3D Stereoscopic - Format of the Future or a Gimmick of Today?
- Thread starter Galleddrim
- Start date
I saw a demonstration by "3d experts" to producers / cable networks this week and quite a few of the shots suffered from miniaturization, excessive parallax and double images. There are two pages in the American Cinematographer Manual about 3D and I'm under the impression that people don't know what the hell they're doing. At all.
That they brought passive glasses and monitoring to demonstrate this emerging trend to top television programmers isn't a good omen.
Anything less than an instant universal agreement on deliverables and exhibition standards for home use - specifically the prescribed active shutter / Bluray standard systems - will compromise the push into 3D.
And ugly 3D will do little to move networks, producers and consumers toward the technology. The biggest cable networks told us they will be "dabbling" in 3D and little more.
A lot of conversations centered around the realities and logistics of using 3D in factual / unscripted programming. The prospect of adding days (half as many pages, if that) and related production premiums of between 130% and 200% didn't do much to add excitement either.
I'm skeptical that you'll see a lot in factual or reality programming and don't think most documentaries will employ 3D anytime in the near future.
Features and scripted episodic might be different.
That they brought passive glasses and monitoring to demonstrate this emerging trend to top television programmers isn't a good omen.
Anything less than an instant universal agreement on deliverables and exhibition standards for home use - specifically the prescribed active shutter / Bluray standard systems - will compromise the push into 3D.
And ugly 3D will do little to move networks, producers and consumers toward the technology. The biggest cable networks told us they will be "dabbling" in 3D and little more.
A lot of conversations centered around the realities and logistics of using 3D in factual / unscripted programming. The prospect of adding days (half as many pages, if that) and related production premiums of between 130% and 200% didn't do much to add excitement either.
I'm skeptical that you'll see a lot in factual or reality programming and don't think most documentaries will employ 3D anytime in the near future.
Features and scripted episodic might be different.
El Director
Veteran
I think 3D is here to stay. I saw online that something like 20 movies are coming out in 3D this year. I think that audiences are willing to pay for it, I think it makes piracy more difficult, and I think it's going to create a divide between us low budget indies and the hollywood indies. Also, it gives us a reason to go to theaters again. I mean, attendence has been dropping since many people have a home theater system at home without having ot deal with screaming kids. Yeah, I had seen some polarized 3D at Disney when I was a kid, but as a kid, you don't think much of it. My first true 3D film experience was My Bloody Valentine. Yes, they had a few gimicks, like the shotgun pointing at the audience. however, I remeber feeling like a little kid again. The entire movie experince was suddenly magical again. I noticed it seeing Avatar as well. There was magic again. A week later, I saw another film that was projected regualar. No 3D. It had a really good story, acting, sound, visuals, just everything was really good. However, there was no magic. The magic that 3D creates is why I belive it is here to stay, and why I support it. Yeah, 3D has been here before, but it wasn't anything like it is now. Whether people like it or not, the magic, along with the reasons I stated at the start of this post are why it's not going anywhere this time.
Jester2138
Well-known member
They aren't focusing on the same spot at the same time in 2D, either. Besides, why is that a bad thing?
Moreover, it's not just the camera that determines what the audience focuses on. There's also camera placement, movement, lighting, blocking, sound, etc.
So why can't I just shoot with a greater depth of field, thus avoiding that problem?
Agreed!
Last edited:
Jester2138
Well-known member
Nobody watches a film just for the story. If all they wanted was story then they'd read novels, which are MUCH cheaper and last a lot longer. Like it or not, film is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT just about story. I'm so tired of that line. Get over yourselves people.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
I think you miss the point.
It's not that people go to the movies thinking "Damn, I think Imma go have a story told to myself today".
The point is that story is the most important thing in a movie because that's the thing that decides over everything else. It's all connected to the story. The characters, the cinematography, the acting style, the music - it's all there to serve the story.
When this basic principal fails, so does the movie. These things NEED to fit together.
Story is first and foremost.
Well.. from a theoretical point of view I perfectly agree with that.
In real life, success like AVATAR demonstrates the exact opposite : you can have a successfull entertaining and graphicaly stuinning movie, that people enjoy a lot (and this is the final goal of any entertainment)...without any bit of scenario
My two cents