The 3D craze

HerzogisGod

HerzogisGod

Well-known member
how will this impact "independent" filmmakers? Will our current and near future projects turn obsolete? Or will there be room, at least for a little while, for both 2D and 3D to exist happily side by side?


thoughts?
 
James Cameron was quoted as saying that 3D has potential to be the next big thing, but ultimately he thinks that it will remain a niche novelty in the film industry. After the success of Avatar, Cameron speculated that everyone was going to be mass producing 3D movies in hopes of turning an easy profit. This phenomenon, he continued, would ruin 3D movies for everyone because essentially what you'd get is a slew of 3D movies that are terrible. He argued that one could not simply "**** out a good movie, put it in 3D, and do well" - instead, you really have to understand how 3D helps the film artistically and how it plays a part in the story.

I think we've seen what Cameron is talking about. How many movies were originally slated to be theatrically released regularly only to be "changed" into 3D right before the film hit theaters? So many. And so many of them are bad. Ultimately, the jury is still out on 3D and the mass amount of REALLY BAD 3D movies isn't helping its cause. In my opinion, 3D is a fad and it'll go out of style in a couple years - but it will still exist for a niche market like horror films, or animated films.
 
hope you're right. But just read an ad for an affordable 3D consumer camcorder, and an article stating sale of 3D tv.s expected to hit 2.5 million this/next year.
 
I feel like 3D will undergo the same things sound, color, and other milestones in film have endured... abuse.

When all of these things first came to screen, they were overdone in a sensationalist way. You'll see many people use 3d simply as a gimmick to sell a film or garner cheap thrills. It won't be for a little bit, when the initial dust settles, you'll see the common filmmaker use 3D as a tool for story telling and not to simply do it. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this clearly. :P

What concerns me, is the amount of knowledge and control it takes to make a PROPER 3d film. These prosumer 3d cameras have adjustable AoC but does not have adjustable inter-ocular distance. Some can argue that you don't need it, but the disciplined filmmaker will want to have that control over the image. Also, pulling focus and angle of convergence is tricky business, and I don't think the majority of indie film people or prosumer operators are ready for that.

I'm prepared to see a ton of 3D garbage before the cream raises to the top and 3d dies as a new fad and becomes part of the everyday filmmaking vernacular.

-Ryan
 
HerzogisGod said:
how will this impact "independent" filmmakers? Will our current and near future projects turn obsolete? Or will there be room, at least for a little while, for both 2D and 3D to exist happily side by side?


thoughts?
Click to expand...

Since some people are still thinking of using B&W 16mm film for their 'independent' film making stock, I don't think 3-d for independent filmmakers will make much impact.

Here I do think of 'independent' in the truly 'independent' sense, and not some 'independent' production company that has pretty much done deals with major studios and distribution...

I've seen several of the recent 3-d movies, and for the most part, I really don't 'see' the point... It's not a holographic technique, so, position in the viewing area does not reveal more information, and with a few exceptions, the direction of 'depth' seems to be more into the proscenium than 'out' into the audience...

In addition, the 'color' saturation seems washed out. I saw "Alice in Wonderland" in both 2 and 3-d versions. And the colors were much more vibrant in the 2-d version. I think this is a necessary result of the use of glasses, and their effect on the intensity of the image. (essentially looking at things through slightly smoked glasses...).
 
1. to me, with the Panasonic 3D TVs in Best Buy, color and brightness are a ton better than in the theatre. You know how home TVs can be blindingly bright? Blindingly bright + 3D dimming effect = very similar to a THX-brightness-level home 2D experience.

2. 3D is tough to do right. In indie film, if you get stuff wrong technically, it can be interpreted as "artistic". In a 3D indie film, it will be interpreted as "nauseating headache."

The majority of indies will either be intimidated and not try, or try and fail. DVXuser will be full of sour grapes. I predict a lot of holy wars between the shallow-depth-of-field DSLR folks and the 3D folks...

For the few indies who do 3D properly, it could be awesome.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
In addition, the 'color' saturation seems washed out. I saw "Alice in Wonderland" in both 2 and 3-d versions. And the colors were much more vibrant in the 2-d version. I think this is a necessary result of the use of glasses, and their effect on the intensity of the image. (essentially looking at things through slightly smoked glasses...).
Click to expand...

The more expensive and a bit more complicated 3D glasses way, shuttered glasses, will ease this problem. As of now, the polarized lenses do effect color rendition... a dilemma to most cinematographers... because they question whether to do another color grade JUST for 3D, which of course is time and money!
 
bruceallen said:
2. 3D is tough to do right. In indie film, if you get stuff wrong technically, it can be interpreted as "artistic". In a 3D indie film, it will be interpreted as "nauseating headache."
Click to expand...

Very true, especially if 3D is going to start moving into gaming, it is very important to be stable or you will have kids throwing up all over the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top