Peter Jackson posts some words on 48fps and his recent decision

I really feel like I want to ask where people are watching 3D movies that hate it? And if they're watching the movies in a good seat in a good theater.

I saw Hugo in 3D in the 2nd row of a stadium seat theater. It was painful & uncomfortable. Spy Kids 3D was just campy & a gimmick for the kids.

I saw Avatar (twice) & was blown away. Both times while watching the movie I felt like I had been taken to an alien world. I thought the CG was just the best that has ever been used. I closed one eye & the CG instantly became on par with other CG worlds (Star Wars prequels). It wasn't the CG, it was the 3D. And I think it was because they did the 3D well & I saw it in a good theater which presented the 3D in a manner that added to the experience.

I saw Men in Black 3D this summer & had a similar experience. There was hardly a point where they abused 3D, by the end of it I almost forgot it was in 3D, but a couple points I'd shut one eye or the other & the movie would become flat. Watch with both eyes & I'm taken one more step into the suspension of disbelief.

I fervently disagree that 3D should only be used in action movies. I'd love to see a powerful drama in 3D. Just off the top of my head, Magnolia or There Will be Blood I think would've brought me in closer to the emotion of the characters.

As for Jackson's quote, I think he made the right choice. If he wants people talking about the movie & not about 48fps, then don't let the conversation be about 48fps. I'm looking forward to 48fps 3D & having my disbelief be suspended like never before.

---

tl;dr I've seen bad 3D & good. When done well, I think it is amazing.
 
I watch them in the same theaters where I happily watch 2D movies. Unlike others, I don't get headaches, but 3D doesn't add anything to me, and makes it all more confusing (I don't know if it is restricting where I can look, or giving me too much freedom, but I don't like it) and kills the colors (dark and muted).

Egg Born Son said:
3D is one of those things I always wanted, they made it, it was exactly what I had asked for, and it wasn't that great.
Click to expand...
My case too.
 
Sometimes those "dark and muted" colors are better. I liked Avengers in 3d more because in 2d it was like a soap opera. Same with Prometheus.
 
Samuel H said:
Unlike others, I don't get headaches, but 3D doesn't add anything to me, and makes it all more confusing (I don't know if it is restricting where I can look, or giving me too much freedom, but I don't like it) and kills the colors (dark and muted).
Click to expand...

I agree about the colours but I quickly adjust to that. I don't get headaches either. But I suspect for those that do it is related to filmmakers bringing 2D baggage into their 3D film. Techniques such as rapid fire editing that has long been an increasing trend in 2D is anathema in 3D and stressful to view, especially when the depth of focus changes from shot to shot. I'll keep watching them and they are getting better at using the technology effectively with each one I see but the artistic vocabulary of the 2D needs to be abandoned and I don't think established directors and editors can do that easily. I think it will flourish in the hands of new filmmakers unfettered by tradition. For better or worse I suspect they will come up through fx houses and game development backgrounds.

The most effective one I've seen to date was John Carter by someone who had never directed before. When Cameron made Avatar he deliberately avoided using the gimmicky element of 3D (things flying at you)...wrong! Why throw away the best feature of your technology? Prometheus...I'll have to see it again to be sure, I was mostly focussed on the story (and whether it was meeting or failing my expectations) but I think it neither added or detracted. But then Ridley is someone who isn't afraid to allow the camera to linger on a shot (which is a good thing in 3D). I haven't seen Hugo yet and probably won't get to see it in 3D but believe people when they say it's good. The 3D trailer to men in black did look pretty good but I haven't seen the film.

I think it is here to stay. It's longetivity will have less to do with the cost of production than the cost of distribution. Consumer demand is irrelevant. On the whole they will watch what the ads tell them to watch, always have, always will. Given that the same equipment can deliver 2D and 3D there isn't any hardware reason to abandon it in the theatre. And without gimmicks cinemas are dead. I've checked out 80" 3DTV and it's still half the size it needs to be to replace the cinema experience. And to double in size it needs to double or more in resolution and that's not going to happen until there is 4k media distributed to consumers, when most haven't even moved to bluray yet.

Hopefully what will happen is that the stories will get better and I'll forget all about these things. After the writers strike ended there was a noticeable improvement in the mainstream films and tv coming out of america but that has long corrected itself. I was hoping for more from Prometheus but it looks like we are entering into a period of sequels to 80s films, remakes and annual batman origin stories. Which isn't to say that I won't be lined up to see The Hobbit. I'm not anti-3D or doing things differently, I just worry than in this homogenised, corporate-led world that the few who make decisions will decide there's not room for both. And I'm not without hope for treasures of the past now I've been alerted to Samsara.
 
Egg Born Son said:
the artistic vocabulary of the 2D needs to be abandoned and I don't think established directors and editors can do that easily. I think it will flourish in the hands of new filmmakers unfettered by tradition. For better or worse I suspect they will come up through fx houses and game development backgrounds.
Click to expand...

I don't know about abandoned. The points you make about fast cuts are valid. In fact I hate them even in 2d, along with shaky cam. but the one of the biggest issues for me with 3d is compatibility. The film will only be shown at the theatre for several months. after that the vast majority of viewings will be in 2d. Watching a film in 2d that has been designed for 3d is tedious to the extreme. Every 5 minutes an object arbitrarily comes near to the camera. It is nearly always distracting and pointless, and because it isn’t in 3d it is boring as well. That’s when you realise that 3d in this sense is a gimmick.

Egg Born Son said:
I haven't seen Hugo yet and probably won't get to see it in 3D
Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason why 2d compatibility is important. I haven't seen Hugo either or Avatar as I missed them at the cinema. I could watch them in 2d but I figure what's the point if they are meant to be a 3d showcase. And that's the problem. 3d should be just an extra element of the film, it shouldn't be part of the film itself. Just like colour is now. we don't really think about the colour. Its just there. The difference with colour is that there are no downsides such as glasses etc. If 3d is employed in a subtle way then people may think it isn't worth the hassle of the glasses.

Egg Born Son said:
I've checked out 80" 3DTV and it's still half the size it needs to be to replace the cinema experience.
Click to expand...

I've actually found that when I go to a 3d film I am forced to sit at the back of the cinema, otherwise the glasses frames get in the way of the image. Which seems kind of counter productive. If superior wrap around glasses were made then this wouldn't be an issue, but when is that likely to happen.

Another major issue with 3d is that to not make a mess of it requires a greater knowledge of the technical aspects of vision than most directors or cinematographers have at the moment. With 2d you just choose whatever lens and shoot, there are no further issues.

If they can crack 3d viewing without glasses then maybe we will get to the point were 2d is seen in the same way as black and white, but I suspect I will be old before that happens. In the meantime my main question as an aspiring film maker is "is it worth it?"
 
Last edited:
Mattoid said:
one of the biggest issues for me with 3d is compatibility. The film will only be shown at the theatre for several months. after that the vast majority of viewings will be in 2d. Watching a film in 2d that has been designed for 3d is tedious to the extreme.

This is exactly the reason why 2d compatibility is important. I haven't seen Hugo either or Avatar as I missed them at the cinema. I could watch them in 2d but I figure what's the point if they are meant to be a 3d showcase.
Click to expand...

You make a very good point that I hadn't considered. The business of 3D film is at odds with the art of 3D film. Maybe it's more untenable than I thought.

I haven't played one yet but I do have hopes that 3D gaming may live up to my expectations unlike film. The Nintendo 3DS was impressive without glasses (I only played a few minutes of the Zelda demo in the store) but it wouldn't work on the big screen because you have to be focussed on the character for it to work. And I have never experienced a film as immersive as a video game.
 
Mattoid said:
This is exactly the reason why 2d compatibility is important. I haven't seen Hugo either or Avatar as I missed them at the cinema. I could watch them in 2d but I figure what's the point if they are meant to be a 3d showcase. And that's the problem. 3d should be just an extra element of the film, it shouldn't be part of the film itself. Just like colour is now. we don't really think about the colour. Its just there. The difference with colour is that there are no downsides such as glasses etc. If 3d is employed in a subtle way then people may think it isn't worth the hassle of the glasses.
Click to expand...

I watched Hugo in 2D, and I only remembered that it was actually shot in 3D after I left the cinema. I think they did a good job with compatibility there, but when it was released the 3D hype was still used as a marketing technique (like always). So yeah, many people are watching films just because they're in 3D, and the studios know that. But this won't last for long which brings me to my second point, once again, 3D (as in current 3D) isn't adding enough value for both the audience and the filmmakers (large and bulky two camera systems, new and complex workflows, expensive expertise, etc) for what they're investing (in both time and money). A 3D ticket is double the price of a 2D one over here, and the 2D tickets are already considered expensive. People quickly lose interest in "wants" when they become too expensive, and then the studios will also lose interest when 3D ticket sales hit rock bottom.
 
Egg Born Son said:
When Cameron made Avatar he deliberately avoided using the gimmicky element of 3D (things flying at you)...wrong! Why throw away the best feature of your technology? .
Click to expand...

Exactly! The only reason to use 3d is if things are going to fly OUT of the screen. Otherwise within 20 minutes the picture window effect just becomes like a 2d movie, makes your eyes hurt (it does hurt my eyes), and the colors are muted.

My Bloody Valentine 3d did it right.

Start make 3d that comes OUT of the screen instead of goes IN to the screen and it will be worth while.

I've seen both the 2d and 3d versions of many films now. All the films that have the picture window effect like Avatar lose nothing in 2d. I have quit going to 3d movies now because it's always teh same. I always see it in 3d and say I would have been happier with the 2d version. Now I just go to the 2d movie because I know I"m not missing anything.
 
androbot2084 said:
Doug Trumbull is pushing up to 120 frames per second projection. That would be good for action movies.
Click to expand...

24 fps and shaky cam is used to HIDE the shitty action. 120 frames and suddenly you actually have to do something interesting in front of the camera. Too difficult.
 
maarek said:
24 fps and shaky cam is used to HIDE the s*%tty action. 120 frames and suddenly you actually have to do something interesting in front of the camera. Too difficult.
Click to expand...

Too true. I learnt this the hard way. But really, sometimes the shaky cam is way too shaky these days. There's a limit as to how shaky a camera can be until the audience can't see anything at all; just a load of motion blur.
 
My personal preference is that I like 30 frames per second because it retains the film look and handles motion very well. But I need 60 frames per second for the fast action because I am too aware of the motion artifacts.
 
I saw the RED Reel projected at RED studios in 4k and was absolutely floored. By far a bazillion times better than anything 3D than I've ever seen. It actually felt MORE immersive than 3D. For me, 4k > 3D. Don't care anymore for higher fps screening either.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
I saw the RED Reel projected at RED studios in 4k and was absolutely floored. By far a bazillion times better than anything 3D than I've ever seen. It actually felt MORE immersive than 3D. For me, 4k > 3D. Don't care anymore for higher fps screening either.
Click to expand...

I see 4k screenings all the time and I really question this. It just looks like a sharper/brighter presentation is all.
 
The problem with 4k screenings is that the footage was shot using 35mm film. 65mm film is needed to really take advantage of the 4K format.
 
But you get diminishing returns. There is no way that a 4K transfer of 35mm film will be 4 times the quality of a 2K transfer. You get smoother contours but you do not get 4 times the detail. I could shoot a film using a 1080p camera and make a good argument that I need 65mm film in order to do a loss less transfer. And yes a 65mm transfer of 1080p video will look very good but that does not mean that 1080p is the same quality of 65mm film.

Film buffs say that 35mm film resolves 4K worth of detail simply because they do not want to change their workflow to digital or more expensive 65mm film formats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top