What would you use 3D for in wedding video? at DVinfo.net

Dave Blackhurst · January 12th, 2010, 11:48 AM

Inspired by the "vintage looks" thread, thought it might make for an interesting discussion to go the other way... back to the future...

IF 3D takes off (a big IF, IMO), it'll probably be an option somewhere in the future (I think someone in the 3D section of DVi already posted a wedding short in 3D).

3D has to have some quality that makes it suit the material - I can see it for video games, and some movies, but other than a bouquet being tossed "through the screen", what are the possible uses in wedding video??

SOOOOOOO....

Presuming you could go grab a 3D camera off the shelf today, what do y'all think you'd use it for??

Travis Cossel · January 12th, 2010, 11:57 AM

Personally I find 3D to be mostly a gimmick. Sure it's cool to see, but for me it doesn't really add much to a film in terms of getting immersed in the film. The story and characters do that for me.

In terms of a wedding film, I feel all this still applies. A 3D wedding film would be interesting to me, but only in the same way that a 5-legged cow would be interesting to me. More than likely, such emphasis will be put on creating the 3D that the story-telling will suffer, and for me that will make it less enjoyable.

To answer your question, if someone dropped a 3D camera in my hands today I'd probably use it to shoot some experimental stuff, but I doubt I'd try to create a 3D wedding film.

John Stakes · January 12th, 2010, 11:58 AM

I've always loved the glidecam shots of the bride and groom together with the church about 100 feet behind them...and you glide from in front, and then circle around the couple.

Any shots following the couple walking downstairs would also be interesting.

Paul R Johnson · January 12th, 2010, 12:37 PM

3D is too random in perceived results. I've been playing 3D computer generated material since November - 1200 people at a shot, and I spend time watching their reactions. It's only sudden changes that make them react - so things coming out of the screen, mainly. The other less 'active' 3D stuff gets boring quickly. Many people, especially older people, take the glasses off after a while. The other thing is locational information - The 3D element works well off axis, but that creates problems - where exactly should the image be? Things going straight towards the subject work, but diagonal moving isn't anywhere near so effective - so if you transfer this to weddings - coming up the aisle toward the camera could look good, but if the camera can't be central, the effect is much less exciting.

3D is clever, fun and even exciting, but only with the correct source material - and I'm not sure all events would work that well.

Nicholas de Kock · January 12th, 2010, 01:30 PM

Avatar has proved one thing, 3D rules! Once 3DTV's hit the market 3D will give wedding companies a new edge to stand apart from other videographers the same way HD is doing right now. 3D is the future and I'll definitely start shooting in 3D when the market is ready.

Chris Davis · January 12th, 2010, 01:59 PM

What do you "do" with stereo sound? Nothing. Back in 1960, stereo was a gimmick that artists tried to "use" and just ended up looking silly. Eventually it just became the standard and its purpose is to provide a more natural sound.

3D will end up being the same. It won't be something we use for gimmicky effects, it will just be an expected part of natural looking video.

Philip Howells · January 12th, 2010, 05:16 PM

I think 3D is a potent technology - and is only considered a gimmick because users have used the technology in the past for gimmicky effects like arrows flying into the audience and brides tossing bouquets.

I've been lugging a 40 year old Iloca Stereo Realist around on holidays for years - and the results from my audiences - mainly amazement - more than justifies the public response and intrigue at a camera with two lenses and a viewfinder at the bottom.

For me Up and A Christmas Carol (I've yet to see Avatar - first I have to overcome an aversion to Mr Cameron's immodesty) worked best when the action was normal, ie un-gimmicky. In fact, for me, 3D failed in Christmas Carol when it ignored reality and flew through solid objects.

That prompted me to write to two friends, one now working in Los Angeles, who produced some flyover CGI for me in 3DMax 20 years ago. It was part of a series of programmes I made describing a proposed road development in Stoke. I visited them during development and shared their amusement when, due to an error in the plotting of the camera eyepoint, the audience was flown into and through the roofs of the buildings around the new roadways. They eventually corrected this - in A Christmas Carol it was allowed to remain - I think losing the overall effect.

So to answer the question, I'd use 3D for every shot in every wedding programme I made, as soon as the technology could be applied to the economics of wedding videos!

Interestingly, whilst the trade likes to claim that the forthcoming soccer World Cup (much of which ESPN and others will broadcast in 3D) will be a major catalyst for the technology, I read the other day that the porn industry is working hard (if that's the right expression) to apply 3D to its output. Ironically porn has been a major driver (some say the major driver) in our technology since people discovered what happens to silver halides left in the sun.

Tom amused me in another current thread with his remark that if You Tube took down all the copyright music clips there'd be little left; on the contrary, Tom I regret that not only would there be a lot left, but it would not be particularly edifying either.

Dana Salsbury · January 22nd, 2010, 11:09 AM

I don't see it happening as a mainstream output, mainly because of the glasses requirement. I guess if you had the money it would be a nice novelty. I would love our wedding DVD in 3D because we watch it as a special occasion.

Chris Davis · January 22nd, 2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dana Salsbury

I don't see it happening as a mainstream output, mainly because of the glasses requirement.

Today it requires glasses, but it won't in the not-too-distant future.

Denny Lajeunesse · January 22nd, 2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Davis

Today it requires glasses, but it won't in the not-too-distant future.

On the viewing side of things, Once that happens then it will only be a matter of cost. Though there will be many hold outs. Look at how long B/W TV's were still in homes.

Of course, like the Internet, the cost of the 3D highway will likely be paved with with the revenue of porn. Sad really.

On the production side of things, some may find the production to be a hassle as you now have a 3rd axis to figure into your planning.

Dave Blackhurst · January 22nd, 2010, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Davis

Today it requires glasses, but it won't in the not-too-distant future.

Haven't seen anything in the pipeline that doesn't use glasses... most are based on the new polarized ones, but glasses still required. Where have you seen any 3D tech that doesn't that is actually anywhere near commercial development?

Chris Davis · January 22nd, 2010, 04:32 PM

I actually saw a demo of one "glassless 3D" technology more than 20 years ago. Not only does it exist right now, it's available for digital signage and advertising. The problem is it gives you a headache to watch for very long. Panasonic (who demoed a 3D tv at CES two weeks ago) estimates consumer "glassless 3D" television is about 10 years away.

Dave Blackhurst · January 22nd, 2010, 06:37 PM

10 years is a loooong time for commercialization - a LOT can change in that time... and a technology that's been around for 20 years without commercial viability reminds me of the flying car... sure it exists, it's some peoples' dream, but it's far from "commercially viable".

I had to laugh at "The problem is it gives you a headache to watch for very long." This new thingamajigger is great till it makes you go blind/insane/sterile... hmmmm, have to pass...

But I find traditional 3D with glasses to be hard on my eyes too, so I guess I'm just trying to figure out if it's really something that will take off and be a serious part of the business in the future, or will it just be another Edsel... er... Hummer... er... Saturn...

Alec Moreno · January 22nd, 2010, 08:10 PM

Glasses are not required at all provided that you go with a "cross-eye" format. Of course, there are some limitations with this, but the look is incredible. Perfect in fact for personal use and short pieces fur fun, but until the viewing experience surpasses what our clients have now with 2D in terms of comfort, I think 3D is stuck.

Alec Moreno
http://www.1Day1ShotProductions.com

Denny Lajeunesse · January 22nd, 2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

I had to laugh at "The problem is it gives you a headache to watch for very long." This new thingamajigger is great till it makes you go blind/insane/sterile... hmmmm, have to pass...

For a minute there I thought you were talking about smartphones. ;)

Flying car? I'd be happy for one that drives itself. Possibly powered by the BS spewed forth from radio talk show hosts.

I thought I saw something once about a multi layered LCD screen (very thick) that could do 3D.

I think they'll come out with glassless #D when computers are in the TeraHZ and have Terabytes of Ram. They'll need something besides windows to clog up the CPU and Memory.

January 12th, 2010, 11:48 AM	#1
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	What would you use 3D for in wedding video? Inspired by the "vintage looks" thread, thought it might make for an interesting discussion to go the other way... back to the future... IF 3D takes off (a big IF, IMO), it'll probably be an option somewhere in the future (I think someone in the 3D section of DVi already posted a wedding short in 3D). 3D has to have some quality that makes it suit the material - I can see it for video games, and some movies, but other than a bouquet being tossed "through the screen", what are the possible uses in wedding video?? SOOOOOOO.... Presuming you could go grab a 3D camera off the shelf today, what do y'all think you'd use it for??

January 12th, 2010, 11:57 AM	#2
Travis Cossel Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 2,933	Personally I find 3D to be mostly a gimmick. Sure it's cool to see, but for me it doesn't really add much to a film in terms of getting immersed in the film. The story and characters do that for me. In terms of a wedding film, I feel all this still applies. A 3D wedding film would be interesting to me, but only in the same way that a 5-legged cow would be interesting to me. More than likely, such emphasis will be put on creating the 3D that the story-telling will suffer, and for me that will make it less enjoyable. To answer your question, if someone dropped a 3D camera in my hands today I'd probably use it to shoot some experimental stuff, but I doubt I'd try to create a 3D wedding film. __________________ Black Label Films www.blacklabelweddingfilms.com

January 22nd, 2010, 11:09 AM	#8
Dana Salsbury Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 859	I don't see it happening as a mainstream output, mainly because of the glasses requirement. I guess if you had the money it would be a nice novelty. I would love our wedding DVD in 3D because we watch it as a special occasion. __________________ www.LegacyHDV.com Weddings \| Corporate \| HMC150s \| FCPX \| Encore \| Lion

January 12th, 2010, 11:58 AM	#3
John Stakes Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 558	I've always loved the glidecam shots of the bride and groom together with the church about 100 feet behind them...and you glide from in front, and then circle around the couple. Any shots following the couple walking downstairs would also be interesting.

January 12th, 2010, 12:37 PM	#4
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	3D is too random in perceived results. I've been playing 3D computer generated material since November - 1200 people at a shot, and I spend time watching their reactions. It's only sudden changes that make them react - so things coming out of the screen, mainly. The other less 'active' 3D stuff gets boring quickly. Many people, especially older people, take the glasses off after a while. The other thing is locational information - The 3D element works well off axis, but that creates problems - where exactly should the image be? Things going straight towards the subject work, but diagonal moving isn't anywhere near so effective - so if you transfer this to weddings - coming up the aisle toward the camera could look good, but if the camera can't be central, the effect is much less exciting. 3D is clever, fun and even exciting, but only with the correct source material - and I'm not sure all events would work that well.

January 12th, 2010, 01:30 PM	#5
Nicholas de Kock Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: KLD, South Africa Posts: 983	Avatar has proved one thing, 3D rules! Once 3DTV's hit the market 3D will give wedding companies a new edge to stand apart from other videographers the same way HD is doing right now. 3D is the future and I'll definitely start shooting in 3D when the market is ready.

January 12th, 2010, 01:59 PM	#6
Chris Davis Trustee Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Willmar, MN Posts: 1,400	What do you "do" with stereo sound? Nothing. Back in 1960, stereo was a gimmick that artists tried to "use" and just ended up looking silly. Eventually it just became the standard and its purpose is to provide a more natural sound. 3D will end up being the same. It won't be something we use for gimmicky effects, it will just be an expected part of natural looking video.

January 12th, 2010, 05:16 PM	#7
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	I think 3D is a potent technology - and is only considered a gimmick because users have used the technology in the past for gimmicky effects like arrows flying into the audience and brides tossing bouquets. I've been lugging a 40 year old Iloca Stereo Realist around on holidays for years - and the results from my audiences - mainly amazement - more than justifies the public response and intrigue at a camera with two lenses and a viewfinder at the bottom. For me Up and A Christmas Carol (I've yet to see Avatar - first I have to overcome an aversion to Mr Cameron's immodesty) worked best when the action was normal, ie un-gimmicky. In fact, for me, 3D failed in Christmas Carol when it ignored reality and flew through solid objects. That prompted me to write to two friends, one now working in Los Angeles, who produced some flyover CGI for me in 3DMax 20 years ago. It was part of a series of programmes I made describing a proposed road development in Stoke. I visited them during development and shared their amusement when, due to an error in the plotting of the camera eyepoint, the audience was flown into and through the roofs of the buildings around the new roadways. They eventually corrected this - in A Christmas Carol it was allowed to remain - I think losing the overall effect. So to answer the question, I'd use 3D for every shot in every wedding programme I made, as soon as the technology could be applied to the economics of wedding videos! Interestingly, whilst the trade likes to claim that the forthcoming soccer World Cup (much of which ESPN and others will broadcast in 3D) will be a major catalyst for the technology, I read the other day that the porn industry is working hard (if that's the right expression) to apply 3D to its output. Ironically porn has been a major driver (some say the major driver) in our technology since people discovered what happens to silver halides left in the sun. Tom amused me in another current thread with his remark that if You Tube took down all the copyright music clips there'd be little left; on the contrary, Tom I regret that not only would there be a lot left, but it would not be particularly edifying either.

January 22nd, 2010, 04:32 PM	#12
Chris Davis Trustee Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Willmar, MN Posts: 1,400	I actually saw a demo of one "glassless 3D" technology more than 20 years ago. Not only does it exist right now, it's available for digital signage and advertising. The problem is it gives you a headache to watch for very long. Panasonic (who demoed a 3D tv at CES two weeks ago) estimates consumer "glassless 3D" television is about 10 years away.

January 22nd, 2010, 06:37 PM	#13
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	10 years is a loooong time for commercialization - a LOT can change in that time... and a technology that's been around for 20 years without commercial viability reminds me of the flying car... sure it exists, it's some peoples' dream, but it's far from "commercially viable". I had to laugh at "The problem is it gives you a headache to watch for very long." This new thingamajigger is great till it makes you go blind/insane/sterile... hmmmm, have to pass... But I find traditional 3D with glasses to be hard on my eyes too, so I guess I'm just trying to figure out if it's really something that will take off and be a serious part of the business in the future, or will it just be another Edsel... er... Hummer... er... Saturn...

January 22nd, 2010, 08:10 PM	#14
Alec Moreno Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Glendora, CA Posts: 184	Glasses are not required at all provided that you go with a "cross-eye" format. Of course, there are some limitations with this, but the look is incredible. Perfect in fact for personal use and short pieces fur fun, but until the viewing experience surpasses what our clients have now with 2D in terms of comfort, I think 3D is stuck. Alec Moreno http://www.1Day1ShotProductions.com