Katzenberg: Digital Cinema a Must

[Keith Alan Morris]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i1f07f2fbfe6c089b299bde7198ce7fae

[Jaime Vallés]

"The enthusiastic DreamWorks chief... said that with all the big-name filmmakers backing 3-D technology, his studio will be using it to make all its movies from 2009."

Wow. ALL Dreamworks movies will be 3D? I guess it's happening even faster than we all thought. Hmm, time for RED TWO?

[David Mullen ASC]

Wow. ALL Dreamworks movies will be 3D? I guess it's happening even faster than we all thought. Hmm, time for RED TWO?

Or two RED ONE's...

[Priyesh P.]

or two red two's, since I doubt that everything will go 3D by then...

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah I am very excited about the potential of 3-D cinema like Lucas has been talking about with the Star Wars films, using technology that In-Three developed to turn the films into a 3-D viewing experience using digital cinema projectors. There is a lot of potential in the future, James Cameron has also talked about filming a bunch of movies this way. Lucas was right to suggest that theaters need to go in a direction where audiences really have a reason to pay for the ticket prices, something they can't get at home, because until they do the theatrical viewing market will struggle, but if people can get an experience at theaters they can't get at home, they will want to be part of that.

[KJames]

What this stuff about 3D stuff being pirate proof. Can't you just throw a orthogonal polarizing filter on the front of a camcorder. You'll still get one side of the two images which is obviously good enough pirating purposes.

And you could bring in two cameras strapped together and through the filters on.

I just wish people on the business end of movie making would realize that the best defense against pirating is producing a product that people actually want to buy.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Eh, it depends on the person, I know people who pirate everything no matter what, they just seem to think the rules don't apply to them and that it's their right to have anything they want for free because they "can't afford" to pay for everything.

For me, it's always been a no brainer not to pirate anything film-related because I've always been interested in the business and thought people who make products deserve to be paid money for them. Then again, I also used Napster a lot back in the day and downloaded every song I wanted for free, but so did 99% of everyone else. Once an alternative arose that I liked, iTunes, I buy everything now. It's not like 99 cents per song is some huge hardship. To me it's actually much better because I'd rather pay 99 cents for a crisp, clean quality version of a song I like than search around forever trying to find a version of it for free that doesn't suck. I remember that used to be a big issue.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just wish people on the business end of movie making would realize that the best defense against pirating is producing a product that people actually want to buy.

Aren't those high-demand products the ones most likely to be pirated?

[Ramesh Jai]

3D cinemas? There's something better. Let me show you the future!!

It's 2036. People have gathered at a stadium in Tokyo, Japan to watch the Football World Cup final between Brazil and Jamaica (cough). Only, the final is taking place in Rio de Janeiro.

Multiple 3D cameras are beaming signals from Rio to a satellite with multiple receptors. Every part of the football field in Rio is being covered by a camera which corresponds to the same part of the football field in the Tokyo stadium. So the Tokyo stadium acts as a giant screen for the action taking place in Rio.

Spectators in the Tokyo stadium actually see the whole football action in front of their eyes in 3D as if they were actually in Rio, e.g., a spectator sitting behind the goal post in Tokyo will see the action as if he was seated behind the goal post of the Rio statdium.

I don't know if I have explained well but I hope you get the picture..

[laguun]

Aren't those high-demand products the ones most likely to be pirated?

Indeed, however:
- you can´t film from the screen oder telecine it (which is a good 30% of the pirates sources)
- you can´t use the 3D at Home, while HD and surround can be pirated, neither HDMI nor DVI in their current incarnations have 3D playback norms (which gives back something unique to the cinemas)

I think especially kids will love it.

[dvpixl]

Aren't those high-demand products the ones most likely to be pirated?

right, non enthusiasts or non film geeks could care less about the theatrical experience. Especially young people these days who grew up on instant-gratifying, on demand experience. They simply dont care for it. It's not going to be the same ever again. Unless you could actually get reported and physically arrested everytime you tap into illegal material, it's gonna keep on happening- TRANSFORMERS or not, if I could download it, I'll stay home and watch it.
But no one is stopping anyone from trying harder to get to that next level.

[dvpixl]

3D cinemas? There's something better. Let me show you the future!!

It's 2036. People have gathered at a stadium in Tokyo, Japan to watch the Football World Cup final between Brazil and Jamaica (cough). Only, the final is taking place in Rio de Janeiro.

Multiple 3D cameras are beaming signals from Rio to a satellite with multiple receptors. Every part of the football field in Rio is being covered by a camera which corresponds to the same part of the football field in the Tokyo stadium. So the Tokyo stadium acts as a giant screen for the action taking place in Rio.

Spectators in the Tokyo stadium actually see the whole football action in front of their eyes in 3D as if they were actually in Rio, e.g., a spectator sitting behind the goal post in Tokyo will see the action as if he was seated behind the goal post of the Rio statdium.

I don't know if I have explained well but I hope you get the picture..

this kind of broadcast is probably what's next to happen. It's already being done for conferences, like in churches, where one room can't accommodate enough people so they make another room with a STAGE size screen so it appears as if you are looking at a stage.... but this is not cinema. It's just another way to utilize the video as a tool.

[KJames]

Aren't those high-demand products the ones most likely to be pirated?

Yes and that's why they make all the money. "Pirates Of The Caribbean" may get pirated (pardon the pun) but the box office income outweighs the damage. It's is the throw away films that also get pirated but then nobody wants to pay for them so they lose money.

[KJames]

Indeed, however:
- you can´t film from the screen oder telecine it (which is a good 30% of the pirates sources)
- you can´t use the 3D at Home, while HD and surround can be pirated, neither HDMI nor DVI in their current incarnations have 3D playback norms (which gives back something unique to the cinemas)

I think especially kids will love it.

Well if we are talking telecine sources or academy sources then its even easier because you have source info. If you want you can strip out one of the channels and have a mono feed from the stereoscopic.

And 3d monitors are becoming cheaper and cheaper to buy.

http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/news/article-14704.html
http://www.stereo3d.com/displays.htm

[Ramesh Jai]

this kind of broadcast is probably what's next to happen. It's already being done for conferences, like in churches, where one room can't accommodate enough people so they make another room with a STAGE size screen so it appears as if you are looking at a stage.... but this is not cinema. It's just another way to utilize the video as a tool.
I think you are talking about a flat screen. I am talking about images that surround you in a way that you are there!

It's like taking a virtual tour of a house but instead of you seeing the house on your flat tv or computer screen, you are surrounded by 3D images of the house - you look up you see the ceiling, you look down you see the floor...

[Keith Nealy]

Well if Dreamworks expects to be making all of its movies in 3D, I guess that leaves all the good movies for us with RED to make.

3D may be the next generation of exhibition experiences because most audiences today are SFX junkies who need a greater fix to keep coming back.

I doubt if the "Astronaut Farmer" will be made in 3D, or movies like it. At least I hope not.

BTW, David I just saw it and loved it. You really had a wide range of cinematography that was handled very artistically. I felt the look was every bit a part of the story. It completly sold the story in a way that made it very real and believable. Thank you for sharing your mana'o (knowledge) with us.

aloha,

Keith

[David Mullen ASC]

Thanks!

How did you see it (The Astronaut Farmer)? It's not on DVD yet (a few more weeks). Has it started on the cable channels? I know it has been shown on airlines lately.

[Keith Nealy]

I saw it our rinky-dink movie-plex. Not the greatest projection but I'm on the Big Island, not Honolulu, so we have to trade off paradise for technology.

It must have been a fun movie to do. How many days principal photography did you have?

How did you divide up the work between you and your BC&D camera teams?

Why didn't Bruce take any credit?

I could go on forever asking you about shots because you seem to have a tremendous variety of conditions that all blended together seamlessly.

I will probably watch it many more times on DVD just to study it.

thanks,

aloha,

Keith

[Gavin Greenwalt]

3D cinemas? There's something better. Let me show you the future!!

It's 2036. People have gathered at a stadium in Tokyo, Japan to watch the Football World Cup final between Brazil and Jamaica (cough). Only, the final is taking place in Rio de Janeiro.

Spectators in the Tokyo stadium actually see the whole football action in front of their eyes in 3D as if they were actually in Rio.

I was sort of hoping by 2036 we could just put on a pair of glasses and everybody would be in the first 2 rows. There would be a microphone in every set of glasses so that it would process the level of cheering and create a 3D proxy of yourself somewhere else in the stadium so the 'crowd' would be live.

[Ken Corben]

Ya,

I read that article in the trades yesterday. It is of great interest to me for a number of reasons. I think it important to clarify the "all films will be 3D" statement. In my recent 3D discussions with a DreamWorks producer I understand the statement to mean all ANIMATED films coming from their studio starting in 2009. This does include Shrek 4 BTW (already in production). Clearly, the subject matter/story must lend itself to the immersive 3D RealD experience (and 3D large format).

Of keene interest from the article is the Studio/Distributor investment strategy to create the 3D venues across the EU. Now that is something to talk about. Shrek 2 did $480 million international - you do the math NO WAIT allow me to do the math since studio accounting can be somewhat confusing to say the least.

- "Julian Levin, executive vp digital exhibition at 20th Century Fox, said earlier in the day that the studio will "be losing money" in the first few years of digital conversion. Levin said exhibitors should remember that the studio will be doing everything twice, creating both old-style prints and digital prints while the adoption process gathers pace.

...Those close to the situation hinted that the distributors will pay about 70% of the costs of installation, with the remaining 30% coming from the exhibitors and potential backing from banks."

Let's ball park it for an exercise - for the Math Phobic the abstract here is that the math pencils out as a win win for studios underwriting the investment amortized over 5 - 10 tent pole releases as opposed to "losing money over several years."

READ NO FURTHER IF YOU'RE NOT A 3D PRODUCER - YOU'LL BE BORED

I must admit the financial strategy is sound. Expedite the EU upgrade in a complicated market by underwriting the 3D digital conversions in theaters across the EU so that Shrek 4, Tintin, Avatar and other 3D fare have the needed venues in place. The part that always makes me grin is the accounting, aka, Studio Math. After all it is the more challenging addition and subtraction math skills that are required rather than let's say calculus.

Conversion Hardware
Christie Digital Projector
RealD 3D screen replacement and "magic box"
Qvis server (or equivalent)
Satellite downlink for digital delivery

Software and Licensing
RealD license
Server software
IT maintenance
Digital Print Satellite delivery

All in let's round it way up to cover the distributors' inflated overhead costs and call it $250K per screen (it's probably more like $175K).

Let's assume the target is 1000 3D screens across Europe by 4th quarter '08.

1000 x 250,000 = 250,000,000 USD

Distribs pony up 70% or $175 Mil (exhibitors pay the $75K per screen difference)

Now for the creative accounting:

Distribs have $175K invested in each new 3D screen. Box Office data shows that viewers line up to pay a premium to see the 3D version when a 2D version is simultaneously released. Distribs typically negotiate 100% of Box Office for the opening weekend. Then a variety of splits after that.

Let's presume Shrek 4 performs per its historical predecessors. On 1000 EU 3D screens we'll assume a conservative 33% share of its BO averaging in the higher price of each 3D ticket.

If you've read this far here's where it gets interesting:

33% of EU BO will be $160 Mil

Distribs' profit margin after studio shares, P&A etc can be shown on the ledger as ZERO - just ask Peter Jackson. Simple math says:

Per EU 3D screen, Shrek 4 gross is $160K per screen for a 6 week run of one tent pole release. Distribs' adjusted net return on investment, remember no 35mm print costs, print shipping etc, is:

Distrib Gross - Fractionally Adjusted P&A/screen = Net profit
(160,000 x .5) - (.2 x 160,000) = $48K

Amortize that actual net profit of $48K over the 3 - 5 major 3D releases coming in 2009 and now one can understand the rush by the Katzenberg's of Hollywood to underwrite the digital upgrade in the EU.

QED

[David Mullen ASC]

It must have been a fun movie to do. How many days principal photography did you have?
How did you divide up the work between you and your BC&D camera teams?


37 principal days and 3 pick-up days later.

Michael Polish directed; his brother Mark went out with 2nd Unit DP Phil Pfeiffer to pick-up a number of shots and some small scenes, especially during montage sequences. They also shot the scene where Pepe is pulled over in the mountains (Ghost Ranch, NM) by the FBI -- the location was too far away to send the 1st Unit for a half-day.

[Teague Kennedy]

I was sort of hoping by 2036 we could just put on a pair of glasses and everybody would be in the first 2 rows. There would be a microphone in every set of glasses so that it would process the level of cheering and create a 3D proxy of yourself somewhere else in the stadium so the 'crowd' would be live.

Yes except you could choose if you wanted to be in the first row, or on the field, or one of the soccer stars (or the ball). Or you could be making out under the stands with seven soccer fan hotties. Oh, yeah, that's 2046.

[Proteus]

I was sort of hoping by 2036 we could just put on a pair of glasses and everybody would be in the first 2 rows. There would be a microphone in every set of glasses so that it would process the level of cheering and create a 3D proxy of yourself somewhere else in the stadium so the 'crowd' would be live.


Yes except you could choose if you wanted to be in the first row, or on the field, or one of the soccer stars (or the ball). Or you could be making out under the stands with seven soccer fan hotties. Oh, yeah, that's 2046.

By then, everything will be projected in true 3D in the air in your living room (also in clubs, in malls etc) and you will be able to interact, no need for strange glasses. 3D will be the film killer...

[Ken Corben]

3D will be the film killer...

Maybe not a film killer over the next few decades but a lot of folks are betting the farm on 3D today in Hollywood. IMO, RED is the digital solution for a 3D tapeless workflow for 3D production now and well into the future in narrative (horror films), non-fiction, CGI and live action stories that lend themselves to the genre.

Time will tell...

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know... whenever I hear that every movie is going to be in 3D, I'm reminded of that line in "The Science of Sleep": "Isn't the world already in 3D?"

[Proteus]

I don't know... whenever I hear that every movie is going to be in 3D, I'm reminded of that line in "The Science of Sleep": "Isn't the world already in 3D?"

That doesn't prevent you from going to the theatre, does it?
Now imagine the theatre with all impossible special effects of cinema -like combining the pros (possibilities) from both forms of entertainment and artistic expression.
That could give you a 3D experience beyond reality...

[PaulClements]

The sheer logistics of making every cinema in the world 3D capable is mind boggling. The cost would be horrendous, who pays for it?

I can understand their desire to shoot 3D but this isn't the first time it's been touted as the next big thing. Most consumers think... 3D... is that where you have to wear those funny specs?

For 3D to become a reality it needs a complete shift driven by one or a few companies (Perhaps even Red in the future) to deliver a shooting standard, a digital delivery to the cinema, the screens, the projectors and so on, and to do so at a revolutionary price that any cinema would be stupid not to go for it. OR have a company that installs their digital delivery system, screens and projectors for free and works as a distributor and takes a cut from all seat profits, in this way the cinemas would be more willing to adopt the hardware more readily because there would be no significant outlay. If you make the cinemas pay then you don't need a massive amount of money to begin with but you won't be able to rely on lots of theatres adopting it as a standard, if you take a cut of seat profits you are more likely to create the standard and see cinemas adopting it worldwide, but you would require billions in order to do it. It's something of a catch 22 I guess.

[Fix]

I don't know... whenever I hear that every movie is going to be in 3D, I'm reminded of that line in "The Science of Sleep": "Isn't the world already in 3D?"

People (dont kill me gibby) talk so much about 3D that it will happen anyways no matter what we think IMHO. It’s a typical technology paradox for our future. Talk enough about it and it will eventually happen. There will be many if not all 3D movies (what ever 3D means in a future perspective).

I really hope good directors and DOP’s keep a reasonable tone to it though. What I mean is, we have seen a lot of “great” movies getting shred to pieces by overkill computer graphics in the past IMO. The mayor movie business (Hollywood…) used many years to mature in that (and still are). I’m for one is afraid that this (3D cinema) technology may also crush “good movies” by its immature technology. Never the less I believe it will become great after a while if we use it enough.

And when the dizziness drop off after using those terrible glasses.

[Joel Kaye]

And when the dizziness drop off after using those terrible glasses.

I've never seen a 3D movie that I enjoyed watching. Would the Mona Lisa be better in 3D? I don't think a lot of movies call for it either. I haven't seen this latest technology though.

I just have a hard time believing it's actually going to replace what we've got now anytime soon. The studios hope so because they have an interest in vertically controlling the market.

I can see digital projection and boutique theaters (coffeehouse theaters?) making some inroads.

Do you actually like the big theater experience? I'd prefer to see a special screening of a movie at a smaller venue that had a video conference with the director/cast after the show (nothing stopping AMC from doing that also though - they should). But I think watching with fewer moviefans that I could actually chat with after would be a much better experience than the "all alone in a crowd down at the Cineplex" feeling. Even if it's in 3D.

[Steve Gibby]

2D data can be readily extracted from a 3D workflow, thus enabling vertical distribution from large format 3D all the way down through 2D distribution channels for the same production. The industry won't change easily - it never does. Availability of cost effective digital projection, and specifically 3D capable digital projection, will be the crucial turning point in any adoption of 3D. RealD 3D and others are out to make that a reality. I think others will follow. When influential motion media veterans like Katzenberg, and others, voice their opinion that everything is eventually headed to 3D, I think we need to take that seriously. For home viewing of 3D, there have already been demonstrated large panels that are 3D capable for viewers - without them having to wear glasses. Obviously it always takes time for tech like that to become affordable to the average consumer.

Film has been around for well over a century - and it's still alive. I love film, but I think digital is making steady inroads and that 3D digital is right on the heels of 2D digital - for certain applications, and an increasing number of applications as the technology proliferates.

Interesting times we live in...

[Stephen Webb]

I'm not convinced about the viability of 3D. I think for the public to take to it that getting rid of those glasses is the first necessity.

But it's not just that. "3D" is really still a gimmic - it's a forced illusion that still exists in a 2D plane. If you move your head side to side, you get no perspective change, you can't see things from an alternative angle.

Until it's a fully immersive experience, I don't reckon 3D will take off the way some folks are thinking.

[David Mullen ASC]

I can see 3D for comic book actions films and whatnot, but it's hard to see why dramas like "La Vie En Rose" or thrillers like "Fracture", or even a small indie movie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "Black Snake Moan" are really going to benefit from 3D.

[Fix]

This conversation is actually quite typical minding the time we're inn. We have, pretty soon, a camera that hopefully rock the world for all of us film enthusiasts. It's mature enough to go head on advanced FX shoots and compete with 35mm cinema camera.

Now 3D capturing technology seem to become the hoot thing. Quite typical, its always something better that we “should” have. Its waaaay out there.

Well, if you used the time right you could have been famous making a good movie with a DV'cam.

3D for an uncertain future. Red for an expected future.

[Shawn Bannon]

3D movies are fun but there are still a lot of people who cannot see 3d movies and plenty of people who get headaches. those imax helmets that are in sync with the shutter are pretty cool, but its hard to find imax theatres that even have those.

[Ken Corben]

I'm not convinced about the viability of 3D. I think for the public to take to it that getting rid of those glasses is the first necessity.

I understand your skepticism since the RealD digital 3D theater roll out in the UK is in its infancy. Have you seen Disney's Meet the Robinsons in a RealD theater? WOW - the per screen average of the 3D screens blew away the 2D screens in box office with tickets at a premium. In the US all the major chains are installing the brilliant RealD 3D system. Easy to operate and switch between 2D and 3D in a matter of minutes. Instead of getting rid of the polarized glasses distributors are making high quality Oakley style glasses with sponsors emblazened on them. The glassless technology is still way down the road.


But it's not just that. "3D" is really still a gimmic - it's a forced illusion that still exists in a 2D plane. If you move your head side to side, you get no perspective change, you can't see things from an alternative angle.

Until it's a fully immersive experience, I don't reckon 3D will take off the way some folks are thinking.

An interesting point indeed but does one do this in a 2D screening? I can tell you now that Cameron's sci-fi film Avatar will be the nay sayers nail in the coffin when released in 3D based on box office gross and the immersive experience everyone will be talking about.

Until then here's a few quotes from key industry players:

"In the past, 3D was a gimmick used to enhance films that had run their course," says Jim Gianopulos, chairman and chief executive of Fox Filmed Entertainment, the News Corporation-owned studio making Avatar. "3D today is the exact opposite. The image is completely immersive and the audience experiences a truly lifelike environment." (March 25, 2007 Financial Times)

"Ignoring the nattering nabobs of negativity ... who are afraid of change," Cameron said to audience laughter, "3D digital cinema is not a fad that is going to bloom and die. I don't want that grand, visionary, transforming event of movie-watching to become a thing of the past. Digital cinema can prevent that."- James Cameron 3D KEYNOTE NAB 2006

[Ken Corben]

I can see 3D for comic book actions films and whatnot, but it's hard to see why dramas like "La Vie En Rose" or thrillers like "Fracture", or even a small indie movie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "Black Snake Moan" are really going to benefit from 3D.

Exactly, I mean imagine Michael Moore or Bourne Identity in 3D - snooooze.

Now imagine Shrek 4 or the next Pixar film in 3D - very cool.

[Stephen Webb]

I haven't seen RealD yet, and it will be interesting to get a look. However, if Jim Cameron sticks to his guns on the "3D only" release demand for Avatar, I'm afraid it's already failed - and he could damage the progress of 3D 'cause if a film that expensive and that high profile is a major box office flop, backers of the technology will start to walk away.

[Ken Corben]

Steve,

I agree with you on the 3D only release biz plan risk. I believe that the Mark Cuban vertical distribution model is superior. Release it in all venues and let the consumer decide.

[Proteus]

I can see 3D for comic book actions films and whatnot, but it's hard to see why dramas like "La Vie En Rose" or thrillers like "Fracture", or even a small indie movie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "Black Snake Moan" are really going to benefit from 3D.

Exactly, I mean imagine Michael Moore or Bourne Identity in 3D - snooooze.

Now imagine Shrek 4 or the next Pixar film in 3D - very cool.

I think that when we go from a simple form to a more complex, the limits we see are just the limits of our imagination. The 2d to 3d transition -or evolution, requires an analogous evolution of the filmic art, with new universal techniques of how to tell a story in 3D -whatever story. Of course in the beginning, we'll have just the technology -not the art, so yes, the first succesfull films will be just fun to watch. But I think that filmmakers should see that difficulty, as a nice new challenge!

[Marcus Irvin]

I've posted on 3D filmmaking before because it is definitely headed our way and RED appears to be ideally suited for the transition.

All of the points about problems and issues have validity, but there is one overwhelming factor more important than all of those and Katzenberg gets it.

As consumers buy the huge 1080i flat screens with 7:1 sound, we mostly stop going to the movie theaters. For the average film, I'd rather watch it at home on my beautiful big screen. I can't believe discount matinees are now $7 per ticket. Counting popcorn and cokes we save about $25 per movie, so we get to watch a lot more movies at home. We can't forget non-sticky floors, comfortable clothes (or not) and no driving. Plus Netflix delivers 1080P HD now.

Here is the elephant. Does anyone remember when Hollywood films were 4:3 format and usually black and white. That was before my time, but Hollywood studios spent a great deal of money changing to the wider formats and more full color shooting to head off the encroachment by TV broadcasting.

Now that big screens and great sound are becoming the norm, Hollywood again feels they must offer something we can't get in a home viewing experience. 3D is a long way from perfect, but we cannot watch it at home. Hollywood will adopt 3D for every appropriate movie and more. It's just self defense from an industry with few options. Will it stick long term this time? I don't know because I haven't seen the new 3D tech yet and the older versions were strictly a novelty experience.

The obvious defense would be epic movies that are more exciting on the biggest screens, but those tend to be the most expensive productions and changing economic trends don't favor blockbuster budgets in the near future.

[Keith Nealy]

If movie theaters go the way of 3D like Katzenberg says I believe it will become more expensive to exhibit and become more like amusement parks - offering sensory entertainment on a grand scale that can't be replicated at home.

I agree that only the big epic movies will be the ones we make the effort to go to the theater to see because it is just so much better to watch in the comfort of your own home on your hi-end system than it is to suffer the local multiplex.

In the end, this may be good for RED and independant productions by opening up more avenues for "smaller" films.

I think the future looks bright through my RED colored glasses.

aloha,

Keith

[Weston Ford]

I think 3d technology will be just as useful of a tool for all genres of movies. I would love to see a slowly paced drama, supernatural thriller, or comedy in realistic 3d. If it puts you in the world of the characters and makes you feel as though you are there....then it will work no matter what kind of movie it is...special effects extravaganza or not.

[Bill Anderson]

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate 3d's effect on storytelling: it's pretty much a carnival ride and will be great fun, and will no doubt make bags of money- just like Readers Digest. How would 3d have improved extant masterpieces? You might say "oh, but they weren't made for, or with 3d in mind", and I say, that's true and yet these masterpieces fulfill every other criteria that 3d movies must also fulfill in order to avoid reliance on the 3d effect itself: verisimilitude, performance...
So, how would 3d have "improved" the immolation scene in Dryer's Joan of Arc, a scene (one among many) that has not been equalled by all the technologically enhanced attempts since? What would 3d add to the Mona Lisa? Consider how literature (with its very limited 26 bit squiggly lined 2d alphabet) is more often than not a far superior experience than its big budget high realism cinematic interpretation! 3d has its place, somewhere between its investors' smoke blowing jargon and the 2D world.

[Weston Ford]

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate 3d's effect on storytelling: it's pretty much a carnival ride and will be great fun, and will no doubt make bags of money- just like Readers Digest.

I wouldn't call it a carnivale ride. It is not a gimmick...its a tool. No different than the jump from silent movies to sound, or from black and white movies to color. Every leap in filmmaking technology has been about making the motion picture experience feel closer to real life.

Of course it won't automatically improve any film. Adding color to Casablanca wouldnt make that film better...but just because of that you don't see everyone making black and white movies nowadays do you?

3d is just the logical next step in film progress.

[Bill Anderson]

"Of course it (3D) won't automatically improve any film. Adding color to Casablanca wouldn't make that film better..."

And that's my point, it's not the color, or the black and white, or the 3d, or the sound, or the font that the book's printed in.

"Every leap in filmmaking technology has been about making the motion picture experience feel closer to real life."


And yet, in spite of the claims for color, and its closer relationship with reality, filmmakers still often choose Black and White: Because film's (and maybe art in general) strength lies in it's ability to interpret reality, not to ape it.

Like the man said "I swear you got to tell a lie to tell the truth".

[Weston Ford]

Of course it won't automatically improve any film. Adding color to Casablanca wouldnt make that film better...but just because of that you don't see everyone making black and white movies nowadays do you?


And yet, in spite of the claims for color, and its closer relationship with reality, filmmakers still often choose Black and White

Maybe we are talking about different arenas of filmmaking. I'm sure in independent films, short films, documentarys, and lots of other stuff there is alot of black and white still in use. I'm talking about movies that you see in cinemas (the only arena 3d really applies to), of which 1% are b&w...if that. Perhaps the use of sound is a better example....you see almost no movies made without dialog or sound effects. Its not impossible to think that somewhere down the road the idea of 2d filmmaking will be just as outlandish.


And that's my point, it's not the color, or the black and white, or the 3d, or the sound, or the font that the book's printed in.

I dont think you can compare books to film. Its a competely different form of entertainment. Books cannot go farther then where they started...there is no more to reading than reading..nor could there be. Film is basically about a person viewing a projected image....that can be improved and as long as there are improvements to be made filmmakers are going to pursue them.

Of course all the old technology works to tell stories....we've seen it work before...but that doesnt mean we should keep doing it all the time. If no one had stepped up from silent movies and embraced sound we wouldnt have had a casablanca with Humphrey Bogarts voice...if no one had embraced color there would be none of the fantastic imagery in the wizard of oz. There are films out there in the future that 3d technology means just as much to.

All i'm saying is that innovation shouldnt be shunned and that 3d will be more than a gimmicky attraction. There is no way that people will stay satisfied with 2d images forever. It might not happen soon but I think the change is inevitable.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just only see a certain percentage of films and filmmakers interested in using 3D.

For many other filmmakers, it would be a distraction to deal with while shooting a movie. It may be interesting for a little drama to be shot in 3D, but I think a lot of filmmakers who do those simple little tales aren't going to be interested in working in 3D for them.

I got sent a little script, for example, that's a simple road trip about some poor single mom, set in motel rooms, small cars, diners. Even if 50% of all movies made were in 3D, I can't see a little movie like this benefitting from it much, not if it causes any slow-down in shooting, any distractions for the actors, any larger crew to handle. Now if all movies were 3D, then it would probably just be something that the director would have to deal with, but I know a lot of directors who have little or no interest in shooting 3D.

As for people no longer being satisfied with 2D images, we still have painting and photography... Saying that they won't be satisfied is making the false assumption that three dimensions must be better than two dimensions for an artistic experience. By that logic, sculpture is superior to painting, live theater is better than movies.

Would "Little Miss Sunshine", for example, really need 3D? Would it have been worth shooting it in 3D if it cost any extra production money, took any extra production time, required some sort of 3D expert for shooting or post to supervise?

Not every movie made is an "Avatar" or "Spy Kids". I know 3D could be used artistically in a small indie movie, but the question is whether it would be worth it for all small indie movies.

[Weston Ford]

I agree with your thoughts that its not very reasonable to think people now or in the very near future should shoot dramas, comedies, or small budget indies in 3D...and you are definately much more knowledgeable than me when it comes to film production...and everything filmmaking.

But would you say that perhaps 40 to 50 years from now everything will be in 3d? Usually what seems innovative to people in the present will be common place in the future. Thats what I mean with the comparisons I was making with black and white and sound in film.

[Keith Nealy]

I totally agree David.

For the movies that exploit special effects as a major part of the experience it will be a boon I'm sure. I just saw Die Hard and it was amazing and would be more so in 3D.

But I think the move to 3D is less about the natural progression of filmmaking than the survival of the movie theater and the industries protection of its property from piracy. I think its a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Print was mentioned as an example. Well there is plain print, print with illustrations, print with black and white photos then color photos and now there is even POP-UP books. I venture to say that pop-up books will not corner the market because they are the natural extension of the written word.

Marshall McCluhan was not entirely correct when he said "The medium is the message."

I think 3D will have a limited engagement in new 3D theater venues while RED will pave the way and become a standard for good old fashioned storytelling.

I venture to say RED will probably not have gimbolled seats and smell-o-vision attachments.

aloha,

Keith

[David Mullen ASC]

But would you say that perhaps 40 to 50 years from now everything will be in 3d? Usually what seems innovative to people in the present will be common place in the future. Thats what I mean with the comparisons I was making with black and white and sound in film.

If I could predict the future in 40 or 50 years, let alone 10 years, I'd be a rich man. Anything is possible, 3D could very well become the dominent format for theatrical projection, maybe even home projection. Maybe not.

The thing you have to realize is that while everything changes over time, it's not necessarily an upwards progression -- it could be a sideways progression, it can even be a regression. In the 1940's, we had three-strip Technicolor and dye transfer prints. In the mid 1950's to early 1970's we had 65mm productions in 70mm prints. So what we have today isn't necessarily better than those peaks, just different, better in some ways, neutral in others, worse in others, but probably more convenient, less expensive, more efficient today in most cases.

Improving technology has really meant that the average movie looks and sounds better than it ever has before. But the top of the line, the great achievements technically and artistically, are about as rare now as they were then. "Apocalypse Now" in 70mm mag sound prints is one of the greatest audio experiences in a movie theater and holds up against anything we have today -- the difference is that a typical Adam Sandler comedy can have multi-track sound now and a very complex mix. So the bottom is lifted to the middle, the middle is lifted higher, but the top doesn't change much -- it's hard to lift that higher.

So maybe 3D will take over, if it's really successful at the box office and the technology becomes more production friendly so it isn't a big decision to go that way. It would have to get to the point where your average filmmaker could choose between 2D and 3D as easily as they could between shooting for 1.85 or 2.35 projection. If it's a lot harder to pull-off, then a lot of filmmakers will think it's not worth the bother on their particular little movie, if it's just a drama or something.

[krd]

Even if 3D becomes cheap and effortless, many filmmakers may want to preserve the 2D viewing experience. It's no secret that most humans like "to watch", and for that, 3D representations in 2D space is ideal.

From all but the front rows, theater is effectively 2D, as is watching the neighbors across the street (or the courtyard). The voyeuristic habit is so deeply ingrained, that it's hard to believe that 3D, which puts the viewer in a spacial field which stimulates a riot of fight/flight impulses, will be all that useful in sustaining dramatic fictions, large or small, in which viewers have to pay attention to what's going on.

Then again, 3D sounds like a great way to increase the market share of Hollywood, at a time when it's losing ground to national cinemas world-wide, whether or not the technology makes much sense.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think what would happen, just as it does now with 2D movies, is that directors would choose certain moments to increase the 3D quality and other times, use a longer lens and go for more compression and less 3D, even in a 3D movie.

It's just like the early Cinerama movies, which were all shot wide-angle because each of the three cameras had a fixed 27mm lens for a total field of view of 144 degrees or so. But when they developed Todd-AO and Super Panavision to compete with Cinerama, not to mention CinemaScope and VistaVision, etc. they couldn't get directors to stick to wide-angle lenses for that "Cinerama effect" because it was too limiting from a directorial standpoint -- you want some "normal" shots now and then, close-ups where the viewer is not distracted by the effect.

So if every movie was 3D, what you would see is different directors enhancing or minimizing the effect by careful use of focal length and camera movement. Something shot on a 300mm lens, for example, is not going to have any 3D effect since the two optical viewpoints are so relatively close together compared to the distance to the subject. This is one reason why the 3D IMAX movie "Wings of Courage" could just shoot telephoto shots of planes in 2D and just make two prints from one negative for the left and right eye.

[Steve Gibby]

I agree that certain genres will naturally lend themselves to 3D - and others would be a stretch. That said, if 3D camera systems were to be affordable, portable, ergonomically usable, and not add significant hassle or expense to a production, then keeping in mind that 2D data can be extracted from a 3D camera, and assuming that easily switchable 3D/2D projection (like RealD) proliferates, then shooting in cost-effective 3D, and delivering in a vertical array of revenue streams from 3D theatrical (and eventually 3D home viewing) down through 2D theatrical and the normal 2D medium deliveries could become a reality.

That's a lot of elements to get in line, but it may not take as long as some think. Time will tell...

[Proteus]

It's no secret that most humans like "to watch", and for that, 3D representations in 2D space is ideal.

You mean with one eye like through the keyhole -that is 2D! :blink: :)


From all but the front rows, theater is effectively 2D, as is watching the neighbors across the street (or the courtyard). The voyeuristic habit is so deeply ingrained, that it's hard to believe that 3D, which puts the viewer in a spacial field which stimulates a riot of fight/flight impulses, will be all that useful in sustaining dramatic fictions, large or small, in which viewers have to pay attention to what's going on.

It will depend entirely on the art applied, but you don't have always to be inside the scene -even the sense of depth beyond the display surface might be important in some scenes.



Then again, 3D sounds like a great way to increase the market share of Hollywood, at a time when it's losing ground to national cinemas world-wide, whether or not the technology makes much sense.

Well... technology is something universal not an exclusivity or invention of Hollywood! The same or similar technology will be available worldwide.

Contrary to what have been said, I think that independent filmmakers will take advantage of that technology (also in 4K 2D) as it becomes cheaper and cheaper (see RED for example) and especially for home viewing. That will give us the chance to see some (artistically) quality movies in the new form -even experiments, but at least not just "success prescriptions"...


That's a lot of elements to get in line, but it may not take as long as some think.

Not only it won't take too long, but soon there will be added interactivity -the next (r)evolution! That will give a serious advantage to home viewing....

[krd]

You mean with one eye like through the keyhole -that is 2D! :blink: :)

I haven't tried any keyholes lately, but I guess it depends to what extent you believe drama is, or should be, "an experience". Art traditionally cultivates distance, even detachment. But Hollywood doesn't spend $100 million to make contemplative art, so sure, bring on 3D. And inventive filmmakers will no doubt find unexpected uses for the technology.


Well... technology is something universal not an exclusivity or invention of Hollywood! The same or similar technology will be available worldwide.

Katzenberg claims 3D will add $15 million per production. That amount alone (without the rest of the movie) is all but impossible anywhere but Hollywood. And if the initial 3D push decimates other national cinemas, or independents generally, they could be a long time recovering.

[Proteus]

Art traditionally cultivates distance, even detachment. But Hollywood doesn't spend $100 million to make contemplative art, so sure, bring on 3D.

Now 3D will be a new tool to cultivate distance or depth in totally new ways!

And that is my complaint: They spend 100 million dollars for a production and they "dont give a damn" for a good script! Thats allmost a sin! I look at the titles at the end of a bad movie sometimes and I am sorry for them -they worked so hard for nothing! And this is why they loose ground to international productions as you said before -because art is their competitor.


Katzenberg claims 3D will add $15 million per production. That amount alone (without the rest of the movie) is all but impossible anywhere but Hollywood.

That scale of expenses just for the switch to 3D (assuming a digital production and distribution) is not realistic outside Hollywood and especially in indie-land.
An independent filmmaker that doesn't wait for an automatic point and shoot 3D all weather or whatever camera and equipment to be released, but instead gets involved in 3D technology before even that technology matures, does many experiments and studies it to understand the problems and find his own solutions, make or order some custom accessories if necessary (like an optical adapter for a two camera combination), also studies the very important 3D post-process techniques that he must do or guide himself, that filmmaker will need just a tiny percentage of that amount, almost not worthing to mention! Of course in that cost will be included the costs of delays in shooting and post processing but with deep knowledge of the techniques and careful planning, these costs will be minimized.


And if the initial 3D push decimates other national cinemas, or independents generally, they could be a long time recovering.

Low cost high-tech equipment like RED, digital distribution, competitive technology for home viewing and independent productions will prevent this from happening.