A future of 3-D through the eyes of Blue Alien Giants

A future of 3-D through the eyes of Blue Alien Giants

As published in this month's Veritas et Visus magazine

It is being heralded as the 3D movie that will single-handedly save the stereoscopic industry, or, rather, kick-start it into full gear and propel it into the common man’s cinema diary and living room. Avatar.

All stereographers talk about it with awe and expectation, while salesmen of 3-D hardware excitedly shout out its name. But what is Avatar? A high-concept science-fiction film of the purest kind. Space marines, alien planets, a war between man in spaceships and helicopters and exoskels with machine guns and a jungle-bound alien race of blue giants.

Some would describe it as effects for effects’ sake, but whatever the case, it doesn't sound like a broad audience movie. By all accounts Avatar should have been a niche market film, appealing to young men and even younger boys. Are our mothers and wives going to want to invest emotional energy into giant blue warmongering aliens? They have spoken in their billions and have said and unequivocal 'Yes'. Sci-fi is mainstream again in 2010, especially when it's in 3-D.

It would appear that the largest part of the cinema-going and movie-buying audience does not need to be convinced that wearing 3-D glasses is not stupid, annoying or even uncomfortable any more. At least not in the cinema. Dissing anaglyph glasses is still not the way forward though, because it is the diss that is remembered, not the difference between dichromatic and polarized image separation. Yes, glasses could be physically more comfortable, but that does not take away the psychological barrier most people experience when faced with the prospect wearing them over their TV dinner.


Honestly, you won't look like Nerd, nor will you go bald when you wear 3-D specs

So how can we remove this inbuilt reluctance and fear? By presenting the doubters and cynics with their favorite content in really well shot 3D and letting the power of word of mouth do its job.

In my opinion the key to a 3-D future lies in the romantic comedy, the costume drama and the psychological thriller. Taking real numbers as found on IMDB, less than 1 in 10 movies produced overall is a science-fiction or fantasy film (6%), 1 in 10 movies is a family film (including animation, 10%) while 5 in 10 movies are a romantic comedy / drama (47%), yet when it comes to 3D movies slated for a 2009 release, 3 out of 10 movies is a science-fiction / horror / action film (33%), almost 4 out of 10 is animation / fantasy / music (35%) and just more than 2 out of 10 is a documentary (24%). The remaining 1 out of 10 movies (9%) is reserved for music specials and naughty movies, while no romantic comedies of drama films are slated for 3D release. How can there possibly be proper penetration of stereo 3D as a mass-audience medium if the main types of cinematic story are not told in 3D? If Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep don’t look good in 3D, don’t even bother trying to sell the 3D Ready LCD screens.



In terms of broadcast TV, cooking programs and reality shows will have to work with 3D to make financial sense. Again, sales men are focusing all their energy on sports broadcasts and thus targeting boys and men. But what is one football match in a sea of time-filling content such as that of The Apprentice, Strictly Come Dancing, As the World Turns, Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer? That is what the reality of a 3D stereoscopic future is all about. We all know a tomato will look fantastic in 3D and that bargain diamond ring on QVC’s home shopping channel will sell very well when it pops off the screen, but what about book reviews and embarrassing celebrity reality filler? I, for one, will not feel enticed to don 3-D glasses to watch animals do the funniest things – in 3-D. But perhaps I just don’t know what I’ll be missing yet...


Oh yeah - LOLcatz in 3-D. It's the future of entertainment!

On the production side of things the only way for a true 3D switch-over to happen is complete standardization and idiot-proofing of recording, playback and delivery hardware. Of course us stereo experts will all be out of a job when everything is standardized and built-in, so we can all enjoy long weekdays in front of the 3D television. Fixed interaxials for studio shoots, fixed minimum distances to the camera, no more convergence control and a pipeline that allows for previewing and editing in the final screen size of choice all the way. No more need for lookup tables and heated discussions over what to do or not do in 3D.



Producers want a straight off-the-shelve stereoscopic camera and pipeline solution and that’s what they will get. We will see a return to cameras with three fixed lens options as standard in the 1950s and 60s. But what is the bulk of 3D films to be produced with such standardized equipment going to look like? Creative 3D control will go out the window. On most productions, that should actually be a blessing though: watch one movie with divergence and vertical parallax and you will agree with this point.

Experience is everything in 3-D shooting and even then, with veteran stereographers at
the helm, eyestrain can creep in. Automatic, real-time vertical parallax detection and correction hardware will remove the strain of having to precisely align a 3-D camera rig before every shot. Miniature cameras and lenses will mean effortless, small and light 3-D rigs that don’t even
look like they contain 2 cameras or lenses. And to top everything off, image capture will happen with inbuilt retinal rivalry correction and will be dual-stream compatible all the way down the pipeline without you even noticing it.


No more heavy camera rigs in the 3-D future

Will you still be excited about 3-D in this future? Well no, because it will be a normal, every-day, run-off-the-mill format – unless we will shoot extraordinary content in it and produce visual stories that have never been seen or experienced before. And although Avatar may be breaking new ground in terms of VFX and live-action integration, it is its story and characters that are going to determine whether we will want to see more science fiction films about giant blue aliens in 3-D.


Blue Aliens are all the rage!

A little bit of Stereoscopic 3D perspective

Toy Story 3-D: Something Pixar promised not to do

Toy Story 3-D. Pixar has said in the past that they could not see any reason to release their films in 3-D. When asked personally in 2007, Monsters Inc.'s Peter Docter was clear on the subject by stating: "We have looked at 3-D in the past and have come to the conclusion that there is little to no way in which 3-D can indeed enhance the quality of our storytelling or enhance the character interaction in a meaningful way". And as we all know Pixar is all about stories and character interaction. Lo and behold, Disney purchases Pixar and suddenly the news comes out in 2008: all Pixar movies will, from now on, be released in 3-D. Not only that, but Toy Story 1 and 2 will be re-released in 3-D as well, leading up to the 3-D release of Toy Story 3. So who or what is behind this sudden change of mind? Disney marketing? Why else does the animation studio with the most integrity in the industry change its mind overnight about 3-D, going against their own, strong beliefs about Stereoscopic 3-D film? In PR releases the reason mentioned is digital 3-D projection because, in some people's minds, projection equals story.


U2 3-D - anaglyph still not representative of the actual Real-D experience.
Don't worry. Fun to see an actual 3-D PR still, though, no?

Jon Shapiro, producer of U23D:
"3-D has been a gimmick in the past that has been used to fend of radio and then television, but now with digital technology we can shoot perfect 3-D to the pixel."

So how does shooting digital not make 3-D a gimmick, exactly? Because now you are shooting out-of-screen effects with digital cameras? What a strange argument... 'Spy Kids', 'Sharkboy & Lavagirl' and 'Ghosts of the Abyss' are, with all due respect, the living proof of why HD filming does not necessarily equal good 3-D. And why would it? HD is a recording format, not an artistic quality assurance. In fact, shooting HD with it's real-time playback ability appears to hurt a good 3-D end result as directors don't need to visualize shots in their head any more, but tinker and tweak on the spot. A shoot on a Monday morning will thus result in different 3-D camera parameters than one done on a Friday afternoon - as the crew will have different visual tolerances on the different days.


James Cameron switches back to a beamsplitter camera setup
after promoting the Fusion 3-D side-by-side camera for years and years

James Cameron:
"Even in its crude form when it (3-D) first debuted in 1951, 3-D cinema demonstrated the power to captivate audiences. However, inadequacies in camera and projector technology resulted in eyestrain and other viewing hardships that quickly killed the medium."

Cameron's 3-D response to those 'inadequate' 3-D movies? Shoot a 3-D film with 1080p cameras, with an interocular of 70mm and converge on subjects 1m away from the camera, while being underwater with deep, deep scenes, with dirt floating at 1mm distance in front of the lens. Then blow this material up to IMAX size and call it the future of 3-D. You mentioned eyestrain and viewing hardship? It's not the recording method that matters, it's using the medium to shoot pleasant 3-D and tell interesting stories. Why is the argument of gripping narrative and cinematic quality confused with projection quality? Because that's one of the very few elements that has changed dramatically over 55 years since Hollywood gave us 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' and 'Radar Men from the Moon' in 3-D.


Convergence, as used in the Fusion 3-D camera rig, is bad for 3-D

So are we seeing a real 3-D revolution? And are there other reasons for the historic failure of 3-D rather than just misaligned projectors? Time for a little reality check:


3-D Stereoscopic Film releases over the years from 1920 to 2010

The real 3-D revolution happened in 1953. There are no two ways about it. The camera and projection systems may now be called ‘inadequate’, but Hollywood had switched over to 3-D in a very real way. The amount of 3-D film released in 1953 and ’54 was not only larger in absolute umber by a factor of 10, compared to the amount of ‘regular’ 2-D films released in ‘53 and ’54, the percentage of 3-D films released and to be released in 2008 is also 10x less than the percentage in ’53 – ’54. So what is going on here? Is it a good old American cover-up of historical facts to the benefit of promotion of new technologies and new product? It is impossible to compare 1950’s 3-D movies to stereoscopic films of today because both eras produce(d) very different cinematic end products. 'The Creature from the Black Lagoon' may not make you scream in terror today, but back in 1953 it was pretty darn impressive stuff. So how can you call those 3-D films ‘cheap’, ‘naff’ or ‘inadequate’? As said, it is the cinematographic use of 3-D that should dictate the judgement of the stereoscopic entertainment, and if you do insist on focussing on the storylines and rubber suits, take a very close second look at today’s 3-D releases because what exactly are the stories being told in 3-D today? Exactly: horror, fantasy and spectacle films. It’s still a big House of Wax here!


House of Wax - still amazing 3-D