Stereoscopic Fail Scarring the name of Digital 3-D Cinema

Scar 3-D (2007 / 2008)
Stereoscopic Fail Scarring the name of Digital 3-D Cinema


Scar 3D - promotional still

As Saw V is still running in cinemas and going strong, the public is clearly not tired yet of the old torture porn genre. But Scar 3-D (Scar 3D) just didn’t go anywhere. Released in 2007, it hit English theatres just two weeks ago in November 2008. Sadly, I have not yet been able to see Scar 3-D in my local 3-D cinema as they pulled it after only one week and it looks like other cinemas are pulling it faster than you can say: “3-D bubble”. As the movie was already out on DVD (in anaglyph 3-D), that makes for an odd situation of a film going from cinema to DVD to cinema to DVD, while never hitting any interesting boxoffice numbers. It must, then, have been a sly attempt by its distributor to cash in on the current good press 3-D cinema is getting. And by doing so, the press for 3-D cinema just got a lot worse again.

The fast removal from theatres should be a very strong indicator that this title should probably never have hit the cinemas. But because it did, it got seen by cinema reviewers and they have been giving it a 0% rating overall (Rottentomatoes average). Ouch! That is an epic 3-Dimensional fail.

"This is not our parents’ 3-D with silly red & blue glasses", journalists wrote. No, it is much worse than that: it is a non-existent entertainment shot and projected in digital 3-D. So what is the point of all the superior digital hoohah when the movie itself is painfully bad in the content department?

This is not just the failure of one movie. A 0% rating for a movie with good 3-D photography (judging from the trailer) says something about the use of 3-D for movies overall. The acting and drama in the trailer look like absolute dross, but the use of 3-D looks beautiful. Strong conclusions can be drawn.


Scar 3-D - 3D analgyph still

One of the four following statements must be true, partially or fully, for a 0% approval rating to happen to a 3-D movie with good stereoscopic camera work:

1) 3-D does not add ANY value to a movie, regardless of how bad it is and regardless of the quality of the 3-D photography.

2) No matter how good the delivery is of a movie (colour, digital, 3-D, CinemaScope), if the story, acting and / or direction is bad, it is a waste of time and money.

3) 3-D does not add extra revenue, audience draw or promotional value to a movie if the movie itself (story, acting and / or direction) is bad.

4) Scar 3-D has not managed to use 3-D in any way, shape or form that even resembles an improvement to the entertainment value of the film overall and the story, its characters and the direction in specific.


Scar 3-D - 3D analgyph still

These conclusions should not read as a major surprise. A colour movie is not better than a black & white movie just because it is in colour – that is absolute nonsense. Yet to current 3-D film producers and 3-D proprietors like James Cameron it comes as a shock. Wasn’t 3-D going to add the extra 2 Dollars to the cinema ticket price and wasn’t the audience prepared to pay this extra amount, regardless? You mean we are actually still having to make proper movies with real stories, proper acting and decent directing? Well snap!

This shock realization has happened twice before in cinema history, namely in 1953 and in 1983, when 2 or 3 decent 3-D movies were flanked by 100 exploitation titles. Surprise, surprise, 3-D has been having a really bad name ever since. The fallout of 3-D boom years has been devastating to the name of 3-D with film critics and the average film-going audience. Stereo 3-D film is barely just recovering from it all and already punters are booing stereoscopic 3-D when discussing the slate of 2009-2010 upcoming film releases planned to be in 3-D. Another box office 3-D bomb like Scar 3-D and the digital 3-D boom year may never actually happen. Because who wants to be associated with a medium that is used in sub-par film releases to draw the extra buck without delivering anything more?


Scar 3D - 3-D analgyph still

So what IS the hope for a prosperous 3-D film future? Let’s revisit the 3 statements of above.

1b) It is difficult to refute this statement, as the proper 3-D photography of Scar 3D did not add even 1% of a more positive review. Perhaps this is due to the fact that 3-D enhances, or enlarges what is presented on screen. So an enhanced bad trip becomes a really bad trip, while an enhanced dream of a picture will become pure heaven. 3-D really can do this, but keep in mind: stereoscopic presentation of your cinematic story amplifies and really exposes the quality of the presented imagery. A bit like super HD showing all the spots and wrinkles on actors faces, which can be a bitch when you were just going for an awe-inspiring high definition experience.

2b) More pleasant delivery of any material will at least take away the blame from the delivery format. Are your patrons walking out of the cinema after 5 minutes, well, at least it wasn’t because your film was in 2-D. But has 2-Dimensionality ever been a reason to stay away from a movie? Sure, movie critics will always find a reason to complain, so the better the delivery format, the more focus there will be on the content of the film. If the content is bad, the critic will write: “The 3-D didn’t help save the bad story”. If the presentation was in 2-D rather than in 3-D, the critic will write: “This movie was clearly shot to work in 3-D, because I couldn’t find any reason to like the story in 2-D”. Can you ever win with these guys? Well, perhaps by presenting a good film that is enhanced by great 3-D…

3b) Poor financial returns for some 3-D movies does not mean that Stereo 3-D cannot add financial value to a film release, as a good movie can benefit from the 3-Dimenasional addition, while really good 3-D, added to a really good movie, makes for big boxoffice success. But go figure, the key term here is ‘good’, not ‘3-D’.

4b) What does the budding 3-D film director need to do to make the 3-D add to the entertainment value of his picture? Enhance the volume of characters, flatten them out, create claustrophobic scenes, deep and wide vistas, poke scary and funny things at the audience, wow with geometric intrigue and dwarf or giantize scenery and characters? All that and more.

The Reality of 3-D Television

One of the biggest financial elements for any film production is the promise of DVD and broadcasting sales. Some productions even go so far as to part or gap-finance productions with DVD pre-orders; a practise possible with well-established properties enjoying a big fan base. But what of Stereoscopic 3-D productions?




As written before, films playing in Real-D and Dolby 3-D theatres are simply not released in 3-D on any type of DVD or broadcast on television. There may be the odd distributor taking the step of active or passive 3-D plasma screen format versioning, but such a hardware market is not a real consumer fact yet and work on small screen reversioning is currently still close to working from a belief in the existence of a home theatre 3-D market rather than a basing these costs on a commercial reality. Anaglyph 3-D is still the most accessible and cost-effective 3-D release format for the small screen, yet it is quickly acquiring a bad name in the industry.


How not to watch analgpyh 3-D...

For some reason (most likely a financial one), Disney has distributed only 1 million anaglyph glasses and then asks of home viewers to construct their own anaglyph 3-D glasses using felt pens, clear film and cardboard for the Hannah Montana 3-D broadcast and DVD release. No surprise then that the girls doing this will walk away with a justified hate of very poor quality 3-D, but sadly also a distrust of anaglyph 3-D as a whole. Proper filtering using the red and blue of anaglyph is certainly possible and the results can be on par with a polarized projection solution, minus the hardware headaches and investments that polarized projection bring with it. But of course the think-tank at Real-D will advice Disney to distribute Hannah Montanna’s 3-D concert in this DIY way: it will be yet another nail in the coffin of consumer trust in anaglyph 3-D. Journalists are certainly doing a great job helping them with this, bashing anything other than polarized, digital projection on a daily basis – often without ever even having witnessed a proper anaglyph presentation themselves. But that’s the way these cookies crumble.



Practically speaking, what would a saturated, well functioning 3-D television market look like? The daily news in 3-D (rising interest rates – now in 3-D), the weather report in 3-D (tomorrow: more stereoscopic rain), sports broadcasts in 3-D (poor refereeing in and extra time in 3 Dimensions), cooking programs in 3-D (carrots flying left and right out of the screen), talkshows in 3-D (talking to the hand that’s comin’ at ya, coz the 3-D face ain’t listening), soaps in 3-D (pregnant with her husband’s best friend – in stereo, so probably with twins)…



In such a future, 3-D is the standard and 3-D cameras will be simple to operate, locked down to an EBU standard interocular, with SMPTE limited convergence control and, finally, an industry standard handbook on how to work it all. 57 3-D channels and still nothing on! Maybe 3-D TV should stay limited to a 3-D film and special event channel. Hannah Montana 3D, U23D, the NBA and World Cup rugby final in 3-D, followed by a late showing of Hondo (in all of its restored 3-D glory), House of Wax, Chicken Little, Beowulf and a 3-D converted Wizard of Oz. That will work and it will keep 3-D special. Because everyday 3-D will become as dull as 2-D in our present experience.


3-D Converted still from the 2-D version of Hondo -
just to complicate things even further

Beowulf on DVD in 3-D? Not.

Beowulf in 3-D on DVD? Not happening. Not today.

So what’s up with this? An awful lot of talk about 'Beowulf' being in 3-D and then when it comes to DVD release time, no 3-D version in sight. Not even close, nada, nothing.

The studio and distributor refuse to have you, the paying consumer, choose to see this movie on DVD in 3-D, in whatever 3-D format you choose. You would pay for it and you may even be willing to don the gear, like anaglyph glasses, field-sequential shutterglasses, Sensio 3-D decoding or even on an auto-stereoscopic 3-D Plasma TV. But you can’t because the reasoning of the men in power is like this: 3-D is what makes people come to the cinema and be willing to pay more than a regular cinema ticket. Hmm, but what about getting even more cash from home 3-D sales? Well, the distributors have been told by the Real-D and Dolby 3-D people that there is no way in which a home audience an enjoy 3-D like in the cinema, so one had better not release it in any of the available 3-D formats at all. So much for selling 3-D Plasma screens then eh?



The same cruel fate has been bestowed upon the 'Polar Express', 'Monster House', 'Superman Returns', 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix', 'Chicken Little', 'Open Season' and 'Meet the Robinsons'. And forget about the 200 or so 3-D titles from before 2003. You will never see them again if it’s up to Hollywood, if only maybe, possibly in re-released cinematic form, if you’re lucky. 'Hondo' is one such title that has been restored and brightened up for a 3-D release. Not a re-release in 3-D, as this is the first time it will be played in 3-D in movie theatres. What I’m really talking about are such jewels of 3-D cinematic history as ‘Jaws 3-D’, ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’, ‘Kiss me Kate’, ‘Dial M for Murder’, ‘Metalstorm’... ah, the list goes on and on.

‘Shrek 4-D’, ‘Spy Kids 3-D’, ‘Sharkboy & Lavagirl’ and ‘Barbie & the Magic of Pegasus’ were all released in anaglyph 3-D on DVD, while ‘Ghosts of the Abyss’, ‘Nascar 3-D’ and ‘Santa vs. the Snowman’ were released in field-sequential DVD format. Did those releases make anybody stop from going to the cinema and see 3-D or 2-D movies? No, of course not, nor did it spawn a crazy 3-D piracy binge. So what’s stopping the movers & shakers of Tinseltown?



Analgyph 3D isn’t the only format possible for 3-D DVD release. So what is actually possible and not used to release current 3-D film titles on DVD or HD-DVD / BlueRay DVD in 3-D?

1) Anaglyph 3-D. Red & Blue. I can hear the likes of James Cameron shouting from the back of the room: “Boo! Red Blue Bad! Away with the Devil’s 3-D tool!” Well, it works, it’s cheap to produce, the glasses are easy & cheap and no modifications are required to the TV set. A no-brainer then? True, there are some problems with anaglyph for TV in terms of colour reproduction and ghosting, but it’s not as bad as Cameron makes it sound. Better to see a film in a lesser 3-D format than not at all, IMHO!



2) Field-sequential 3-D. Electronic shutterglasses, AKA CrystalEyes. No booing this time, other than for the slow refresh rate of the TV signal (50/60Hz), which means heavy flickering and bad results for epileptics. Until the broadcast and DVD signal go to higher refresh rates, this will remain a problem. Currently, there is little development in this area.



3) Polarized 3-D on a screen with an active polarizer / polarizing surface. Really wonderful and in terms of quality close to the cinematic 3-D experience. Just on a much smaller screen, so the 3-D is much less impressive and much flatter. But that happens with any 3-D presentation format. Technically, this is still a tricky proposition and I know of only one screen and one screen adapter that can polarize field or frame-sequentially. Again, frame refresh rate is an issue, unless the DVD is encoded in something like Sensio format or a side-by-side anamorphic or checker format playing off a computer. But then you’ll need some hardware or software to decode that signal to work with the polarizer as well. Not commercially available at Best Buy, nor easy to set up in a living room, practically speaking.



4) Freeview glassless 3-D on a Plasma screen. Really wonderful and the stuff of people’s dreams, but again you’ll need the specially encoded source material and hardware or software to turn that signal into a lenticular-ready image. Very difficult and expensive to set up in the living room, as yet.



5) Polarized projection with twin projectors or a 3-D ready projector, onto a silver screen. Projection in your living room? Better keep those curtains closed at all times and not paint the wall in that lovely creamy yellow. Otherwise, you’ll be good to go with something of a computer setup to drive the twin-projectors. Ah, yes.


Watch U2 3D with Bono at your local multiplex or at home -
if it's released on 3D DVD, that is.

In short I would conclude that in order for a 3-D revolution to truly take off, home entertainment must not be overlooked and 3-D titles must be release on DVD in present day 3-D stereoscopic formats. In terms of cost and availability of hardware that quickly points to anaglyph 3-D presentation. Boo! Hiss! Yeah, but at least people can enjoy the 3-D at home after having shelved out for the more expensive cinema ticket! And what could possibly be wrong with that?