Comments on: 3D means new rules for directors

Say good-bye to 3D effects that call attention to themselves. The technology is set to fade into the background as directors strive to use 3D to involve the viewer in a story, not show off what they can do.

[MadLyb]

I hate 3D, even with the latest innovations. It is obtrusive into the viewing experience with the glasses and causes eye strain, headaches, and even nausea.

Unfortunately, Hollywood has embraced it and sometimes I have to actually look to find a 2D showing.

My big concern is if the film is shot to address 3D, then it detracts in 2D.

Maybe in another 20 years...

[i2oi3]

I totally agree - I heard they are also charging extra now for seats that move. How much? The same price as the ticket? Ridiculous - they need to put all that money into making better movies, the crap they put out these days is a horrible excuse for art/entertainment. I suppose in some ways that could be a reflection of our society though..

~Rob Patrick
http://www.mytextsecret.com

[viper396]

Oh please, your exaggerating, especially about having "to actually look to find a 2D showing". That statement is blatantly false given the fact that a majority of theatres are still not equipped for 3D. It's actually harder to find the 3D versions in most regions. . ....or let me guess, you live in the one area on the entire planet where every screen in every nearby theatre is equipped for 3D? Sure.

The technology in modern 3D relies on polarized lenses. The physical strain to the eyes are no different then when using polarized sunglasses. Polarized sunglasses have been around for decades....but I suppose you're also one of the <7% of the world's population who get's sick wearing sunglasses.

I don't envy you; living where every movie theatre is in 3D and you react negatively to sunglasses.

[MadLyb]

@viper396

Yes, went to the closest theater to watch 'Up' only to find only 3D showings. So, had to get on the internet to find a theater showing in 2D which actually turned out to be across town. 4 complexes in town, showing 'Up", 2 were only showing 3D and the other 2 had 1 showing each in 2D. When the theaters can charge more for a 3D showing (which two of the theaters were doing), what do you think they will show?

As to the glasses, yes, they cause all of these problems, especially for people like me who wear glasses. Unlike 'real' sunglasses, the lenses are polarized differently, the optics are terrible, are uncomfortable, and except for IMAX are simply not maintained.

Next time, know your topic *before* trolling. But then, I guess that was the point.

[ofmyony]

3D, is terrible, it never looks real. The glasses have been tinted at all the 3D showings I have been to, which causes the picture to be so dark it's unwatchable. Actually the picture never looks good.

This technology will die out just as it did in the early years. If they can't do it without glasses don't do it!

[Jahntassa]

The glasses aren't tinted. They're polarized. That's how the technology works. Two images are projected over each other, one polarized vertical the other horizontal. The glasses polarize each lens differently so each eye only sees one of the overlaid images.

[viper396]

@ofmyony. I think it's fairly obvious that you haven't actually seen any modern 3D movie so your only wasted your time and credibility by lying about it. Recent 3D movies like, UP, Corraline, or Monsters vs. Aliens use polarization not color tinting and the resulting 3D image is just as bright and clear as any regular movie.

[13chase]

As already said the glasses are not tinted, some are polarized. but some use color filters, in witch my opinion looks way better, the only down fall is they are the kind you have to turn in. But if anyone cares I LOVE 3D!

[siege911]

So what does this mean for all of us with one eye (you'd be surprised how many people have one eye and you don't even know it)? We get a crappier movie experience so that we can make a little 3D gimmick? No thanks.

[rafe]

That's what I'm afraid of, too, since like I said, the 3D effects generally don't work for me. 3D movies are going to look paradoxically really flat when you can't see the 3D effect at all, or poorly.

[freemarket--2008]

Since they will still want to do DVD/BD releases, it's unlikely they will go to 3D only any time soon.

[viper396]

A certain part of the population is also completely deaf, color blind, or completely blind. By your cynical assertion they should also stop using gimmicks like color and sound in movies.

[Jahntassa]

I think as 3D films continue to be released the directors will find better ways to use the effect in subtle ways. "Journey to the Center of the Earth" used a lot of 3D 'gags' where it was obvious they were showing off the 3D effects. Coraline was sort of the same way, though that film was impressive in its own right as it was all live stop-motion.

UP, in my opinion, is the best one yet. I don't recall anything pandering to the 3D effect yet the experience enhanced it greatly.

I have yet to experience anything @MadLyb has experienced in terms of eye strain, headaches, or otherwise. Even my wife who wears prescription glasses hasn't had a problem.

[ilsthey]

I think many saying 3D is a fad will find them in the same boat as those that said "talkies" and Color films where fads.

Both of these innovations in the past came in as gimmicky stunts that required film makes to change the way movies are created. The same will happen with 3D.

Then it will just be another choice for film makes to use. Just as some makes choose to create a black and white, or even a silent movie they can in the future choose to make a 2D or 3D movie and it will dictate how the film is created.

As for people with one eye viewing a 3D film, I presume they will choose whether the experience is worth it or not, just as deaf or blind people choose today. As well, I expect, adaptive technology will come along.

[ilsthey]

I think many saying 3D is a fad will find them in the same boat as those that said "talkies" and Color films where fads.

Both of these innovations in the past came in as gimmicky stunts that required film makes to change the way movies are created. The same will happen with 3D.

Then it will just be another choice for film makes to use. Just as some makes choose to create a black and white, or even a silent movie they can in the future choose to make a 2D or 3D movie and it will dictate how the film is created.

As for people with one eye viewing a 3D film, I presume they will choose whether the experience is worth it or not, just as deaf or blind people choose today. As well, I expect, adaptive technology will come along.

[alstatr]

I saw U2 3D and it was a pleasant experience. My eyes did get tired and I had a slight headache but overall it was very worth the $11. I don't think I'd like to watch tons of 3d though.

[pghcraig1]

I think this tech has gotten to be amazingly good. My Bloody Valentine 3D amazed me, being the first new 3D movie I'd seen in ages, and then I saw Coraline, which made MBV3D look dreadful. Monsters VS. Aliens took it up several notches... This fall Final Destination 4 will unleash the latest 3D tech on us. Each film that comes out gets progressively better. Animation seems to work better than live action, but I think once they nail this down it's going to be stellar. I agree with comments about hard to see in the glasses. MBV3D was like that, but I think this was still older of the new 3D. The later movies were not like that. Prior, the last Harry Potter was the only 3D film I'd seen since Freddy's Dead. Harry potter 3d was awful.

I can't wait to see where this goes. I'm more curious about 3D being built into the new LCD displays.

[worried1]

I agree most 3D I have seen is not very good and not worth the extra cost. What about when the movie is played on our TV will it work? Will we need the dorky glasses? Well no matters there is so
me that, because of eye problems, cannot view the movie in 3D can they claim discrimination?

[viper396]

All 3D movies have had a regular 2D version in cause you haven't been paying attention.

Do the blind or deaf claim discrimination because of color or sound in every movie?.... No they don't.

[G-hero47]

I'll wait 'till a 3D movie comes out that doesn't make us wear those dorky 3D glasses

[AaronMK]

I think if the technology was better and the screens were consistently bigger, then I don't think there would not be camera moves and other issues. Right now, there are a few things I find really distracting in 3D presentations.

The first happens when objects are leaving the screen. Instead of simply leaving the frame, it feels like a chainsaw is being used on the objects. If you have a screen that is large enough to fill your field of vision, that negative artifact is a moot point.

The second problem I find is double vision when objects get too close. I realize that this is the basis of 3D, and this happens in real life, but we generally don't get close enough to objects enough to make it a problem. For a computer animated feature, I am sure there are view transformations that can be applied to counteract this artifact for closer objects, but what about live action? A lot of action sequences can be quite exciting because they put us "in the driver's seat". I would hate to see film makers not use them in service of minimizing camera moves, especially when those are the kinds of things that really scream for 3D.

As for quick cutting, I find it is typically distracting in 2D as well.

[AaronCT123]

I saw up in 3D and it was pretty interesting, there were certain shots where it worked beautifully and I was amazed because, as a modeler, it was almost like I would've been able to rotate myself around the object. There were other shots, however, where it didn't completely come through but it still wasn't nearly as gimmicky as I thought and the glasses weren't anywhere as annoying as the old ones I remember back when Spy Kids 3D came out.

[Len Bullard]

Delivering 3D in movies is delivering fish in fishnets. It captures the 3D but it doesn't render it as well as the 3D engine does.

The challenge is adapting the vocabulary of cinema production to the implementations of standard nodes in a common vocabulary.

For musicians, digital sound systems metaphorically resemble physical systems in the GUI.
Until now, 3D has been conceived by math geeks, not cinematographers.

Jump cuts still work. If you insist on capture over scripts, it means you get longer sequences. The writer AND the camera director have to think at the scene level.

FWIW, X3D has proposals for new camera nodes that do just what I described.

Fun times. New art forms. Right now cinematographers are trying to make movies with 3D whereas the 3D artists are trying to conceive in real-time 3D.... which is what the new hypermedia is.

[zarchon1]

Fly Me to the Moon had an extremely powerful scene where the Saturn rocket blasts off into space and into the audience. It seems much larger than the screen.

[Len Bullard]

Of course the real challenge is realized when you give the audience the cameras which in real 3D systems is unavoidable because of avatars. There are unlimited numebers of scenes that can be shot in the same set simultaneously. The problem of the jump cut is identity reassignment of the user camera. It feels strange because it breaks virtual identity.

A 3D world is a multi-arc scene simultaneously. Adapting to that means deep endowment of character (repetoire, norms, cultural symbols, and history of the instance) and writers have not yet grasped the depth of that or we wouldn't still be talking about movies.

[tonhogg]

Funny but just a few weeks ago I read an piece that talked about the same thing this article talks about. When the larger screens came out in the 1950's people said that quick cuts and fast movements would be just to much for the viewing audience and cause motion sickness. Of course as time went on and people got used to the larger screens they also inturn got used to the quicker motions that directors kept pushing with each movie release. Really when any of us go to a movie we should get motion sickness from beginning to end. The reason we don't is because we have come to accept and ajust to the laws of the world around us that a motion picture breaks. That is what causes motion sickness. To that person what he is seeing visually compared to his equlibrium are clashing to what laws of the physical world he has determined in his mind. If you start to take notice of how much they sling that camera around in an action movie you can start to relize just how rediculous it looks, but we don't even notice because we are used to it and actually the movie is exciting to us during those scenes.

People can actually get used to anything visually if they can just get passed the struggle between what they are seeing and being stationary at the same time. Like I said, we do it everytime we go to a movie or even when watching television. They were cautious about in the 1950's but that cautiousness soon faded.