P3D Review - Into the Deep

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Review: Into the Deep

Let me preface my remarks with the disclaimer, that this is the first time
I have seen a 3D Imax film, and that I've not seen any other three
dimensional films since about the mid-eighties.  I've been a stereo
photographer for only about a year, now.  I just came back from viewing
"Into the Deep" at the Arizona Mills Mall, in Tempe, AZ.  The film runs
about 45 min.

My first impression was that of amazingly good image separation.  "Active"
LCD polarized shutter glasses were in use, and I could not perceive any
"ghosting" or crosstalk holding my head comfortably within a fairly broad
range of angles close to vertical.  I did not perceive any flicker at
first, though later I saw a little "jumpiness" in bright objects moving
rapidly across screen.  I didn't really know what to expect, but somehow
did not expect such a good stereo image.

The show did have one technical error, however - what I thought was a
pretty severe vertical misalignment.  It was hard to judge on the big,
featureless screen, but I would guess that the left image was being
projected some one to two feet higher than the right image.  I spoke with
the projectionist afterwards, who revealed that the vertical alignment
adjustment mechanism on the projector was inoperable, and that they could
do nothing about it until a technician came down from Canada to fix it.

I would like to hear from more experienced members of this group, whether
this magnitude of misalignment could have contributed to some of the
eye-discomfort that I felt in some of the scenes.  I was seated six rows
back (30-40ft?) More on that below.

For those who remember my "debut" into P3D back in November, and all of my
"theorizing" about orthoscopy, closeness of subject matter, etc. - this
movie applies my preferences perfectly.  Too perfectly.  The images appear
orthoscopic throughout, and much of the subject matter is small and very
close to the camera.  However, now that I've learned  a few more things
from all of you, I'm not sure I would have shot the thing (or at least
edited it) in quite the same way.

The trouble is with the very close up shots.  When they shot a little sea
crab only ten inches from the camera, that's exactly how it is presented to
you - a little sea crab only ten inches from your face.  Even I had trouble
viewing some of these shots comfortably!  (And I feel I've gotten very good
at both cross- and wall-eyed free viewing comfortably.  In fact, I easily
free-viewed some of this Imax material, looking past the goggles, because
the on-screen disparity was so great, some fish etc. were essentially
presented as cross-eyed stereo pairs on screen).

So I think a large fraction of the audience probably felt discomfort on
some of the extreme close-up shots.   This was worsened by some jumpy
editing - say, cutting from an extreme close-up of a little squid, to a
medium shot of fish.  However, the jump from medium distance (2ft.) to
infinity was not a problem - a testament to the great liberating power of
"windowless" stereo.

Knowing what I do now about projection (which is still precious little), I
would have "fixed" the extra close-up shots in post processing to move them
back a little from the viewer.  I would do this simply by shifting the
images together a little bit, maybe somehow during the editing of the
master negative.  I think the result would have been slightly
non-orthoscopic: the tiny subjects would have looked a little larger, and a
little farther away (comments, anyone?).

Finally, also in agreement with some of my initial feelings about stereo
photography, I thought that the subject matter was perfectly suited to
stereo presentation.  In this underwater environment, there is great
complexity in color, texture, space and volume that could come through only
in three dimensions.  Also, because most people are not scuba divers, and
thus much of the scenery is fairly alien, stereo adds significant value in
helping people to perceive what might otherwise go completely unrecognized
- the shape of some little creature or plant, for instance.

In a separate post tomorrow, I will compare my impressions of "Into the
Deep" versus "Everest," which I also saw today.  Quick advice to those
facing a tough choice: in my opinion, stereo aside, critically acclaimed
"Everest" is not as good a movie as "Into the Deep."

Respectfully submitted,



Boris Starosta

usa 804 979 3930

boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.starosta.com
http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



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