Is 3D here for the duration?

[MovieStuff]

I love 3D movies but, I dunno, they are a real pain in the eye sockets when not done correctly. The latest version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is a good example of a pretty good movie with poorly planned 3D. I mean, if you look at each individual 3D shot by themselves, they are great. But when connected together into a sequence, there are a problems with rapidly changing convergence points. Convergence is the point at which the eyes must cross slightly to get the two independent images to overlap in your brain. You can see this in a drastic effect by looking at the tip of you nose or your finger held a few inches from your nose. Your eyes must look inward to get the points to align. When looking at something in the distance, you have little or no convergence, depending on how far away the target is.

Now, there is an unwritten rule in 3D movie making that you really, really must not change the convergence point from cut to cut. This does not mean that the convergence must stay the same all the time. You can change it within a shot. You could start with the convergence point at, say, 20 feet away and then have something start moving closer to you and change the convergence as the shot progresses, all in one cut. But if the convergence point ends a foot away from the camera at the end of that cut, then the next cut needs to start at the same one foot convergence point, even if you intend to change the convergence in that shot to a wider, less converged point of view. In "Journey", they would have a convergence that was very close to your face and then, suddenly, cut to a wide shot with the convergence point 20 feet away. Or vice versa. This is a horrible way to do it because it makes the eye muscles jerk back and forth and induces instant headaches (at least in me).

Even some IMAX 3D movies have made the same mistake, usually by directors that are not experienced in 3D etiquette. They just assume that you can make the movie like normal, only it will be in 3D. In reality, 3D movies require less cutting and more fluid, all in one shots to really be effective. Rapid cutting from several points of view isn't needed to add dimension to a 3D movie. It's already there!

Anyway, with digital projection making 3D so easy, I wonder if it is going to finally take root and stay or, at least, be more common. I just hope they get it right.

Roger

[marc]

I say why waste your time. It is just one of those concepts that started in the 50's that never really caught wide audience approval. If they were so great, you would see more of it today. Movies in one dimension are enough in my opinion. Besides, it might just be one of those ploys to distract the audience from a poor quality story, or lousy image quality. A good story, cinematography and image quality are what is essential in my opinion.

[MovieStuff]

I say why waste your time. It is just one of those concepts that started in the 50's that never really caught wide audience approval. If they were so great, you would see more of it today.

Well, actually, some of them were pretty great. Hondo, House of Wax, etc. But the technology at the time was really inefficient. You can shoot 3D now with cameras that are smaller and lighter than a regular 35mm camera was for 2D back then. So why 3D never caught on is certainly open for debate and you may be right. But because the support and distribution system for it was cumbersome and expensive, it really never had a realistic shot, in my opinion.

Movies in one dimension are enough in my opinion.

I agree.

Besides, it might just be one of those ploys to distract the audience from a poor quality story, or lousy image quality. A good story, cinematography and image quality are what is essential in my opinion.

No argument there. We ended up watching Journey in the regular 2D option and it was a fun movie. I could tell they specifically shot things to enhance the 3D experience but it didn't detract from the enjoyment of the movie in 2D.

Roger

[super8man]

At the IMAX locally they were showing the wild coast of Africa and I thought it was really great. Perhaps it was because they did not try to do so much in your face shots.

But, like always, by the end of the short movie, you were glad to take off those dang glasses...and that is why 3D will never take hold.

Now, 3D single frame images are a blast (I use a Stereo Realist) and I highly recommend you experiment with it...it's so different from the movie experience since you get to linger over your frames and really see more than there is to see...if that's possible.

Cheers,
Mike

[Rob]

I take 3D home movies using a pair of mechanically connected Bolex D8 cameras, but even I think its no more than a gimmick. It'll fade away like it did in the '50s and the '80s, only to reappear in another thirty years. In the meantime I'm looking forward to watching Avatar in an IMAX cinema.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Rob

[reflex]

Lenny Lipton seems determined infiltrate as many megaplexes as he can with his technology. Personally, I'm glad to see a Super 8er have such mainstream success.

"Journey" was the first RealD live action film, wasn't it? I was quite impressed with the animated films using the same tech. That said, I agree with you that the film was hard to watch in spots.

I seem to recall a number of the action scenes where the 3D effect seemed to have been digitally manipulated with a handful of artificially placed foreground and background layers that were suspiciously flat. I suspect the original scenes were impossible to watch because of convergence issues.

The dilemma is that modern action movie editing isn't compatible with 3D.

[super8man]

Sadly, modern action movie editing is synonymous with WWF wrestling videography. Only wrestling at least avoids the use of green screens to give it some credibility.

It use to be in the 70s and 80s that a human lifting up a car with his bare arms was a comic relief moment that had nothing to do with the plot. Today's movie depend upon this very same scene as DEFINING the plot and related action sequences.

Generally speaking, most movies have very poor scripts were it not for these moments of incredulous action.

Stick to good movies like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

[sarmoti]

Aside from people with medical binocular issues (I think it was estimated at 7% of the population), we also have to consider that a more significant amount of people cannot bear watching 3D movies because of the way their brain works, I caught an article on this somewhere (I wish I could remember) and I happen to live with someone who suffers the problem.

As much as I can remember, apparently their brains work in reverse with the ocular muscles, where most people can be forced a convergence point and adapt quickly these people cannot. They can focus on 3D on occasion but it takes them extra effort and makes the movie watching experience a failure and leave the theatres with headaches and strained eyes.

[Jim Carlile]

Maybe in the future, people's eye muscles and physiology will adjust to this convergence problem. As for me, I can't even watch Shrek without getting dizzy.

BTW-- Lenny Lipton repudiated super 8 and 16mm, and about 10-15 years ago he donated all of his equipment to a school up in Northern California-- I think it was San Francisco City College, when Dennis Duggan was still there. In my view it's all well and good to move on, but why not continue what you once extolled in print? Why give up on the whole thing? Lipton seems pretty flaky to me.

[reflex]

Lenny Lipton repudiated super 8 and 16mm, and about 10-15 years ago he donated all of his equipment to a school up in Northern California-- I think it was San Francisco City College, when Dennis Duggan was still there. In my view it's all well and good to move on, but why not continue what you once extolled in print? Why give up on the whole thing? Lipton seems pretty flaky to me.

I don't think that's fair. It's unreasonable to think that just because someone extols a particular technology right now, that they should continue championing it until the end of time. He's gone digital in a big way, and it seems to be working for him and the major studios.

In the meantime, my last couple of carts of Super 8 just arrived back with stability issues that make them look like they were shot on the back of a charging rhino. Sure glad I stuck it out.

[super8man]

I think I am with Jim on this one...it always seems to be that those who once are so deeply involved in something eventually get born again and basically trash everything they once stood for.

There seems to be little room for "progression" - it's always replacement only. Sort of like how we view ex-relationship partners! Hahaha...

Interestingly, if you look at the religious history of Americans, this behaviour is quite normal.

[Angus]

Anyone who's seen a halfway decent IMAX 3D documentary, or even something fun like Polar Express, knows that 3D *can* add to the movie experence. Some of the documentaries are really enhanced by good use of the 3D system.

But 3D will only be here "for the duration" if it is used skillfully, to enhance the movie experience. If Hollywood uses it as a gimmick and is not careful, then people will quickly associate it with failures. Today many people think of 3D cinema as dubious 50's monster flicks.

[reflex]

Today many people think of 3D cinema as dubious 50's monster flicks.

The recent "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was also a dubious monster flick. I suspect that 3D will be most successful with CG animated films over the next few years, so expect an onslaught of digitally created animals, monsters and vehicles (gosh, we haven't had an airplane-themed Pixar film yet... perhaps Billy the Blimp or Zak the Zeppelin is on the horizon).