I am seeking the members opinions on the success of 3D. Now that it has been out for a while I would like to see what you think.

There is no right or wrong, I would appreciate everyones personal opinion on;

1. If you own a 3d display or visit theaters, how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media and do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc. Do you Like 3D ??? Have you stopped using 3D as much since you first purchased your Display/T.V. ???

2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be ???

3. For those that shoot for a living, how often do you get request for 3D ???

4. Any problems shooting / editing 3D.

Thank you for your time.

I saw avatar in 3d and it's the last time i will spend more money to see a 3d vs a 2d movie, the movie seemed quite dark and it gave me a headache, for me it didn"t add anything substantial, sure some scenes looked more "real" but overall I was not that impressed.
That also answers the question about me having a 3d tv, if i don't have to buy I won't, again because I don't see the added value and if I don't have to I never will invest in a 3d camera as well, I see it more as a gimmick then something that would make my videoproductions better.

I think that 3D will be around to stay, however right now I see the currently technology very much a "first generation, barely out of Beta testing".

Properly done, with good equipment both on the recording side and the end viewing side, it's impressive. I can't get my head wrapped around the whole concept of needing to buy a special T.V., special glasses, just the right amount of ambient light, etc. etc. to make it all come together in an immersive experience. I believe that once technology catches up to what I'd percieve as being the perfect environment ( i.e. a transparent experience...no glasses, no special equipment, just turn on the t.v. and there it is), then we'll see almost everything shot in 3D.

We're still a few years away from that, I think. I'll continue to look forward to that day however...it's very cool to watch when it works right

new PFR technology is definitely step forward, but honestly I don't think 3D will be big until they get rid of the glasses, 3D wasn't invented yesterday, was it ever more popular than 2D?
how often I get request to shoot in 3D? well, let me think, roughly half of my clients don't even have blurays, and take them only because it's included in the package;
I am getting couple scarlets ( when they're available) and will definitely start shooting 3D, at least for the self education purpose, but I don't think I'll get any 3D clients within next 3-4 years;
time will tell :)

It's not looking good here in Australia:

The Courier Mail - TV chiefs quietly mothball 3D plans (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/tv-chiefs-quietly-mothball-3d-plans/story-e6freon6-1226111905469)

From the article ...

Free-to-air channels appear to have abandoned 3D technology even though thousands of Australians splashed out more than $361 million on 3D TVs following successful trials of the technology last year. Broadcasting groups have confirmed 3D TV transmitters have now been removed from transmission towers in Australia's capital cities.

There is a feeling out there that the 3D fad has stalled.

Andrew

I personally will not pay to go to any more 3d movies (and I certainly wont buy a 3d tv) - everyone I know seems to be thinking the same thing. The last 3d movie I saw was Tron 2, but I wish I had just gone to see the 2d version instead.

I dont get any eye strain or headaches; its just that I dont see the point of it. 3d seems to actually make the picture less realistic as I am more aware of the gimmick.

I think 3d has a future with animated movies for children (Monsters vs Aliens was good); with those computer generated movies the 3d seems more integral and the kids enjoy the pop out effects. 3d may have a future with games (and perhaps virtual reality somewhere in the future).

But for now, in terms of live action movies, I'm filing it next to smell-o-vision in the gimmick category...

3d may have a future with games (and perhaps virtual reality somewhere in the future).

I believe that as well, I think 3d is going to become big with computer games because that is what a player wants the most, have the feeling he is right inside the game and controlling almost every aspect of it.
With tv you don't controll anything, it just happens and you watch.

1. If you own a 3d display or visit theaters, how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media and do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc. Do you Like 3D ??? Have you stopped using 3D as much since you first purchased your Display/T.V. ???

---------------- I own a 3D TV. At first I didn't watch any 3D. Then I got interested and rented or bought quite a few 3D Blu Rays. But there is not much good content available and I have definately tapered off. The best 3D seems to be animation. For example Tangled is very well done, and a nice story. I subscribed to ESPN 3D and liked the NBA playoffs, but have not found anything as good after that. If the content was there I would watch more.

2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be ???

----------------- It is important for a display. I had thoughts about getting a pair of XF105s and putting together a 3D rig, but I can't come up with the projects to justify it.

3. For those that shoot for a living, how often do you get request for 3D ???

------------------ I don't shoot for a living but I do in-the-cockpit flying videos. My flying group had some interest in 3D early on, but I have not heard any comments about 3D for a while. And I haven't come up with any good 3D flying projects.

4. Any problems shooting / editing 3D.

----------------- I got a GoPro 3D setup just to learn more about 3D. I've modified the cameras with non-fisheye lenses, and with this lens mod the GoPros really do a nice 3D job. I had no problems shooting or editing once I got through the basics. (I use the GoPro software, Cineform Neo, and Premiere Pro CS5.5.)

My first take-away from this early experience is that content is king, and that if the content tapers off interest in 3D will fade.
My second take-away is that few projects are suitable for 3D. Perhaps a topic for this forum is a good discussion about what projects are suitable, and why.
I like 3D; the displays and glasses don't bother me; I don't expect I would become a 3D master but I could do acceptable work; I'm not rooting for 3D to be a passing fad; but it seems to me it could be losing momentum.

For me, if 3D television is to survive then it needs to be pretty much a standard 'extra' on all TVs being sold. Not something that you pay a premium for. It's the only way you will build a critical mass that future content availability can then take advantage of.

Andrew

Jeffrey Katzenberg on the 'Heartbreaking' Decline of 3D (Exclusive Q&A) - The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jeffrey-katzenberg-why-hollywood-is-196616)

RealD Shares Collapse to All-Time Low, Lose Nearly 21% of Value - The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/reald-shares-collapse-all-time-216633)

I own a 3D TV. The TV cost no more than 5 to 10% more than a comparable quality 2D TV of the same size. It is a passive TV, so the glasses cost just a couple of dollars each. However there is a serious lack of 3D content. If there was more, I would watch more. As we go forward it is likely that most TV's will gain 3D capability and yet cost no more than a 2D TV. The same happened with HD.

85% of my work is 3D. It is exciting, challenging and lucrative at the moment.

3D is here to stay IMHO. BUT we need a change in the way people think. 3D does not suit every genre and it won't suit every film. Some films will work better in 2D, some in 3D. People should learn that just because one 3D experience was a bad one it does not mean the next will also be bad. Like all movies there will be differences in the production quality, not all films are created equal. In addition not all theatres are created equal and there are far too many examples of poorly set up theatres presenting sub standard 3D images, often down to using projector bulbs long past their prime, dirty or poor quality screens or bad alignment, all things that you would get away with in 2D. As film makers and theatres gain a more intimate knowledge of 3D the quality will improve, but also producers will also learn when to make a film in 2D and when to make it in 3D.

The cinema is only one small fraction of the 3D world. The one genre that I believe will really do well is documentary. Natural History and science programming in particular presents many interesting opportunities for the creative use of 3D.

HD TV went through very similar growing pains. Initially HD TV's attracted a significant premium, however early adopters still purchased large numbers. Initially there was a lack of content, so then HD went through a tough patch with a lack of confidence and loss of impetus. Then after a few years through continual creep the amount of content slowly but steadily increased and today there are many HD channels and it's hard to buy a TV that isn't HD ready.

Whenever you read headlines about declining box office takings you have to put them into the context of a global economy that is in a bad way. People are not spending money on expensive events or nights out and cinema box office returns are being hit hard. Without 3D it's quite possible that many of the movies released in recent months would have never made it to the big screen due to the terrible economic situation.

There are lots of issues shooting and editing 3D. There is the extra time it takes, restrictions to the kind of shots you can do etc. But get it right and it's possible to produce breath taking content.

I just buy two of everything so that I can use it for 3D.

It is a passive TV, so the glasses cost just a couple of dollars each.

A passive TV? How does it work? I did not know it was possible for a TV to be passive. Does it use polarized glasses then? Does it have every other row polarized the other way or how does it work? Do you get full HD in each eye?

You really peaked my curiosity. Recently (as mentioned in another thread) I saw Harry Potter in 3D and the passive glasses (RealD 3D) felt very natural. I put them on as soon as I sat down, long before they were needed and it did not even feel I had them on. With my active glasses I get tired after a while and need to take a break every hour or so.

Wouldn't surprise me if the transmitters being used for the 3D content broadcasts were leased or rented. Easy enough to have them back when things change, I guess.

Andrew

But there is not much good content available

Not to sound facetious, but there is not too much good content available in 2D either.

At any rate, it is not the fault of 3D that whenever 3D is in, studios rush on the bandwagon and quickly churn out poor content thinking that just because it is in 3D, people will love it. That happened in the 1950s, and it happened every time someone released a successful 3D movie since, which has always been successful for being a great movie to start with. Most recently that happened after Avatar came out.

3D is not something you just tack on. A properly made 3D movie should need to be in 3D, so it should never be released in 2D. Just like a sound movie is never released without the sound.

3D has been around for thousands of years. Live theatre has always been in 3D and its directors instinctively make the 3D work. It simply would not work in 2D. Statues have always been in 3D and they are a completely different art form from a painting, which is a different art form from mosaic, etc. One is not better than the other, they are simply different.

The problem is that most 3D movies made these days do not really need the third dimension. There are exceptions. I cannot even imagine watching the last Harry Potter in 2D. It would still be a good movie, mind you, but the threediness does offer something that the 2D version simply cannot give you. At least in the most important scene of the movie (no, I’m not about to spoil it), it just would not be the same without the 3D.

Often filmmakers think of 3D in the way the creators of Wizard of Oz thought of color. It was completely unnatural and exaggerated because it was something new (though, strangely, it actually worked for that particular movie). But no one would apply color that way today. Heck, for the so called “film look” digital filmmakers go out of their way to desaturate the colors. Good 3D must look completely natural. It must not be overwhelming. But, as I said, it must be essential to the story, so if you saw the same movie in 2D something would be missing. That may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. After all, we do not make sound overwhelming, yet if we take it off, something is missing.

Once filmmakers realize that 3D movies are as different from 2D movies as statues are from paintings, they will be able to produce truly excellent 3D movies (and continue making truly excellent 2D movies, just taking a different approach to each).

I couldn't agree more with Alister Chapman:

"The cinema is only one small fraction of the 3D world. The one genre that I believe will really do well is documentary. Natural History and science programming in particular presents many interesting opportunities for the creative use of 3D."

I reckon the best 3D gives the viewer a chance to explore the 3D scene in detail, similiar to taking in the view from a "Lookout". I often find I forget that I'm watching 3D in the cinema sometimes because either the scene cuts are too quick, the camera is moving too quickly or the scene itself doesn't lend itself to 3D, I always seem to remember a few scenes because of the 3D, not the entire movies 3D. The helicopters flying through the floating mountains in Avatar come to mind, I felt as though I had time to explore the scene. I tend to think that movie edits (2D) have evolved around the fact that the viewer has a fixed focus on a 2D plane when viewing, the depth that 3D offers creates the need for the viewers eyes to do some work by focussing on different objects at different depths, like in real life. Maybe this is why I only remember some of the scenes in a 3D movie, I just don't think your eyes/brain can appreciate the 3D in an action sequence with 1-2sec cuts.

This is an Interesting thread, and there are good points made about the nature, and the present situation of 3D.

The most recent 3D arrival seems to have been pretty frantic, with many traditional expectations of what 3D should, or would "do".

Alister makes a good point that Cinema is one small fraction of the 3D world. I would venture to say that along with Documentary, Natural history, and Science programing, 3D could soon be defining a new Artform" within the Arts and Entertainment.
Already, using computers and software, Video and Music can be amalgamated (for lack of a better word), and this is starting to open up new territories that were unknown and unavailable before. It seems it is only a matter of time until 3D video will get involved somehow.

A very loose analogy to the present 3D arrival, was the arrival of the audio Synthesizers in the 1970's and 80's.
Alot of people and companies hailed the " World changing nature" of the Synthesizer, and at the same time, many also thought (or worried) the Synthesizer would "retire" traditional modes of making music.

In time, the Synthesizer has settled into augmenting traditional modes of making music, yet it has also rounded out a new area, or field of music too.

Sony, Samsung, Panasonic X6D create industry standard for active 3D glasses
Sony Global - PANASONIC, SAMSUNG, SONY, AND XPAND 3D JOIN FORCES IN ‘FULL HD 3D GLASSES INITIATIVE’ (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201108/11-0809E/index.html)

An article on poor performance caused by theatres ( thanks to those that pointed out the problem )
A movie lover?s plea: Let there be light - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-22/ae/29571831_1_digital-projectors-movie-exhibition-business-screens)

I have read many articles about TV sales, It is a mixed bag. An interesting note on one article stated that 3D television sales stats are unreliable as many televisions sold are 3D but the buyers intent was not for 3D.

From what I have learned the future of 3D is here, however it is limited. It is in the hands of the tech and movie industry as to whether it flurishes or not, the glasses are a stumbling block for many people. Years ago as I walked through the electronics retailers I could see HD TV, it was beautiful. However I found many people who just did not care about (or see) the beauty of HD. That puzzles me. What I can't see in walmart or in best buy as I walk past is 3D. There may be a set of glasses lying around but I have not noticed any, and I do not see any employees pushing 3D. Last but not least, in the U.S. theatres are dying. Suprisingly, 3D has increased their business, not surprisingly, many customers will not return because of their poor job.

Thanks all for the education and opinions, keep them coming.

Donny

Last but not least, in the U.S. theatres are dying.

How do you figure that one? The US has been in dire economic troubles for the last ten years or so. And since buying food is more important than going to a theater, many people do not go to theater at this time. Once the economy bounces back up, people will be going to the movies much more again.

I think the trailer for Harold & Kumar 3D makes the perfect point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ks8iWmz928#t=1m02s

Watch from about 1:02 to 1:50

A passive TV? How does it work? I did not know it was possible for a TV to be passive. Does it use polarized glasses then? Does it have every other row polarized the other way or how does it work? Do you get full HD in each eye?

You really peaked my curiosity. Recently (as mentioned in another thread) I saw Harry Potter in 3D and the passive glasses (RealD 3D) felt very natural. I put them on as soon as I sat down, long before they were needed and it did not even feel I had them on. With my active glasses I get tired after a while and need to take a break every hour or so.

There are a couple of manufactures making reasonably priced passive TVs, Vizio and LG, along with more expensive sets, I think JVC for one. However the resolution is half per eye, combined you are getting the full HD and depending on how close you are to the set it may not be noticeable. Some people claim to see horizontal lines in the image when viewing the set. However next year newer versions of "passive" sets should be out that allow for full HD quality using RealD type polarized glasses. This link is not very informative but may help: Samsung and RealD to co-develop new active-shutter 3D technology (http://www.3d-display-info.com/samsung-and-reald-co-develop-new-active-shutter-3d-technology)

In this case Samsung is apparently using screen refresh to change the left and right eye polarization and image to create a set that will use passive glasses and the "active" technology is kept in the set.

I think a big step for 3D to take hold will be when glasses free technology is more robust, especially if some sort of holographic display could be developed. However that is a few years down the road it seems.

I also think that some other development angles with 3D may solidify its role in the publics mind. As Alister Chapman noted that some productions are served better with 3D, as those determining factors are sorted out and reasons for 3d viewing become more apparent it will help. I also am hoping that things like the Lytro camera may create a whole new schema for video, allowing the viewer to change how the scene is percieved. Obviously that could be several years out, but for things like "natural history and science" videos that Alister noted, viewing capabilities could take on a whole new twist. Even with standard stereoscopic video the ability to change the L/R aspect may have possibilities. That probably makes every producer cringe since they work hard to get the L/R properly set, sorry.

Interesting. If they can make that full HD active screen for passive glasses at an affordable price for everyone and if it does not break much, that would certainly give 3D a major boost.

I think passive glasses are fine. Much easier than glasses-free technology. Certainly when I watched Harry Potter in the theater, the glasses caused no problem. They fit right over my prescription glasses. They were so light weight that I did not even feel I had them on. Even people who do not wear prescription glasses are no strangers to sun glasses, so I really do not see how needing the RealD 3D glasses would be something people would mind.

r.e. the Harold & Kumar 3D trailer:

Yes, the Wow/Amazing factors are still in the very act of jumping the shark, but I think the digital format and technical know-how has made this recent 3D surge, "Stick".

Hopefully, 3D it will play an important role once it develops its own visual language and demonstrates its many values,
despite some early corny and clowny uses, (r.e. the Harold & Kumar 3D trailer)

I picked up a Vizio E3D420VX - 42" 1080p, passive 3D, WiFi, Netflix, Youtube, etc... for $649 at Costco. I originally wanted to buy an internet enabled TV, came across this one, and figured I'd go the extra $100 for the 3D capability. In 2D mode it's a good looking image, although there's too much contrast drop-off as you move off axis to the left or right. 3D mode uses standard circular polarized glasses and looks quite good, even at 1/2 resolution. 3D effect gets ghosts as you move off axis in the vertical direction. Remote control includes a QUERTY keyboard (but miniature sized.) My TV service, FIOS from Verizon, has a modest amount of 3D content, both live and on-demand.

Passive glasses add to the WAF (wife acceptance factor.) Also easy to have guests, as I've got hundreds of passive circular glasses left over from work projects. All in all, worth the $100 premium.

http://www.costco.com/images/content/misc/PDF/930420.pdf

1. If you own a 3d display or visit theaters, how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media and do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc. Do you Like 3D ??? Have you stopped using 3D as much since you first purchased your Display/T.V. ???


2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be ???

3. For those that shoot for a living, how often do you get request for 3D ???

4. Any problems shooting / editing 3D.


I have purchsed a 3D TV and several movies. I do seek out 3D movies at the theater. I create my own 3d stills with a pair of Canon g7's. I also have a 3d Gopro rig and a Sony HDR-TD10 camcorder. I have not had any problems with eyestrain. I love 3D. I am not using my 3D TV as much as I would like since my cable provider does not have 3d content available. I don't mind the active glasses.

Very important. I am hoping other manufacturers besides Fuji will produce 3d still cameras.

I don't shoot for a living but I do see an emerging market for 3d still and video photography.

Shooting fast action stills is a problem as there are no good ways to do this now. My G7 rig takes to long to sync the cameras and focus.
Editing 3d video takes a powerful computer. I just replaced mine with a high end i7 and 27" 3d monitor. There is a very steep learning curve for 3d editing. The avaialble software is expensive and buggy.

Things not looking good at all:

3D TV falls flat as broadcasters tune out (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/digital-life/hometech/3d-tv-falls-flat-as-broadcasters-tune-out-20110902-1jp0u.html)

Sony has been one of the main backers of new age 3D technology but its Australian managing director concedes 3D has failed to live up to expectations, was rushed to market and has lost the support of broadcasters.

Andrew

1. how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media


A lot: I see a 3D movie in the theater about once per month. If I had a 3D TV I would probably do more.


do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc.


Never a problem with the Dolby Real3D and Christie 2K. Got a bad headache once with an IMAX film 3D presentation.


Do you Like 3D ???


I love it.


2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be ???


It's definitely in the top 10. As important as high frame rates (which is to say, not that important, but it would be nice to have).

3D will probably not happens (or fails again if you prefer), because the ones that are supposed to sell it to us, are making stupid marketing strategy.
They just want to increase their sales by selling the same old s..t under a new name.
they want 2D to 3D converter everywhere, they do not want real 3D.
There are tons of 3d screens and blu-ray readers available, even for cheap.
Where is the content ? Where is Avatar 3D blu-ray , supposed to be THE 3d thing.
Most of the 3D movies are locked with a purchase of a screen if not ever released to the BD market.
Ok, so each time you want to see a 3D movie , you need to purchase a new Samsung screen ?
That is totally silly.
So there is a big disapointing industry emerging, the 2d to 3D conversion of old block buster.
What a nice way to provide consumer the proof the 3D is just a failure. already seen old movies badly converted to 3D. Great !
And the same for camera. Yes you got 3D feature on almost new smartphone or digital camera today.
(most of them asking you to do 2 shots while shifting a little bit the camera). Hey two lens is to expensive !
And the few consumer camera shooting really 3D, are just incompatible with blu-ray format. (most shooting 1080i60 instead the required 1080p24).
Then they will complain that sales go flat, the consumer is not interested...the product is not ready yet for the market....blah, blah....

My two cents: I am not the least bit interested in the current 3d technology. When 3d can be done without the glasses I'll reconsider it. There is an occasional movie that can use 3d to enhance the experience but so many lately remind me of gimmick movies made in the 1950s. I guess the kids will go see movies like that, but then they like YouBoob.

Glasses free 3D is here.

Lenticular glasses free 3D will be implemented in just about every fixed viewing distance environment in the next couple years. This will include Phones, Ipads, Computer screens, tvs on airplanes, etc.

3D may take longer to be broadly accepted in the home. However, we spend so much time starring at these other screens that it will find its way there soon.

3D is here to stay. Period.

I definitely prefer glasses over lenticular displays! I like to move my head (and other parts of my body) while watching a movie.

I prefer 2D to 3D in the theatre. I just dont see anything but a tiny niche market for indie 3D production. All these 3D Camcorder announcements. Who is buying them and what are they doing with them?

Sorry but it looks like saying:
" whiy stereo instead of mono or why 5.1 instead of stereo or why HD instead of SD or why BR instead of VCD.... and bla bla..."

Why 3D:

documentaries,
sport matches,
porn
horror and action movies
are perfect in 3D form when they are shot truly. (Imax Studios and Cameron : the masters of these stuff.)

Sorry but it looks like saying:
" whiy stereo instead of mono or why 5.1 instead of stereo or why HD instead of SD or why BR instead of VCD.... and bla bla..."

There is no down side to those. Also there is seamless backward compatibility. Is there for seamless backward compatibility for 3D? Via what delivery mechanism?

There is a big downside to 3D. A significant percentage of people don't like it, don't want it or it for real gives them a headache.

it for real gives them a headache.

How do they ever survive walking down the street then? Everything that surrounds us is in 3D. Everything! And we look at it the same way we do with 3D cinema: Using a left view and a right view, one for each eye.

Obviously then, it is not 3D that gives people a headache. It is improperly shot 3D. And 3D gimmicks, such as things coming out of the screen.

3D needs to be shot differently than 2D. Just because a studio decides to shoot in 3D, and assigns a director with no 3D experience to shoot it, does not mean that 3D gives people a headache. It only means wrong people are shooting it and for the wrong reasons. Worse yet, they often shoot in 2D and think they can convert that to 3D.

3D cinema is as different from 2D cinema as sculpture is from painting. You would not ask a painter to create a statue. Similarly, you would not paint a picture and think you can throw some software at it to convert it to a statue. They are two completely different things.

Yet, studios keep asking 2D cinematographers to shoot 3D movies. That and only that is what gives many people a headache.

How do they ever survive walking down the street then? Everything that surrounds us is in 3D. Everything! And we look at it the same way we do with 3D cinema: Using a left view and a right view, one for each eye.

Obviously then, it is not 3D that gives people a headache. It is improperly shot 3D. And 3D gimmicks, such as things coming out of the screen.


A good number of people got eye strain from watching Avatar; so clearly even 3D that has been properly delivered is less than perfect for a reasonably large percentage of the population.

Yet, studios keep asking 2D cinematographers to shoot 3D movies. That and only that is what gives many people a headache.

I disagree! Another significant cause of headaches and eyestrain relates to WHERE you sit in the theater. For instance, if you sit in the front row, your eyes will be required to converge/diverge at physiologically impossible angles. 3D theaters are inconsistent. Some are short and wide; others are deep and narrow. Most theaters have plenty of seats where 3D viewing is quite uncomfortable.

Properly shot 3D anticipates the viewers' physical location with respect to the width of the screen. Once a 3D shot is mastered, the ratio of viewer distance to screen width determines the magnitude of eye convergence/divergence. If the 3D producer can not control that ratio (i.e. demand that viewers sit in a certain place in each theater), the front section of the audience may be prone to headaches, while the rear section perceives diminished 3D.

Properly shot 3D anticipates the viewers' physical location with respect to the width of the screen.

Yes, it does.

I was actually meaning to give an example of that but was distracted before saying everything. Namely, recently I bought a 3D BD about ancient Egypt. It was shot for IMAX with its huge screen. As a result, on my 3D monitor it all looked like miniatures. Clearly they used a wider interocular distance for it to look great on a 20 foot tall screen. And that made it truly horrible on a small monitor.

That film should have never been released on Blu-ray and should have only been shown in IMAX theaters!

That is why I have been saying that 3D needs to be shot with three lenses, one on the left, one on the right, one a certain distance between them, about one third the distance from the left lens and 2/3 from the right lens, so you get three different possible outputs:

1. For a huge screen showing the left view shot by the left lens, the right view by the right lens;

2. For a medium screen showing the left view shot by the in-between lens, the right view from the right lens; and

3. For a small screen with the left view from the left lens and the right view from the in-between lens.

Here is an interesting 3D article in the NYTimes this week:

Directors Adapt to Shooting 3-D With Depth

By DAVE KEHR

EVEN as Hollywood prepares for an autumn onslaught of 3-D movies from big-name directors (including “Hugo” from Martin Scorsese and “The Adventures of Tintin” from Steven Spielberg), the future of the format remains uncertain. Resentful of premium ticket prices and burned by too many films hastily and unconvincingly converted from 2-D to 3-D, audiences aren’t flocking to stereoscopic films the way they did a year ago. The novelty is fading.
Digital 3-D may be facing its 1954 moment — that turning point when, during the initial postwar boom for 3-D movies, filmgoers suddenly decided they were fed up with flaming arrows and other unpleasant projectiles being hurled from the screen and turned in their polarized glasses en masse.

As fate would have it, this popular uprising arrived just as Hollywood was beginning to move beyond carnival-like attractions toward more respectable 3-D fare: musicals (“Kiss Me Kate” from MGM), dramas (“Miss Sadie Thompson” from Columbia) and big-star vehicles (the John Wayne film “Hondo”). Alfred Hitchcock made “Dial M for Murder” in 3-D, but by the time it opened at the Paramount Theater in Times Square on May 28, 1954, the film was presented in a standard version. “3-D was a nine-day wonder,” Hitchcock reportedly said. “I arrived on the ninth day.”

But this time the outcome could be different. Not only is the technology easier to handle at both the production and presentation stages, but more interests are also at stake. Chief among those are the investments made by electronics manufacturers, among them Samsung, Panasonic and Sony (the parent company of Columbia Pictures), in bringing 3-D into the home through a new generation of 3-D-capable HDTVs and Blu-ray players.

Although they have been on the market for a while, the new devices are just now beginning to achieve some degree of household penetration. (3-D capabilities come unbidden with many of this year’s high-end displays.) And as the recent theatrical 3-D releases gradually make their way to home video, there is finally enough 3-D product available to have something to talk about.

I’ve had 3-D capabilities in my home system for a couple of months now, which is just about long enough for the initial “Wow!” factor to wear off. No longer do I rush, hands trembling, to try out the latest 3-D screener to arrive in the mail. (Alas, “The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2011 3-D Experience” no longer seems the essential viewing it might have a few weeks ago.) But a well-engineered 3-D Blu-ray still generates a particular kind of atavistic excitement, as if the View-Master slides I loved as a child had acquired a new depth, definition and ability to move.

In one important respect home 3-D is superior to the technology employed in most theaters. Rather than using polarized lenses to separate the left eye and right eye images, the new home system uses “active shutter” LCD glasses, which are synchronized with infrared signals from the television set to alternately block the left and right view, so that each eye sees only the image intended for it. Because less light is lost through the polarized filters, the result is a crisper and brighter image than the 3-D systems in most common use in American theaters.

The gold standard remains, not surprisingly, James Cameron’s “Avatar,” the film that set off the recent wave of live-action 3-D films and remains the format’s highest-grossing film. For the moment, however, “Avatar” is available in 3-D only as part of a Panasonic Blu-ray player promotion that runs through February. (Regular retail editions will presumably become available when Panasonic’s exclusivity runs out, though used copies are available on the Internet in the $100 to $150 range.)

Questions of scale aside, “Avatar” at home seems no less immersive than it did in the theater, thanks both to Mr. Cameron’s compositional eye and the flexibility of the Cameron-Pace Fusion 3-D camera, which eliminates the static proscenium effect produced by older, less maneuverable systems.

You’ll find a Cameron-Pace credit on most if not all of the live-action films that work best on Blu-ray 3-D: Joseph Konsinksi’s “Tron: Legacy” (Disney, $49.99, PG), Eric Brevig’s partly animated “Yogi Bear” (Warner Home Video, $44.98), and my personal favorite, Paul W. S. Anderson’s “Resident Evil: Afterlife” (Screen Gems, $39.95, R).

For one thing the camera’s presence is a guarantee that the film is not a conversion from 2-D and was conceived for stereoscopic viewing from the start. It’s a pity that Mr. Brevig’s 2008 “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” the first feature shot with the Fusion camera, isn’t available in an active-shutter 3-D version; a longtime visual-effects supervisor, he seems to possess an innate sense of what will please the eye in 3-D (elaborate, cathedral-like spaces) and what will distract or irritate it. (Like Mr. Cameron he systematically avoids projecting effects that threaten to puncture your eyeballs.) And Mr. Anderson, a professionally unpretentious genre filmmaker (“Event Horizon,” “Death Race”), has long used depth effects to give his action scenes an extra shot of adrenaline, seems naturally born to the format. He was always shooting in stereo, it’s just that we couldn’t see it before.

2-D to 3-D conversions, like “Thor “ (Paramount, $54.99, PG-13) and “Priest” (Screen Gems, $45.99, not rated), often seem less visually robust than their 2-D siblings, cursed with the kind of pop-up book effect that results from digitally clipping out figures and rearranging them against backgrounds that remain distractingly flat. For the moment they are best avoided, and like the part talkies of the late 1920s, their days are clearly numbered.

Given the importance of the family market to home video, it’s probably in animated films that Blu-ray 3-D will find its fastest and widest acceptance. Robert Zemeckis’s 2004 “Polar Express” was the film that started the digital 3-D phenomenon, and it remains (Warners, $44.98, G), along with Mr. Zemeckis’s 2010 “Christmas Carol” (Disney, $49.99, PG), a thrilling example of a filmmaker able to indulge his taste for long takes and deep focus without any practical, physical constraints. No matter how complex a shot he may conceive, Mr. Zemeckis now has the means to execute it.

The puppet animator Henry Selick brilliantly uses 3-D to set an eerie, dreamlike mood in his 2009 “Coraline,” which was reissued last January in Blu-ray 3-D (Universal, $49.98, PG) in a version that makes the previous releases obsolete. The summer hit “Rio” (Fox, $49.99, G) opens with a dazzling Busby Berkeley-type musical number, with tropical birds soaring in formations through a digital jungle. But the film, directed by Carlos Saldanha, seems to lose interest in depth effects soon after.

We will have to wait until Nov. 1 to see Pixar’s “Cars 2” and “Toy Story 3” in Blu-ray 3-D, but in the meantime there is “Tangled” from Disney ($49.99, PG), the first of that studio’s in-house animations to take full advantage of the 3-D format. This mildly sarcastic retelling of “Rapunzel” seems a little too knowing for its own good, but every so often the directors, Nathan Greno and Byron Howard, unleash an image of startling beauty. The climactic sequence, with a thousand candles floating through the night sky is a visual coup worthy of the great Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki. To watch these warm specks of light lift out of the screen and float into the room in front of you is to experience the “Wow!” factor and a little something more.

There may be a future in this thing after all.

Original article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/movies/3-d-movies-are-taking-a-new-path.html?src=recg

The strongest indicator of 3D Cinema's immaturity is that 3D is not being integrated into the artistic or story narrative. It does nothing to further the development of characters, story, emotion, sense of place and time, or the grammar of film-making.

Drawing a parallel with the use of color in popular cinema, full color is introduced in the mid-30s mostly as a gimmick to sell tickets (Kid Millions, Becky Sharp, Dancing Pirate, etc...) By the end of the 30's directors and cinematographers begin to "get it." Wizard of Oz metaphorically separates the drab dustbowl depression world from Dorothy's brightly saturated color fantasy world of Oz, by taking us over the rainbow, from black and white to color. Color finally serves a narrative purpose (imitated again in Pleasantville - 1998)!

See how Lucas uses color in THX-1138; a sterile amorphous white world punctuated by small bits of flesh tones tells us everything about the world that THX and LUH inhabit, contrasting dramatically with the blindingly rich color sunrise in the final shot.

The D-Day scenes in Saving Private Ryan are drained of color, connecting us with the black and white newsreel footage that are our only memories of that day.

Color grading is often about setting a mood through the use of tint, saturation, and dominant colors.

Directors have adapted other visual technologies to express their story. Chris Marker's La Jetée is presented almost entirely in still frames, representing the fragmentation of time that is at the core of the protagonist's perspective (something that is missing in Terry Gilliam's remake: 12 Monkeys.)

To date, I've not seen 3D used to further any aspect of cinematic expression. (I'll overlook Robert Rodriguez's Spy Kids 3D punctuating the transitions from real to fantasy world with "Put Your Glasses On" - "Take Your Glasses Off" title slides. SK3D hardly qualifies as having any relationship to cinematic expression.)

3D has not made the leap from gimmick to instrument of expression. Cinematographers must move beyond composing technically correct 3D shots and start making 3D shots that augment the story and characters. Directors must integrate 3D into their quiver of expressive tools. Thousands and thousands of 3D movie screens (and many more televisions) are out there, just waiting for something with a heart and soul.

Yes, it does.

I was actually meaning to give an example of that but was distracted before saying everything. Namely, recently I bought a 3D BD about ancient Egypt. It was shot for IMAX with its huge screen. As a result, on my 3D monitor it all looked like miniatures. Clearly they used a wider interocular distance for it to look great on a 20 foot tall screen. And that made it truly horrible on a small monitor.

That film should have never been released on Blu-ray and should have only been shown in IMAX theaters!

That is why I have been saying that 3D needs to be shot with three lenses, one on the left, one on the right, one a certain distance between them, about one third the distance from the left lens and 2/3 from the right lens, so you get three different possible outputs:

1. For a huge screen showing the left view shot by the left lens, the right view by the right lens;

2. For a medium screen showing the left view shot by the in-between lens, the right view from the right lens; and

3. For a small screen with the left view from the left lens and the right view from the in-between lens.


Hi Adam.

It seems to me very logical and i liked the idea.

But considering the film is shot with 3 lens, how it is gonna be distributed?
3 Masters of the same film for every suitable screen?

Or any other ideas?

_ _ _ _

You’d have one studio master with three views. From that you would produce a separate distribution master for IMAX, with two appropriate views, a different distribution master for regular cinema screen, with two different views, and a third distribution master for BD, with two proper views.

So, in each case you would distribute just two of the three views.

1. If you own a 3d display or visit theaters, how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media and do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc.

Never. Gives me headaches. Don't like the desaturation or lower luminance seen at the theaters either. And I should pay extra for this? I don't think so.

Do you Like 3D? Have you stopped using 3D as much since you first purchased your Display/T.V?

I don't really. I find it distracting. A big 3D effect pulls me right out of my suspension of disbelief. If it's not helping tell the story, why is it there?

2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be?

For me it would be important that there not be any 3D capabilities. No point paying for something I'm not likely ever going to use.

3. For those that shoot for a living, how often do you get request for 3D?

I never have.

4. Any problems shooting / editing 3D?

Don't know, never tried due to lack of interest on my part and on customers' part.

You’d have one studio master with three views. From that you would produce a separate distribution master for IMAX, with two appropriate views, a different distribution master for regular cinema screen, with two different views, and a third distribution master for BD, with two proper views.

So, in each case you would distribute just two of the three views.

This is what i was trying to say.
There should be 3 different distribution masters including two views as a combination of the shots taken by two of three lenses.

Yes. That’s it.

As the "Cloud" concept becomes more sophisticated and capable, the actual movie theaters could use software that could download the appropriate version.
And to even go further with the idea, the software could incorporate the screen distance and
dimensions of the theater itself, to make a customized version of the movie for projection.

Come to think of it, and to be easier, theaters could send their information to the distributer, and have a movie with the 3D specs, "custom made",
then downloaded from the "cloud".

"And we look at it the same way we do with 3D cinema: Using a left view and a right view, one for each eye."

Hmm, not exactly. I real life we are focusing to different depth, but in cinema always to the screen plane. This is a huge difference, and often result in headache.. Another thing and conflict in brain is that in real life we feel the movement also with our body, but in cinema you sit in the chair and don't move.
That result sickness sometimes. And 3D just need more fps than 24. Especially on a big screen like Imax.
Is this enough reason for 3D cinema is NOT like 3D viewing in real life?..