Thoughts on 3D, 4K+ and Prometheus
;
I’ve been wanting to write this post for quite awhile now ;- but have been waiting for the right time.
I think a few things have become better defined over the past 6 months for me and for many of the people that I’ve spoken to in the industry . These are my opinions only – but based on discussion with acquaintances at studios, fellow filmmakers, crew members, manufacturers, post houses and those who aren’t in the industry but go to the movies!
I think we’re seeing the start of the decline of 3D films. Several key tentpole films have decided against shooting 3D recently – and a major one (The Avengers) started in 3D and after several weeks decided to continue shooting in 2D because production was going too slowly.
I myself have only seen two films that I thought added value to the experience in 3D – Hugo and Prometheus. Both were masterfully shot and used the technique expertly. At times the 3D effect was apparent (for effect) and the rest of the time it was there but not a distraction – which is what I think any technique should try for (not to be noticed.)
That being said, I can’t say that 3D ultimately transformed the viewing experience for me – it did not transport me into a different kind of place or appreciation for the films I’ve seen. I’m willing to put up with glasses or other gadgets if they take the viewing experience and or the way I relate (emotionally or intellectually) to the content to a new level – but I can’t say it has done so yet for me unfortunately.
I’ve never felt that the use of 3D in a film has fundamentally changed the way I felt or connected to the film or story – and in fact I’ve more often than not felt that the use of 3D detracted from the film.
I have always found the vast majority of glasses to be a pain, they make the image darker, and tend to shift the color of the film as well (as silly as this is, I found that I couldn’t sink into my seat and lean my head back when watching Prometheus on the IMAX 3D screen – and get lost into the film. If I did so the angle wasn’t quite right for 3D – so I had to sit more upright throughout the film.) A lot of high speed action or camera movement simply doesn’t seem to work at 24 fps either (and that’s partly why Jackson and Cameron are pushing for 48fps.) I also find that I am forced to look in the one spot where the 3D image converges – and that my eyes can no longer hunt around the frame as freely as I can with 2D films – which is a huge part of the filmgoing experience for me
And those are a few of the reasons why I don’t see 3D as viable until some technology changes the experience for the better. I think 3D is excellent for animation, sports, nature and any other specialized content. I really do not see 3D adding much to the drama genre of films.
I will mention that the yet-to-be-released RED laser projector made a HUGE difference in how I experienced 3D relative to what is out there. I was lucky enough to get a screening of RED’s technology at their studios and was told that James Cameron said that the projector was the first time he ever experienced "Avatar" the way it was meant to be experienced.
I think the future is 4K+ personally. The key word is "future." I think that it will be awhile until the industry (outside of tentpole films) will make the leap in terms of their workflow, distribution and until we have 4K+ televisions at home. I do think the future of cinema for large budget films is in higher resolution when those films can be enjoyed in high end theaters, with top of the line projectors (that are maintained) and large (30+ foot) screens.
Most theaters right now cannot take full advantage of 4K projectors given their lackluster quality controls and screen size. Yet the top theaters, and notably IMAX theaters can definitely take advantage of it. I’m still slightly on the fence to be honest – I think that the soft 2K Alexa image just "feels" more filmic than 4K+ cameras out there. (The camera has a 1/4 classic soft filter in front of its sensor.) Yet one has to wonder how much nostalgia is playing a part in that opinion. I think it’s important to focus on what newer (younger) generations will want going forward. Will they truly miss the look of film? One has to wonder: at some point they won’t be able to miss something they’ve never seen?
I know that audiences have been voting pretty clearly: towards seeing more and more films in 2D even when a 3D version is available. My kids hate 3D for one thing… the glasses…
I would also like to note that I saw Tom Lowe’s "Timescapes" film in both 2K and 4K. (More to come on that soon!) Light Iron was gracious enough to set up a screening of the film that I had first seen at NAB (in 2K) – and I have to tell you it was noticeably more mesmerizing in 4K. I wouldn’t hesitate to pay a premium for a 4K projection of a film for example. That being said, I wonder how many people out there will be able to tell the difference between 2K and 4K in smaller theaters or on regular-sized televisions in their home – you really need to see 4K+ on a large screen to truly appreciate it. A scary number of people polled still can’t tell the difference between SD and HD on their home televisions, and many cable providers still only offer 1080i or 720p on their "HD" channels… point being, you need a large television/projector screen at home or in the theater to truly take advantage of the technology. When you DO have that large screen though – the experience is noticeable and adds a new dimension to the film. And that dimension has nothing to do with 3D! I agree with many filmmakers that say that well shot films in 2D are far from "flat!" I definitely encourage you to share your thoughts on 3D and 4K in the comments section – I’m very interested to hear what you all think.
I went to see Ridley Scott’s "Prometheus" in IMAX 3D this past week. As I mentioned, the 3D was excellently done. But I would quickly have given it up in exchange for seeing the film in the full 5K it was shot in on the RED Epic camera. I found that the 2K image that was being projected was dark, uneven, and that I could see notably over-sharpened edges on most shots (and I was seated dead center of the IMAX theater.) I trust the original 5K files are stunning and would be even more so if projected on a IMAX screen.
As far as Prometheus – I thought it was a good film. The directing, cinematography, casting, and set design / CGI were absolutely superb. The screenplay didn’t quite have the "umph" that "Aliens" did… I didn’t think it was quite as bad as some people out there were making it out to be. Although I agree the ending left a lot to be desired.
What I did find interesting is how the way an audience consumes and talks about films has fundamentally changed since "Aliens" came out – due, of course, to the internet / blogging/ twitter. It’s amazing to see a film make or break it – in less than the 72 hours of its opening weekend. Definitely a frightening thing for any filmmaker – audiences aren’t holding anything back these days in terms of criticism.
That being said – I’d challenge any pundit to shoot a single scene in Prometheus half as well as Mr. Scott did… Critiquing a film is always exponentially easier than it is to make one – something that is far too often and easily forgotten! !
Yet – here is a fun little poke at the film’s plot. Definitely worth a watch (the below is a comedic shortened version of the full review, which can be found HERE).
I think the biggest technical hurdle with film these days has nothing to do with cameras, lenses, or workflow – it seems to be that all too often the quality of the screenplay (or more to the point the quality of the story / storytelling.) It is after all about STORY and HOW WELL you tell it.
To that point one of my favorite Stanley Kubrick quotes:
"Everything has already been done. every story has been told every scene has been shot. it’s our job to do it one better. -Stanley Kubrick"
Finally a sane person talks about this 3D madness. Thank you Sir!
And thus ends the 4th or 5th (?) era of Stereoscopic 3D movies… 😉
I always thought of 3D as a cool gimmick instead of the real future of feature filmmaking. Depth on screen does not depend on 3D indeed. In the end it’s all about the story.
I recall Christopher Nolan has the same complaints about 3D asyou have. (His work doesn’t look flat either 😉 )
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It seems we’re on the same ‘wavelength’ on this subject.
I really enjoy some 3D movies. I thought Avatar was much better in 3D, it removed some of the “cartooney” look in my opinion. Prometheus was also really well made, and I felt the 3D enhanced the overall experience. I saw it in both 2D and 3D.
My only criticism is the darkness. The screen is so much darker, and I dont like that.
Greetings gentleman,
Ever since I’ve seen Prometheus I’ve been really keen to do the very same – write about how 3D isn’t exactly improving the film going experience because of the technical challenges.
First, if you watch 3D films with circular polarisation glasses they provide you with the very best experience because you can indeed move you’re head around and tilt it without loosing the stereoscopic decoding. Pardon the publicity, Real3D usually uses circular polarisation glasses on premium venues and it’s really the best I’ve experienced so far. Light losses depend a lot on what type of polymer is used for the eye glass, cheap stuff really looses a lot of light. Linear suffers more losses than circular because the “optimum” alignment is so narrow. Last but not least, the brightness of the projector is really important to compensate for the loss of the polarisation.
I’m a media engineer, I’ve been working with the tech since Sony has made it feasible to the masses – every little piece in the chain, both capture and projection, is crucial.
I’ve watched Prometheus in Europe’s largest widescreen and UK’s best venue – spare the publicity – it was near perfect to be honest. While the 3D didn’t enhanced the experience, it most definitively added extra “space” to the playstage. The adjustment of the interocular space – while shooting – according to the scene depth was really well done, the circular polarisation allowed negative and positive depth – meaning the 3D image forms inwards and outwards the screen – and the cinematography was as Scott’s standards – excellent.
Just like George Lucas created THX to ensure sound is the very best across venues, there should be one universal stereoscopic projection standards, not for commercial sake but for audience benefit – provide all audiences the very best 3D experience.
3D has a long way to go, resolution is another major thing – I’ll comment on the technicalities if you post something about it, Arri and others have done extensive research about higher resolutions including 6K, the improvement for the audience really depends on the venue geometries and the viewer distance to the screen – I’m mostly excited about the improvements in the sound front, mainly Dolby Atmos.
Kind regards and thank you for the excellent blog.
I think 60 FPS for 3D is the least of all problems when most operators run thier projectors at 3 ft-L or below to extend the bulb lifetime….
VIncent,
i agree wholeheartedly and my guess is that a large part of the trend towards 3D has a lot to do with financial incentives. The only time 3D is warranted IMHO is when it is integral to the storytelling. 2 examples come to mind, Wim Wenders ‘Pina’ and Werner Herzog’s ‘Cave of Forgotten Dreams’, but these were also documentaries, not narrative films. The use of 3D was even superfluous in Hugo.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/21/3034664/damon-lindelof-extended-interview-On-The-Verge-episode-006
Check out this interview with the co-writer of Prometheus, Damon Lindelof. He also wrote for ‘Lost’.
I note that this blog a long time, some of the views or to support ?And i hope to learn a lot of communication with bloggers if i have time,ome time because of the style and methods are not doing things the same
Here is my opinion from a VFX standpoint :
In stereo you just try to get the shots done in time. The more you come closer to the deadline the more it is about fixing technical glitches instead of improving “the picture”.
VFX will be on a higher quality level in 2D than in 3D.
That is another price to pay for stereo (beside dark projection and heavy glasses)
@Rearu Sato, Great comments, real information. Thanks a lot
After seeing a lot of the tentpole 3D-films I am more frustrated about my experience than anything. Because for me: Avatar and Hugo was probably the worst time I’ve ever had while watching 3D-movies. And I’ve never even experienced that “comin’ at ya!” -feeling of something thrown at the camera.
The latter part is probably because my eyes have some problems with the competing notions of something coming rapidly at me in Z depth and still I should focus on the distant screen. The result? Image splits and goes to the either side of my face and the depth effect is totally lost. What I have to do is to manually override my own eye-movements to experience this negative Z-depth. And this is brain-activity I could be using to enjoy the movie. So it distances me from the story.
The earlier part about Hugo and Avatar I will largely blame on the projection-system. I have yet to view Polarized 3D. I’ve only tried the Active Shutter 3D -method. Technically it should be the same or even superior because it doesn’t matter what angle my head is at. The glasses will decode the image-stream correctly for each eyes anyway. But there’s one big problem. The streams are off-set in time slightly. Most people have no problem with this, but to me… it’s like watching a TV where the interlaced feed has messed up the field-order. I call this “3D-flicker”. How does it manifest itself? Well. If objects are thinner than the distance it travels. The objects start to move erratically. Instead of moving from 1-10 like predicted (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) it’s all SNAFU (1,3,2,4,6,5,7,9,8,10). And the worst offenders where Avatar because of the high prevalence of blades of grass and leaves and Hugo because of Scorceses rapid camera-movements. Both produce Flickery messes of confusion in scenes that should be action-packed and exciting. And again. I’m even more distanced from the story.
Prometheus avoided both of these pitfalls. Almost never was anything important significantly outside of the screen-plane and with the exception of a couple of scenes, the flicker-effect was avoided too. Leaving me with a movie I was surprised I could concentrate on the content and not put brainpower into actively deciphering the messy visuals.
That all being said… The VERY best 3D I have EVER experienced was in a 2D showing of a space documentary in domed IMAX form called OMNIMAX. No glasses. Only 24 fps. But no 3D-flicker and no double-images.
Now, I’m not saying that resolution is the answer, that omnimax-showing had something that no other screens I have seen had. Total immersion of the field of view. That, more than anything gave me the illusion of depth that all of the 3D-screenings have severely lacked. I’m sure they show 3D on that screen too, but I have yet to try it out.
I am sure that if I experienced a screening that’s free of both 3D-flicker and double-image-splitting. I would love the 3D-format… but as of right now… It’s more of a distraction than anything immersive. A lot like shakey-cam is supposed to bring you into the film on its realism but I’m spending too much time deciphering what the motion blur is supposed to be to really enjoy or invest myself in the story.
Like we have heard time, and time again..The technology is not quite there yet. But I don’t think it’s 100% the Cameras fault…
I think we will need goggles or a helmet with 180 degrees viewing, and Immersive sound and movement like “Transformers the Ride” at Universal Studios Hollywood http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/attractions/transformers-the-ride-3d/
These are the only Techniques/Technology that will truly make 3D in Theaters Enjoyable & Profitable.
Our Future generations & Future Audiences worldwide will demand it anyway.
Just to update my post above, My thoughts are that one day we will have films shot so that the audience will be able to choose a characters POV to view it from, with that kind of Technology you could view a movie with a group of friends and actually physically turn your head and look at your friend sitting next to you and see another actor/character from the film, Now that would be insane!
I’m not a subscriber of 3D myself – and have felt as though it was a cost effective gimmick to throw it on the back end of all these previously released movies until the studios could conjure up a script to shoot.
But I do have a question – in my favorite local theater it boasts on screen 4k, but it’s a normal size projection screen (not IMAX) so would this be a bit of a marketing stretch? And also, is the appeal for filmmakers to shoot 5k, when all that will be screened nationwide is 2k, the future proofing of their piece?
Thanks so much for your candor –
When 3d came out they charged $3 for the glasses and/or for the cost of upgrading the screen/projector. That’s what they told us.
It clearly wouldn’t take too long to pay off the cost, but the surcharge never came down. Some AMCs now have $4 and $5 surcharges, and some century theatres even have a surcharge for a bigger screen and more speakers. (double charge for 3d in those theatres)
The surcharge is horrible, and I refuse to see a movie in 3d if I don’t have to, and I’ll never pay a theatre more simply for “a better screen”– if it’s so much better, why aren’t all screens made like that?
Great post!
Utilize 3D production in a way you can properly benefit from the 3D experience; like the above mentioned, nature, sports, animation.
I have my fingers crossed Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister will put the nail in the coffin. The IMAX experience does not need to rely on 3D. A well made film shot with 65mm film is worth the price of admission.
Personally I love 3D films, but only when they have been filmed in 3D; not that converted rubbish where it’s converted weeks before the films release mainly due to greedy producers or producers etc (cough cough Clash of the Titians). Truly 3D films bring us back to the origins of film, to take us away from our lives to new places. This is what films such as Avatar and Prometheus (even though I hated Prometheus) did perfectly as they were set [on] wonderful, mysterious new world(s) which you were brought that extra closer with 3D as the cinema screen is practically a window i.e. you can see far away, midway objects through the window or objects coming through the window (as Peter Jackson said). Admittedly 3D is only suited to huge movies like Avatar, Prometheus Tron Legacy etc with grand ideas so the idea of 3D benefiting any film like Jack & Jill doesn’t work; which is where the greed can really come through by studios.
I’ve never noticed this dimness when watching 3D films at the cinema, only when you watch 3D using active shutter glasses (that I doubt are in cinemas due to the price tag on those glasses) at your local TV store… Passive technology (non battery glasses) always seem to be fine, but then again I presume that can differ due to the quality of the glasses if your at a run-down like cinema in comparison to the Vue cinema(s) I go to.
Ultimately I don’t see 3D films going anytime soon. Too much money has been invested into these Digital projectors, which project 2K+, and 3D so the option of films being projected in 3D won’t go (can’t say that about Film; Film’s definitely on it’s last legs) and studios are passionately pushing for films to be in 3D (and digital) with no sudden signs of stopping even if some viewers see a 3D film in 2D as they still make more money with both versions released … shot or converted just to get that extra buck.
Well,
I am not a fan of 3D. I find it distracting and I see it as an another gimmick how to recycle old films and drain money from viewers. Various forms of 3D’ve around for years and nobody gave a hoot.
I fear the day when the 24fps will be dropped in favor of 30,48,60 or whatever framerate as higher frame rates make the motion “too fast” for me and the “smooth” movement of characters becomes rushed and jittery. But I cannot keep myself wondering if the people about 100 years ago felt the same way when they switched from about 18 fps to 24fps with sound as that is (at least that what I read) the least number of frames when the sound is usable when encoded on the frames. Otherwise for the silent movies the 18fps was sufficent to show motion.
You are right mentioning younger generations that did not see any film being projected from the film. They watch films at home on bluray and they will drive the movie market. I cannot say I am looking in to future with lot of optimism.
Someday we’ll have to chat about this Vince, but aside from huge theater screens no one in the home will practically ever be able to tell the difference with 4K. Even on a big 103″ screen like I have. Unless you sit very very close. It’s a non starter for most human eyeballs, period. You kind of admit that in your piece, so I think large screen cinema (even then, in the first set of rows) will be the only place to practically benefit. For home/broadcast it’s silly. The eyes have it!
What do you think of 24 fps? I think it destroys movies. A HD movie is in HD until it starts moving. Nice blog!!
On the 3D issue, my views are exactly what Vincent says.
I would like to comment on his view that 4K is the future, and people might want to pay a premium to watch something on 4K.
I would like this to be true, but I feel that “normal people” (which means people who have nothing to do with the film/photo industry either professionally or as a hobby) don’t really care or understand. When I spend a lot of time color-correcting something I shot, I know that I am doing this mostly for “peer-approval” and reputation and not really for the end viewer (I am not involved in big-budget films but in smaller productions for television or web use). As a test, I have shown the original footage (before color-correction) to people and no one outside the industry can find something wrong.
Another thing: after mobile phones, iphones, web-only films etc people of this generation have subconsciously lowered their standards of quality. I remember that back in the 90’s you couldn’t use any amateur Hi8 material on television, it was being rejected by the Quality Control department! Now, you can show 320×240 video from youtube without anyone blinking. So, if people are willing to watch something in lower quality (even pirated movies shot on cameras from inside a movie theater!), I find it difficult to make them care for the difference between 2K and 4K (which they can’t see, anyway)…
prothetheus although shot with epics was finished in 2k
Vincent Laforet Reply:
June 26th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Yes I know. I would have given 3D up to see it in 4K…. That’s my point.
Just saw Prometheus. Visually v depressing. For me it just looked very videoy, plastic, soulless and the motion looked so uncinematic. Sets looked like cardboard, the high resolution just doesn’t add anything, it takes away, there’s no mystery. Compared to blade runner or alien it just doesn’t come remotely close. The red epic just falls apart. It has no soul! 5k? WHY? I don’t want to feel like I’m looking at something as if it’s really there, I want cinema which to me has a distant, dreamlike and mysterious quality. Anyway…. Rant over
i confess.
i don´t get the 3D.
i went to see avatar 2 times to avoid projection issues,
i felt vertigo but i didn´t see a movie.
months later i watched the film at home and at last i understood what was the movie about.
in 3D avatar is beautiful, intelligent, awesome,
but i couldn´t get what was going on.
give me imax or old movies in vistavision.
any moment of the searchers or the first plane of the back of the joker in the dark knight with that deep of field, that for me is the real 3D, makes me jump out of the roof.
those images are able to tell me, to make me feel, all the things for i love cinema.
maybe is simple, too old to 3D to young to die.
OK, I get that you’re luke-warm on 3D, but I have to share this poem, which helps me to remember how to pronounce your last name:
If La 4A
were to make a movie in a La 3D,
oh what a joy it would be La 2C.
(I know you pronounce it La Fer Ahy, but La 4A is pretty close)
Cheers.
Vincent Laforet Reply:
December 9th, 2012 at 3:06 am
Ok weird 😉
アレã‚サンダーワン レディース coach éž„ 新作 http://cangzhouvr.celinebyhatchjp.org/