really expected at least a few complaints about the projection system.

 

As for the dim 2-D presentations, I can't say I've ever experienced that, but I'm sure it happens.

 

Definitely shooting live action 3-D is going to be more challenging than animation, because with something that's computer-generated, you can do as many "re-shoots" as you like until you get it right.

 

If I was going to bet on future movie technologies, I'd put money on "motion capture" scans of old 2D classic movies being used to generate new fully-CGI 3-D versions. The technology is probably some way off, but there's nothing inherently impossible about it.

[Damien Andre]

a certain portion of the population is blind or deaf, should we stop making movies, music, paintings and so on because some people are unable to experience it?

[Joseph Arch]

Definitely shooting live action 3-D is going to be more challenging than animation, because with something that's computer-generated, you can do as many "re-shoots" as you like until you get it right.

 

No you can't. John Lasseter said in an interview that they get it right during pre production before any animation takes place. Animation is very expensive so they only have one shot to get it right. Literary.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Joseph Arch

[Hal Smith]

4.5 foot-lamberts is slightly more than one-quarter the traditional industry screen brightness standard of 16 foot-lamberts for film projection. It's my impression that digital IMAX 3D projection is brighter than 4.5 foot-lamberts. "Avatar" looked pretty good at my local AMC D-IMAX, it could have been brighter but it wasn't dark like the Real-D houses I've been in. Anyone know what's IMAX's brightness standard?

[Antti Näyhä]

I’ve heard it’s 5.5 fL.

[Antti Näyhä]

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.

The lack of standard light levels for 3D is frustrating indeed!

 

I’m working at a cinema where we can currently reach 11.5 fL for 3D, measured through glasses. Both our projectionists and our audience seem to much prefer the brighter 3D image on pretty much any film, compared to the 4.5 fL ”standard”. We’re using XpanD 3D and a 1.4 gain screen, and with this setup we’re not seeing any artifacts from the added brightness.

 

Now, I do realize that ideally we should be projecting all films ”exactly as intended”, including matching the projector’s brightness to the light levels that the film was graded on. And I know that at least Disney explicitly says not to project their films any brighter than 5.5 fL – which is still way too dim, in my opinion. I guess that one of the reasons behind that recommendation is that over-bright projection causes problems on RealD silver screens, that are unfortunately popular in many countries including the US… On our screen, however, something like 7–11.5 fL for 3D looks just fine to me. If there are any problems related to gamma, saturation etc., the added brightness seems to by far overweigh them.

 

This seems like a great opportunity to discuss this with a Hollywood pro, so here goes: Shelly, did you test Captain America at high light levels (let’s say from 7 fL upwards) on an XpanD system? Did you see any serious problems, and if you did, would you care to elaborate? Would you object to see your film projected like that?

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

Shelly, did you test Captain America at high light levels (let’s say from 7 fL upwards) on an XpanD system? Did you see any serious problems, and if you did, would you care to elaborate? Would you object to see your film projected like that?

 

We did not test it at any levels above 5 FL. I love the sound of high light-level 3D. It's possible to get very high light levels with multiple projectors and such (as is what is done for some I-Max presentations or long-throw events such as the Pirates premier, which used 6 projectors as I understand). The problem for Marvel was that they were needing to color correct for the masses... which puts you at an immediate disadvantage with 3D. The decision to correct at 3.5 FL was in response to what we see in typical projection around the country. They did not have the time to prepare several dozen different versions of the color in order to respond to various local theater deficiencies and provide a color corrected version for that venue, as what was done with Avatar. I was extremely disappointed with how Captain America looked at the Dome in 3D. Very dark and murky... which meant their projection had to have been at 2 FL or below... which turns my stomach to even think about. If we had color corrected at 4.5 FL, 5.5 FL or more, it would have been like looking at black leader.

 

I think that correcting and projecting at 11.5 FL thru the ExpanD glasses would look amazing. But, from my experience, you might have a tough time projecting that in any venue where you do not actually provide the projector and screen.

 

All this talk, however, does not solve the issue of how the brain responds to artificial 3D stimulus. Thats a tough idea to get around... and it does make me wonder if the studios presenting in 3D are hanging their hat on one very small and weak nail. But, we shall see.

 

I am still a fan of good old fashioned 2D at the moment, until I see something better.

[John Sprung]

... and it does make me wonder if the studios presenting in 3D are hanging their hat on one very small and weak nail. .

 

Yes, exactly. 3D today is about where color was in the 1920's, when they could only do two primaries, not three. I wouldn't call it evil, just inadequate on the fundamental science. Its "nail" is stereoscopy, which in real life only provides significant cues at distances under 16 feet (5 meters).

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Antti Näyhä]

I think that correcting and projecting at 11.5 FL thru the ExpanD glasses would look amazing.

Yeah, I guess that goes without saying! B)

 

I absolutely do realize the inconvenience of providing several DCP versions, each graded for different light levels. That’s kind of against the spirit of the DCI spec anyway; the idea was supposed to be that a single screening copy should work equally for all venues worldwide…

 

But I was just wondering if we should project common DCP’s at higher light levels or not. I know those are graded for a much dimmer projection, but I can’t really say I’m seeing any drawbacks when increasing brightness to 7 or even 11 fL. What kind of problems should I be looking for? Gamma, contrast, saturation…? Someone explained to me that increasing projection brightness increases perceived saturation and lowers perceived color temperature. Would you agree?

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

Yeah, I guess that goes without saying! B)

 

I absolutely do realize the inconvenience of providing several DCP versions, each graded for different light levels. That’s kind of against the spirit of the DCI spec anyway; the idea was supposed to be that a single screening copy should work equally for all venues worldwide…

 

But I was just wondering if we should project common DCP’s at higher light levels or not. I know those are graded for a much dimmer projection, but I can’t really say I’m seeing any drawbacks when increasing brightness to 7 or even 11 fL. What kind of problems should I be looking for? Gamma, contrast, saturation…? Someone explained to me that increasing projection brightness increases perceived saturation and lowers perceived color temperature. Would you agree?

 

Hi,

 

From a color correction standpoint, there would be a few side-effects to correcting and projecting at 7-11FL. On the positive side, you would have more light and more range in which to play shadows and mid tones, etc. The result would be the perception of more dynamic range... even though that is not what is happening. You would, however, have many more subtleties in the areas between black and clipped highlights and would see more color information in those areas. Because it is 3D and intended for digital release, you can color correct without the film LUT. This is the film emulation that is common with D.I.s that makes the highlights slightly yellowish (the color of clear projection base, thus the brightest tone obtainable on a film print). You could correct with a LUT favoring digital and achieve a cleaner white point... which at 7-11 FL would be quite crisp.

 

On the down side, your blacks would likely raise to normal Digital Projection levels, or maybe even higher. This being the result of more light everywhere... including the blacks... so I would plan on a more milky black. Raised blacks have been a tough pill for cinematographers to swallow when preparing a DCP for release. Especially if one is doing film prints as part of that same release. The film always looks so good, then when we check the DCP, those beautiful blacks disappear and part of us dies. It's just a tough trade off that we find ourselves involved with here.

 

3D also, to me, looks very digital in general. It does not have an organic structure the way film does. It's a highly processed image in it's creation and exhibition. It just looks more digital to me... which I'm not sure is a good thing.

 

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!

[K Borowski]

Shelly: Sounds like you are the preeminent expert on 3D on these fora. Any reason why you guys in the big leagues don't have enough clout to demand a 4-perf. budget and just resurrect some of those special 2-perf./eye special lens cameras?

 

Seems like there is a bunch of nonsense out there that you need a monstrosity 2-camera HD rig to shoot 3D. I'd think the 2-perf. would still produce more than enough quality for a 1.4K image.

 

 

In other words, seems like 3D has been quite effectively used to sell a "digital only" as far as camera packages are concerned.

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't imagine those old 2-perf 3D film cameras were quiet enough to shoot sync-dialogue with.

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

Shelly: Sounds like you are the preeminent expert on 3D on these fora. Any reason why you guys in the big leagues don't have enough clout to demand a 4-perf. budget and just resurrect some of those special 2-perf./eye special lens cameras?

 

Seems like there is a bunch of nonsense out there that you need a monstrosity 2-camera HD rig to shoot 3D. I'd think the 2-perf. would still produce more than enough quality for a 1.4K image.

 

 

In other words, seems like 3D has been quite effectively used to sell a "digital only" as far as camera packages are concerned.

 

Yeah, hilariously enough, the thought of shooting 3D on film is rather frightening to people. 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. Certainly, stereographers would prefer digital capture, as they can preview the effect and see if there math is working. I'm quite certain I do not want to be known as a 3D expert, because I in no way am. We shot pretty extensive tests on a recent project, and I learned enough to recommend we avoid it. Maybe that's all the expertise anybody needs for now, I'm not sure. Like always though, we keep our eyes open for a better image.