THE NEW FLESH: THE REVOLUTION WILL BE STEREOSCOPIC

Awesome piece, Renn. Articles like this is why CHUD is the best film discussion site on the internet.

 

I honestly don't care much for 3D. I've only seen two flicks in 3D so far. AVATAR and TRON LEGACY. In the first case, the colours in AVATAR seem muted after I put on my 3D Glasses. In the case of TRON LEGACY, I didn't see much of the 3D difference anyway.

 

I am not sure. Maybe our eyes seem to orientate the 3D towards "normal" the longer we stare at the screen? Thats my impression at least.

Friggin' amazing, Renn.  That was almost intimidating to read: just the way I like it.  Way to bring depth to the binary nature of this debate.

 

I actually posted a response on Ebert's blog.  Basically, people seem to completely brush aside Murch's final point: that a well-told story is more immersive than the most amazing 3D visuals.  I actually enjoy 3D and have little problem processing it, but at this stage I don't feel it's vital to the art. 

 

I also feel that 3D (even when done well) actually ends up distancing me from the story and making it feel smaller.  There is a degree of fear in it also, in that I don't want 2D films to go the way of black & white.  So there's a lot of emotion tied to this whole thing.

 

There is no doubt that this is all going in digital/3D's favor.  The previous generation of standards/taste will become less the driving market (or die out!) and the next will be more accepting of the changes they grew up with.  That's always how it is.  Actually, 3D NOT being some kind of revolution guarantees its place in the future.  An actual revolution would have to go through a lot more in order to establish itself. 

Whoa, Renn. Going to have to read this later. Ha ha. Looks good though. And in depth, which I enjoy.

Ugh. I couldn't be more against 3D if it killed my parents. I couldn't care less about the science, it's simply horrible.

Good piece, Renn. The learning curve on 3D is starting to rise.

 

I have a couple of points (and I've inadvertently killed discussion in a number of similar threads, so let's hope for the best):

 

There's a bigger reason 3D is here to stay, and it's got nothing to do with the subjective viewer experience. It's an economic issue, linked to the ongoing transition in theatrical presentation from 35mm film to digital. The endgame for the movie industry isn't hooking audiences with the next cool gimmick, but convincing all exhibitors to convert from film projection. Striking prints (a single feature film on reels can cost twenty thousand dollars), physically distributing them (said print can weigh in excess of 70 pounds), and restoring and/or salvaging them after they've been run through projectors a couple hundred times-- these are all immutable cost factors, and presenting a movie as a digital file virtually eliminates them all.

 

But how to convince exhibitors that they share in the advantage? Why should they spend money on new equipment, if an image projected digitally can be judged merely equivalent to film?

 

3D is the carrot on the stick. For reasons too technical and boring to explain, it is vastly easier to project stereographic materials digitally (the complexity of running synchronized 35mm is what doomed the '50s boom), so the equation becomes "Want to play 3D movies? Switch to digital." There are other innovations possible, notably increased frame-rates, but none have the public recognition of 3D.

 

If there's one thing that made me decide never again to doubt James Cameron, it's his call on premium ticket pricing. I had no faith that that would fly. But 3D has been sold successfully as 'event' entertainment, and the ritual donning of the glasses reinforces that. I do feel that at some point there will be an equalization, in the same way that we no longer pay a surcharge for running time, sound, color or Panavision. And while the age of sloppy post-conversion will conclude shortly, it's essential that stereo filmmakers soon work to fill the middle ground between cheap thrills and FX-laden 'events'.

Discussion KILLED.  Hahahahaha

 

Seriously, I have nothing to add after that.

 

I remember an old issue of Premiere that had an interview with Cameron where he talked about premium ticket pricing.  Basically, that movies weren't expensive enough.  I remember people taking offense at that.  The image of him in a showman's top hat and cane certainly didn't help.  Heheh

First off, great piece Renn. Really well written and argued.

 

Second, did Gilchrist and the Sanctum guy not understand what Murch said? Or are they just evangelizing? Unless the movie screen literally disappears, what Murch said is correct. The 'focus plane disappears', heh.

 

Third, even though what Murch said is correct, the human brain does learn and adapt to this new thing being asked of it. If our brains didn't do a huge amount of work on our vision and we had to only depend on what our eyes catch we'd have a whole different idea about what vision is. It's kind of what brains do. But empirically speaking, our brain adapts by rejecting much of the depth data the films present it with.

 

As sound and color before it 3D is merely a tool. Eventually its 'instruction manual' will be as complete as the one on the use of color and the debate about 3D will be over.

Moviegoers have been ignoring the 'focus plane' for one hundred years. Before that, film theorists thought that close-ups would be perceived as unnatural. Being twenty-foot-tall human faces fifty feet away and all. Like Stelios said above, the brain is capable of making massive corrections in order to keep us from freaking out at the illogical.

Something I've always wondered...

 

If a 3D movie has something pop out at me and everything is in focus, is it possible for me to rack focus between the foreground element and the background?  I've kinda tried to do it in a few movies.  I'm never sure if I'm successful or not.

If the film has been shot in deep-focus, you can, with some practice, re-converge your eyes on different planes of action. The background won't actually go 'out of focus' but it will go out of register.

If that's the case, I think I've done it a few times.  It's never felt like a satisfactory "rack focus," but I did feel like I got the background to feel as if it were in my peripheral vision (as opposed to 'out of focus').

Yeah, but their eyes are physically focused on it. In strict terms Murch is correct. But after that the brain does take over vision to an overwhelming degree. 

Great read.  I think the main reason it's not going away is the amount of sheer investment companies like Sony have sunk into the HOME 3D market.  These guys are serious about it. The 3DTV push here in Japan is pretty huge, and 3D broadcasts of sporting events are beginning to pop up (!) around the place.  This, along with 3D blu-rays, and the vast possibilities of 3D gaming, points towards a limited but long life for 3D in the home.

I really appreciate the kind words gentleman. I also definitely appreciate the help with getting it out there- it's always a bummer to churn out 5k on a hot subject and see it slide away, so I hope people pick up on it.

 

You guys are fucking great.

Very great article Renn!  Right now I happen to work for a company that does Stereoscopic 3D and I can tell you that with the amount of films we have lined up, 3D is here to stay for at least a while. The people who I work for bust their ass in order to produce the best possible 3D experience.  So much is learned with each passing film, I'm positive that the experience will just keep getting better.

   While I'm not a fan of 3D conversion I can respect the time and hard work that goes into them.  I mean hell, this will be my first Saturday off in MONTHS! 

Great to hear your new career is going well, Nick! 

Mcnooj, didn't you say you had a friend working where I work as well??

Oh yea, that's right!  StereoD in LA, yeah?  I was told the company moved to a new building.

Yep. Moved to Burbank into one of the Yahoo buildings. It's like we are all professional now haha. While I'm not the biggest fan of conversion, it does allow me to get an up close look at the film making process which is exciting.