P3D Re: 3D movies for the masses...

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>>Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997
>>From: Gecko <gecko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: P3D 3D movies for the masses...
>
>> ...If a feature film were done by Spielberg, Lucas, or Cameron and
>>released in theaters in 2D, (but actually filmed in 3D) then filmgoers
>>wouldn't have a preconceived notion of the 3D film.  If the film is a
>>success, then maybe a year later, rerelease it in 3D, it's original
>>form.
>
>>I think it would draw a larger crowd in 3D, and being a success the
>>first time would assure movie theaters for success of it's 2nd run.
>
>>Comments?

********  An interesting strategy possibility. However, as a moviegoer who
is near starvation point for 3D movies, I would strongly object. We need
MANY more 3D movies ASAP into the marketplace. Releasing a 3D movie into 2D
circulation is almost a sacreligious thought, at least it is if the movie is
worth seeing. I favor the idea that a GOOD movie shot in 3D doesn't need
this kind of introduction for it to be accepted as a 3D movie. If you're
talking about more of the gimmicky horror show type of thing, then maybe it
would help. I still believe that the audience is actively ready to go big on
3D when a good example finally reaches them. Where is 3D's equivalent to
Star Wars? Maybe it's happening at the IMAX since so many of them seem to be
in construction now all over the world... Here's hoping...


>Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 
>From: John W Roberts  writes:
>..........................
>
>Long ago, a large body of knowledge was built up on how to film a 2D movie
>that would attract huge audiences, movie after movie. I'm not convinced that
>anyone's ever done that for 3D movie photography - I suspect that as a
>first approximation, it should extend the idea of orthostereo to moving
>pictures - most of the movie should not involve flashy 3D tricks, and you
>shouldn't see points of view, etc. that you wouldn't see in real life.
>Perhaps an extreme test of a truly great 3D movie might be that several
>years after watching it, you remember it favorably, but have trouble
>recalling whether you saw it in 2D or 3D. In other words, 3D used in a
>movie in this way would add to the realism, without being obtrusive.

*****  I agree with the basic premise, but not some of the details as
suggested here. For example, the idea of extending *orthostereo to moving
pictures* is asking for trouble, flatness trouble. I immediately imagine
Realist type scenics with little observable depth and I shudder. What is
needed on this account particularly is the idea of a variable base camera
system that can change the actual base on demand for each scene and subject.
The goal should be a favorable 1:20 ratio in all scenes instead of an
arbitrary *Ortho* measured stereo base everywhere... This would maintain the
depth quality everywhere, not just in the close-ups. It would avoid the pie
in your face exageration too.

Flashy 3D tricks are appropriate when the natural story line calls for a
special effect instead of being added because of the presence of a 3D
camera. There should be opportunity for both good story lines and occasional
depth tricks. What the mainstream movie industry hasn't learned is that
ordinary basic 3D is GOOD for storytelling purposes, without need for
excessive exageration. It's like salt in a good recipe, use it sparingly.

The 2D movie guide advocating that *you shouldn't see points of view, etc.
that you wouldn't see in real life.* was outdated quite a number of years
ago. What a shame it would be to resurrect that particular factor to ruin 3D
movies! Today's movies, especially the great ones that most people like,
have all sorts of non-real-life POV shots. We have grown to not only
understand them but actually to expect and want them. This is another area
where a stereo movie camera with a variable base is essential!!! Imagine the
camera on a boom capturing a scene from above and traveling in an arc from
far away to a close up from above. It would have more Umpf if it used a
hyper stereo base while far away, but smoothly and unnoticably transitions
to an Ortho base as it gets closer. Then to Hypo for a super close up.
Stereo base should be as easily variable in stereo movie making as is the
Zoom lens effect.

I agree 100% with the statement, *In other words, 3D used in a movie in this
way would add to the realism, without being obtrusive.* My point is that
Orthoness (relative to stereo base) is not critical to obtaining such a
result, except as the root circumstance to work from and around. My test of
a good 3D movie might be that the audience loudly complains when the movie
theater re-runs the movie but in 2D. They should want whatever the 3D
supplies and which 2D can't supply. Note that schlocky movies can be done in
both 2D and 3D so aren't worth considering relative to the value of 3D
movies per se. Past 3D movies haven't been numerous enough or good enough to
educate the expectations of the audience. For good 3D it's almost a new
environment. 

>
>Occasionally in 2D moviemaking there's an innovation, such as the one in
>which the camera position and focal length change together, so that the
>subject in the foreground appears to remain the same size, but the background
>appears to be moving toward or away from the foreground subject. This seems
>to have been standardized as a way to register surprise or shock.

****  In the best instance I've seen of this effect, it registered severe
emotional impact after some difficulty, and the entire cityscape seemed to
be closing in on the protagonist. Good 3D effects can also be used to supply
emotional impact. However, most hollywood style 3D movies haven't figured
that out yet.

>......................
>A few well-made movies in which the use of 3D is *extremely* low-key
>(compared to current 3D movies) and yet provides some benefit to the viewer
>might help to change the public perception of 3D for the better. 

*****  Ironically this is probably not true. We on P3D understand it would
work for what you are describing, but the audiences now and into the near
future, will be disappointed if *all* the 3D is too low-key. The secret
ingredient is for the _movie makers_ to understand the relationship of all
the key elements. They need to revise their currently prevailing attitude
before they can supply both realism that supports the story, and a few
special effects so skillfully blended in that the audience isn't aware of
the 3D aspect so much as they enjoyed it and it fit the picture and it's story.

>In the
>absense of such a change in public image, I'm not sure that release of a
>3D version of a popular 2D movie would have the desired effect. When some
>of the stained glass windows from the Middle Ages were cleaned, some people
>dismissed them as cartoon-like, ignoring claims that they were now closer
>to the original design than they had been before the cleaning. To reduce
>the risk of similar dismissal of a 2D/3D movie, I believe it would help
>to lay some groundwork in advance of the stunt, to help reduce the tendency
>to dismiss 3D out of hand.
>

*****  Here again, I agree. However, if it's shot in 3D, I still favor
releasing it in 3D from the start. The proposed 2 level strategy might not
work unless the origin of the movie as 3D is hidden and not known. That way
the re-release is a surprise. One likely result once the 3D version is
released, might be the conclusion that, it was just as good in 2D so don't
bother with the 3D version... That would be a sad but possible result. Much
safer business-wise and more satisfying to those of us waiting for *good* 3D
movies is to go all the way with a 3D movie from the start.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------