3D Stereoscopic - Format of the Future or a Gimmick of Today?

3D Stereoscopic - Format of the Future or a Gimmick of Today?

  • Total voters
    58
G

Galleddrim

Active member
I'd like to get everyone's take on this. Clearly this is the film industry's play to set the big budget productions apart from the indies and the television industry, as the gap continues to close. It's an ongoing game of format tag. Sometimes the format sticks (such as wide screen or stereo audio), and sometimes it doesn't (as in Cinerama SUPER wide screen).

So what's everyone's opinion of 3D stereoscopic films? I've seen some, and they're pretty cool . . . but personally it's just not something that I consider to be essential to filmmaking. I know consumer manufacturers are scrambling right now to make their hardware "3D ready" . . . but I still have serious doubts as to whether it will really catch on.

First, because you have to wear those dumb glasses. So much for cuddling on a romantic date night. "OUCH, honey, your glasses are digging into my neck."

Also, apparently a significant portion of the population experiences mild to severe headaches when viewing current 3D content.

IMHO, I believe 3D will remain a gimmick until technology arrives to display non-headache inducing imagery without the aid of glasses.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss.
 
Last edited:
It's both right now. A gimmick because studios are going crazy over it, but it's not going to take over because it only works sometimes. Once the use becomes refined we'll have a new standard used reasonably. Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, things like that with an epic feel work in 3D. Not much else does. The 3DTV systems, in my opinion, will die out quick. People watching television aren't going to be dedicated enough to the experience to put on glasses.

As for headaches and nausea, I don't know the numbers. It worked fine for me. Glassess-less systems, if made better, would be great. But I'm not sure it would stop the issues for people who can't watch current 3D for whatever reason.
 
With OLED screens getting cheaper, I could see self contained 3d glasses as a real alternative. Put the viewing screens in the left/right sides of the glasses and plug em in.

Of course they would interfere with your texting while you drive, but hey...
 
Haha! Great. Now I get to stick things in my eyes instead of just wearing it in front of them! I am sure that would fly in public theaters too.
 
Here's my take on 3D.

First of all, there is one way to immerse an audience into a feature film by making it 3 dimensional. That's audio. Create an effective surround audio mix, and you're there.

Now, let's forget for a second about the uncomfortable glasses, extra costs that land on the consumers, the nausia some experience and the fact that a lot of people don't have depth perception anyway.
These are major problems inherited in the format, all valid arguments for 3D not being a good idea, but let's forget about all that for a second and focus on the REAL issue.

Storytelling.

3D works for the first 10 minutes of the movie. You sit there and marvel at the 3D experience, and around the time of the Inciting Incident you forget all about it. For a while.
Until a cool 3D shot comes up and you basically go "hey! it's like 3D! And it looks kewl! I'm watching a kewl 3D movie!"
Well, basically, that's the feeling sometimes, right? That's even intentional by the filmmakers.

The problem with all this of course is, that once you're pulled in you forget about the 3D effect, at which point - why are you paying for it? - and once you're reminded of its existence it takes you OUT of the story telling experience instead which should always be a big no-no.

My personal pet theory is that it was pushed on the consumers to stop cam piracy. It's not like the consumers were screaming for 3D movies. It's not like they were complaining about the limitations of 2D technology and the industry had to do something about it.

You know?
 
Gimmick. The studios would love it because it would temporarily inhibit copying. However, how many movies are you going to make at $400 million a pop?

On top of that most theaters still can only play 2D. This isn't the first wave of 3D mania. Past attempts have failed. 3D still gives lots of people headaches.
 
JavaExMachina said:
3D works for the first 10 minutes of the movie. You sit there and marvel at the 3D experience, and around the time of the Inciting Incident you forget all about it....
Click to expand...

I very much disagree with this. 3D has the ability to create a more immersive experience, it just has to be used correctly. That is, with some level of subtlety. So that gets rid of the gimmicky part.

And the fact of the matter is that story isn't everything. Just the foundation. If Citizen Kane were shot on a cell phone by a bunch of high school friends I don't think it would have gone over so well. The cinematography in that example seems to get a lot of attention. A proper epic shot, including real depth, has just as much potential to augment the production- including the story- as deep focus and low angles. If we want to get rid of all distractions from the story we shouldn't bother making films, just have people read screenplays. Or just do the audio, radio operas are ready for a comeback.

3D looks pretty damn cool. That's the bottom line. And people have been shown as willing to pay for it. It's not because they aren't as enlightened as the people here; it's because they enjoy it. I enjoyed my first experience watching a feautre in 3D, and I'm sure I will my next. Maybe you're uncomfortable with it and that makes you pay too much attention to the elements consciously, which apparently is a bad thing, but that doesn't extend to the market as a whole. I'm not even saying for certain that the costs won't cause it to die it, but the technology at this point looks to be a good fit.
 
I'd say Gimmick for home adoption, but the future for summer blockbusters. GImmick for home adoption due to todays limitation in technology by the required use of 3D glasses. Home entertainment is viewed by a variable audience that is much less tolerant to disconfort and the limitation of being forced to use periperals on their viewing experience, as well as to stay focused on their viewing experience throughout the content's broadcast, unlike the theatre audience who specificaly goes to enjoy 3D content with all its limitations, like glasses, staying in a place looking at a 3D screen for hours, etc. EDIT- The success of 3D in Theatre entertainment depends very much on the quality of the content, though. If 3D means hundreds of movies with repetitive boo shots of things coming at you, etc. then people will get tired very easily. Avatar was a success because it was a fresh experience, not because of the chase sequences and "boo" shots, but because of a trully immersive 3D storyteliing piece.

I see 3D, like another user said, to be the next step in Videogames, though.

EDIT- And I also see that the big bucks and the place to make most profit in content production right now will be for 3D productions. But it will not last. If I had the cash I would most certainly be investing in a 3D rig to capitalize in this craze with regular low budget productions but upmarked due to the 3D element. These new 3D channels will buy every crap they can get their hands on.
 
Last edited:
But why stop there? Why not bring back smell-o-vision? That will make it more accurate, right? Might turn us off from pornos for a while, but...

Why not make gunshots accurately loud? So that the typical gunfight would leave you deaf? That's accurate.

Why not make all shots of the sun leave you blind? That's accurate, right?

Hell, if you want REAL accuracy, NO EDITS! Everything plays in real time!

Movies have absolutely NOTHING to do with accurate representations of reality. The old quip from Hitch is right. Except for mumblecore, where it's reversed.

I do think 3-D will become a larger and larger part of spectacle movies. But I hope to God it stays there. I don't think it adds anything to a movie at all.
 
Mark Harris said:
I do think 3-D will become a larger and larger part of spectacle movies. But I hope to God it stays there. I don't think it adds anything to a movie at all.
Click to expand...

Ditto. It serves a purpose for movies intended to be a visual experience but doesn't serve other genres. The 3D piranha trailer made me laugh out loud.

I never get pulled INTO a 3D movie... while I can enjoy it... I'm spending the entire time split between conscious amusement of the 3D effect and actually feeling immersed in the story.

3D will never work the way people dream it will because of the giant visual reference of a movie screen... while good cinematography encourages the audience to focus on what the DP and camera were focused on, at no time is the entire audience ever fully focused on the same spot on screen.

There will be shots where 3D approximates life really well... like infinity focus in a fairly uniform visual depth... but as soon as you add other elements of interest at varying distances from the camera (audience) the gimmick aspect comes out again. The problem is, as an audience member... you're eyes may find the now softer BG (or point of least effective 3D) more interesting then the focus on the visual element... then *pop*... the 3D effect makes the movie far less real then ordinary filmmaking.

Hold your finger up in front of your face... now... w/o taking your gaze off your finger study the BG behind it using only peripheral vision... that is what real 3D looks like... but if you COULD then look directly at the BG and it STILL looked like that... it would be jarring... like something is very odd with the world... this is what 3D does IMO. I don't think 3D can overcome the gimmick element and approximate true life as people think... because in real life 3D is a choice in focus.

I should add that, in the case of Avatar... I found the gimmick so intriguing that the gimmick alone would have been worth the price of admission... and again, if the film is inherently a visual spectacle then I think 3D is hugely advantageous. Avatar in 2D wasn't even in the ballpark of the fun it was in 3D (even already knowing the whole story).
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here read "RANT" by Chuck Palahniuk?

There's a really interesting passage on page 66 about non verbal communication and pacing.

I've NO idea whatsoever how much truth is in this, since it's a Palahniuk novel, but it's interesting anyway. I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt here.

But it says anyway that most people learn through vision, others through hearing and some through touching.

If there's any truth to this, I'm guessing here that whichever sense you're leaning more towards will be the one you use the most, kind of like being right or left handed.

Maybe then some people respond to 3D more than others, the way some people respond to a good audio mix more than others. It just depends on who you are.

But like I said, take this with a huge grain of salt because it's just a very unscientific pet theory based on something I read in a novel by the guy who wrote Fight Club.
 
I think it may be the future.

And not just reserved for the Summer Blockbuster.

I would have no problems watching say, Schindler's List in 3D.

The best part, in the case of Avavatar, is that it was nto shot with that gimmicky 3D. The 3D in this film served to enhance the film, not throw it in your face.

I think they should go back to rear projection and then overlay the screen with the 3D Polarizing material to get rid of silly glasses though. :P
 
J.R. Hudson said:
The best part, in the case of Avavatar, is that it was nto shot with that gimmicky 3D. The 3D in this film served to enhance the film, not throw it in your face.
Click to expand...
I know this is a very common opinion, but go watch that film again. There are TONS of shots set up for no purpose other than having things thrown or shot or poked at the viewer through the camera.

I've seen Avatar twice. The first time, I lost count at around 5. The second time I got to at least three or four times that many shots.

At one point, when Worthington wakes up, there's a subjective shot, a closeup of Giovanni Ribisi's face and his HUGE 3D finger POKING at the viewers through the theater screen.

The shots I'm most impressed with in that film are the quick zooms. They're really subtle but they're used VERY effectively because they mimic real actual camera zooms. Like, I think there's a point when Worthington is hunting with bow and arrows in the jungle, and he looks up, there's a subjective shot when he's focusing in on something and the camera lens zooms and bobs for a bit ever so slightly.

What's cool about that is that it's not really shot with a camera since it's all CG, they just mimic the camera move really well.
But that's got nothing to do with the 3D.

The one movie I would actually like to see 3Dsized is Hideo Nakata's RINGU, since all the visual horror there is rooted in Sadako actually moving towards the screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top