So what does it add to the cinematic experience?

[Christoffer Glans]

Why oh why do the promoters of 3D say that it isn't a gimmick and still only talks about the technology and that there has to be "things flying out of the screen" for a proper 3D experience?

What is wrong with all this?

Surround sound is a standard in todays cinema but it is also not used in it's full potential. Many films I've been watching doesn't really have anything in the other speakers, except the occational helicopter or bullet flyby's.

So when reading Walter Murch and Roger Ebert's comments on 3D, that it isn't necessary for the storytelling or experience of watching a movie I started to agree with them. But then...

I started thinking, why is it so? Shouldn't both of these enhance story and atmosphere? Isn't that the purpose? No, that is not the goal for the surroundsound/3D-geeks. The surround sound/3D-fest is for the cool rollercoaster effect, it's for the joyride of illusion mindthrills.
And that is what all the focus is aimed at, both for the critics of 3D and for the geeks of it.

My word... bullshit.

Not alot of thoughts have been put into the use of 3D, the use of surround as an enhancement of story and atmosphere. Everyone is talking abut the technological aspects, the new gadgets, the new standards etc. But the most important aspect for all filmmakers is left behind.

How can we enhance the experience beyond the shallow rollercoaster joyride? How can we enhance the story with 3D?

Good examples of this is Tron Legacy. Even though not nearly a perfect movie, it still used 3D to enhance the depth of the story. They choosed to let the movie be in 2D for our world and "the grid" in 3D, the opposite of how we view computers. We see them as flat, singlethreaded, not nearly as complex as the real world. In Tron Legacy, they flipped it, creating our world as the flat singleminded, singlethreaded place and "The Grid" as the place for possibilites. It's directly enhancing the idea of the Isomorphic Algorithms as being more complex then what we can grasp, just as Flynn tried to grasp when creating the grid in form of perfection.

Just an example of the story enhancement of 3D. As a reply to both Walter Murch and Roger Ebert there were a comment adressing the increased emotion with 3D. Having a character reaching out to the audience in despair creates an emotion that is greatly increased with 3D.

So is it a gimmick? Is it a rollercoaster ride? Yes, it is a gimmick for those who use it as a gimmick, it is a rollercoaster ride for those who want it to be, but it is much more then that. Sad thing is that the discussion always stops at those two words, gimmick and rollercoaster... both for geeks and critics.

What I mean is that both the critics of 3D and the 3D-geeks are wrong.

We decide how to make use of 3D as a storytelling method, we decide how to increase emotion and sense of atmosphere, we decide how 3D can be used to increase the artform of films... not the geeks, not the critics, Ebert, Murch or any other. We, the ones who are creative and make art. Use the tools that helps you make your art, don't overuse for the sake of it and don't criticise for the sake of it... simple enough?

How hard must it be? And why is this stirring up debates like this? It's a tool, just like FCP and Avid always being in a fight among the users, they are still tools. In 200 years no one will care about these things, why put energy into the debate and not into the improvement of our tools instead? Why not into our work and how we can achieve the best possible things at our disposal?

We cheer our achievments in technology, but we seem to put more energy in whining or blindly following, not to be a part of it. Why do so many need to focus on things that in the end doesn't matter? Isn't that underlining a lack of an open mind?

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Rack Focus and Shallow depth of field are both examples of cinematic technique.

You could treat them as a gimmick, and shoot everything with your lenses wide open and rack back and forth for every line of dialog.

That would be annoying.

Sure it would thrill the bokeh junkies and every director & DP that just learned the technique.

Visual effects are another great example.

You can misuse any film making technology- and most are not strictly essential to telling stories. Radio proves we don't need the picture part and silent film proves we don't need the sound part.

That doesn't make them bad, or good, tools. Using them properly is the centerpiece of their utility.

I simply believe that film makers are still learning the grammar of 3D film making- and many are having to unlearn other aspects of film making or break them down more fundamentally to accommodate thinking about 3D.

I also think human beings are a lazy lot, and don't want to learn or expand their thinking beyond what is comfortable and has worked for them.

3D is a long way from being a mainstream technology. It will take a generation of film makers learning and growing with 3D film tech on hand to bring it to fruition.

[Hrvoje Simic]

It adds nothing to a 2D/canvas story, it just takes away the ability to perceive it to the fullest. Which is the case in most examples seen. Because 2D storytellers want to "add".

If the story is written, directed, shot and edited for 3D/spacial storytelling it doesn't have to "add" anything.
It's a medium of visual content with more "depth" at the cost of less "width".

[Eric Lange]

Christoffer;

I think I understand what you are getting at..I think? Your English is hell of a lot better than my Swedish?

The one point you make that is interesting (also) is the enhanced emotive aspect that s-3d has the potential to offer.

I still wonder about this, and don’t really know, yet..

By argument, if it is true that S-3d is emotionally more engaging, then by extension if you have only one eye and see the world monoscopically does that mean you are emotionally less engaged with life? Wear an eye patch for a week or two?

I don’t have a good answer for that, but I thought I would put that one out there.


[Also I think there is a false dichotomy between “Geek” and “megalomaniac Arteeeest!”. Stanly Kubrick and many others were a good example of both! I think the film industry has many more people that have excellent command and understanding of their technologies and are yet able to be savvy enough to apply these technologies in a very artful way (than perhaps some other disciplines). [If I understand what you are trying to say?]].

Cheers,

Eric

[Eric Lange]

Why oh why do the promoters of 3D say that it isn't a gimmick and still only talks about the technology and that there has to be "things flying out of the screen" for a proper 3D experience?

What is wrong with all this?

Surround sound is a standard in todays cinema but it is also not used in it's full potential. Many films I've been watching doesn't really have anything in the other speakers, except the occational helicopter or bullet flyby's.

So when reading Walter Murch and Roger Ebert's comments on 3D, that it isn't necessary for the storytelling or experience of watching a movie I started to agree with them. But then...

I started thinking, why is it so? Shouldn't both of these enhance story and atmosphere? Isn't that the purpose? No, that is not the goal for the surroundsound/3D-geeks. The surround sound/3D-fest is for the cool rollercoaster effect, it's for the joyride of illusion mindthrills.
And that is what all the focus is aimed at, both for the critics of 3D and for the geeks of it.

My word... bullshit.

Not alot of thoughts have been put into the use of 3D, the use of surround as an enhancement of story and atmosphere. Everyone is talking abut the technological aspects, the new gadgets, the new standards etc. But the most important aspect for all filmmakers is left behind.

How can we enhance the experience beyond the shallow rollercoaster joyride? How can we enhance the story with 3D?

Good examples of this is Tron Legacy. Even though not nearly a perfect movie, it still used 3D to enhance the depth of the story. They choosed to let the movie be in 2D for our world and "the grid" in 3D, the opposite of how we view computers. We see them as flat, singlethreaded, not nearly as complex as the real world. In Tron Legacy, they flipped it, creating our world as the flat singleminded, singlethreaded place and "The Grid" as the place for possibilites. It's directly enhancing the idea of the Isomorphic Algorithms as being more complex then what we can grasp, just as Flynn tried to grasp when creating the grid in form of perfection.

Just an example of the story enhancement of 3D. As a reply to both Walter Murch and Roger Ebert there were a comment adressing the increased emotion with 3D. Having a character reaching out to the audience in despair creates an emotion that is greatly increased with 3D.

So is it a gimmick? Is it a rollercoaster ride? Yes, it is a gimmick for those who use it as a gimmick, it is a rollercoaster ride for those who want it to be, but it is much more then that. Sad thing is that the discussion always stops at those two words, gimmick and rollercoaster... both for geeks and critics.

What I mean is that both the critics of 3D and the 3D-geeks are wrong.

We decide how to make use of 3D as a storytelling method, we decide how to increase emotion and sense of atmosphere, we decide how 3D can be used to increase the artform of films... not the geeks, not the critics, Ebert, Murch or any other. We, the ones who are creative and make art. Use the tools that helps you make your art, don't overuse for the sake of it and don't criticise for the sake of it... simple enough?

How hard must it be? And why is this stirring up debates like this? It's a tool, just like FCP and Avid always being in a fight among the users, they are still tools. In 200 years no one will care about these things, why put energy into the debate and not into the improvement of our tools instead? Why not into our work and how we can achieve the best possible things at our disposal?

We cheer our achievments in technology, but we seem to put more energy in whining or blindly following, not to be a part of it. Why do so many need to focus on things that in the end doesn't matter? Isn't that underlining a lack of an open mind?

I just managed to watch Tron Legacy In S3d on a SONY 4k projector about an hour ago.

Christoffer I understand better what you are going on about. (now)…

I have to say the cinematography in the first eight minutes of the 2d sequences was excellent, or at least a style I appreciate very much.

In Tron L. there were about three or four short S-3d sequences that left you absolutely aching for more.

The design, particularly the production design had more than a nod to 2001(A Space Odyssey), with a manga/final fantasy twist. I liked that very much, beautifully done.

You can see that there were a lot of stereoscopic experiments and egos and inconsistencies in the way that various elements were put together and brought about. However I think it was a very grown up decision to have a lesser range of parallax, and stylistically I don’t think it suffered too much as a result. Realy interesting to see standard 2d cinematic attempts at creating a 3d sense, those actually worked quite well also. The fact is, that you really should not inflict on an audience more than about 25 minutes of deep stereo, and I got the impression that they were trying to preserve an meat out very judiciously the amount of stereo people should be exposed to, saving a bit of deeper stereo for the final sequences. It was interesting to me as the degree and frequency of the stereo effect had it's own pacing (it seems).

I found it impossible to concentrate on the pretty lousy dialogue and mystical plot lines while all the 3d stuff was going on. I just can’t do both. I would have to watch it in 2d just to try and follow what the protagonists were going on about (I probably don’t have time for that).

Given that I am viso-spatial kind of person that once something gets hold of my visual cortex to such a degree such as Tron L in S-3d, all other neural channels are pretty much blocked, (being a visual thinker). So in that sense I could only perceive things visually, or in terms of visual metaphor and the occasional amusing one liner. This reminded me of Farenheit 451 where in the “fire station” one of the attendants is reading a comic book that has no words, purely visual grammar, as the reading of books and syntax is banned. It did make me think maybe far off in the future that a more visio-spatial language all of its own may develop through s-3d. But if you are not a visio-spatial type of person you are screwed. Well that will be great for all the dyslexics and ADDer’s anyway.

Would be really interesting to find out which sequences were shot or prepared by whom as there are some real difference throughout, more than just “first unit” versus “second unit” type of thing.

It’s clear to me after seeing Tron L, that S-3d is here to stay and we just have to find ways to do it better (each time). Really challenge ourselves to not be lazy as Alexander says. There were certainly a lot of things that could have done with a lot more dimensionality, but that didn't take away from the basic action and sense of wonder that the movie tries to create.

Even though Disney had a lot of time to prepare Tron L its hard for people to understand how much pressure there is during the “production” phase. Just like the message of the movie, you can’t have perfection; on an active production you just have to deliver one thing after another in an absolutely relentless fashion and not lose your nerve. So given the millions of elements that had to pulled together they did a bloody good job.


Cheers,

Eric


[Ps I did have a bit of eyestrain which was surprising as the ranges of parallax were a little meager, I lowered my glasses about 100 times to check the disposition of the various parallaxes, I’ve worked on serious stereo applications for over twenty years, so I can only attribute the moderate eye strain to some of the fuzzy and flaring effects that do not stereo resolve. I have to admit I found the biggest issue to be with the glasses; the internal reflection and lack of light baffles of the Real-D glasses were really pretty distracting for the first 20 mins, better glasses would be nice].

[Clyde DeSouza]

Eric excellent review of the movie.
here's mine... a bit longer and more opinionated ;) but ahh well:
http://realvision.ae/blog/2011/01/st...e-tron-legacy/

I have to say again, I like the use of selective focus and the way it was applied to the S3D storytelling in this movie.

[Brian Merlen]

I believe 3D is here to stay for a few $pecific $imple Rea$on$!

1. Bootlegging: How can your Iphone capture RealD? How can under paid lonely projectionists rip off RealD files and distribute them successfully? No one is going to put in 3D to 2D conversion work to rip off and distribute a film, its too much work to try and solve it if no 2D source exists for the pirates in the first place. (my premise for my entire theory requires no 2D sources be available)

2. Sellings tv sets: If the film has no 2D source sold/shown at all yes it limits the amount of tv's that can play it, but some people will still move on to new tech to see it (plus factor in gaming/new 3D channels on the horizon, these will help too). If enough films refuse to release 2D versions it can drive comsumers to trade in for the new 3D tech.

3. I believe that the films lose more money releasing in 2D from piracy then they ever would by refusing 2D releases/screenings. I can often score 2D films on the net before or during their actual release, and despite the quality being terrible, most younger people will still rip things off and pocket the cash vs going downtown to see it in real pristine quality. It is sad and I disagree with it, but its a reality and a costly one for the industry. I say refuse giving pirates a 2D source! They are too ignorant to continue if we can eliminate 2D sources. Stop with 2D screenings and sales, its counter productive to profits when 12 year olds now know how to crack the films or download them freely. 3D can kill piracy entirely since no one will watch blurry RealD from home on their 2D set! Look we all know bootlegs lack quality, but mark my words! "no one will watch 3D bootlegs on 2D sets". The day a company refuses to release their film in 2D or screen it in 2D is the day they actually can make 100 percent of their intended sales/views pay for their play. Its too hard to track piracy figures, and I fear the figures are so bad that in reality 2D releases and screenings can damage more than help.

So to answer the question briefly 3D brings sustainability to the film industry if embraced entirely it can circumvent current piracy technology for the time being probably until the 3D tv's become commanplace...

ps piracy hurts sales for years not just when the film is first released, so the total cumlative figures probably validate my point even further, but such figures are impossible to really calculate.

[Michael Shilnov]

Just like any other aspect of cinematography, perhaps 3d simply needs more time to mature, develop one set of aspects further and get rid of another. Just like conventional cinema eventually settled for a more or less uniform aspect ratio, frame rate, panning speeds etc, 3d might find only its niche with time. One can of course argue that 3d has been around for quite some time, but as many point out, the 3d today is a different story than, say 20 or even 10 years ago. I also like the name for the new Golden Raspberry category, “Rip-eye 3D”.
http://www.kinoved.com/en/8277.html

[Ravi Kiran]

Does piracy even stem from the theaters? I haven't seen many bootlegs, but some of them are surprisingly good quality, as if someone from the studios or post houses leaked them. I don't think many people are downloading bootlegs filmed from theater screens with cameras anyways.

I don't know if 3D has brought more people to the theaters, but 3D brings more revenue to the studios, which can somewhat offset the losses from piracy. The technology itself preventing piracy? That I'm skeptical of.

[Brian Merlen]

even dvds/blu rays can be hacked, i doubt crew would be undercutting productions...but a 3d only release would insure no one can hack that without needing a 3d tv for them and their audience of pirates, am i right? yeah its a pretty weak theory, but it would stop piracy of that film....until such tv's are mainstream and everyone watchs 3d bootlegs...

just as a test i would love to see a 3d only release of a mainstream film, followed by a 2d release months later... and the window between the 2 releases blocks piracy because no pirates and audiences of pirates own 3d tvs...

Does piracy even stem from the theaters? I haven't seen many bootlegs, but some of them are surprisingly good quality, as if someone from the studios or post houses leaked them. I don't think many people are downloading bootlegs filmed from theater screens with cameras anyways.

I don't know if 3D has brought more people to the theaters, but 3D brings more revenue to the studios, which can somewhat offset the losses from piracy. The technology itself preventing piracy? That I'm skeptical of.