3D or 3-D: the big question

There is a great confusion within the 3-D stereoscopic industry regarding the correct use of the term '3-D'. So what is it: 3D, 3-D, 3-Dimensional or StereoVisionScope-o-Rama? And should we actually still be putting the '3-D' label on a 3-D film poster?


Jaws 3-D Film Poster

Before computer graphics existed, right up to the 1980's, the term '3D' referred to both Stereoscopic imagery and Stop-Motion work and sometimes even multi-planing 2D imagery. The two didn't get confused because Animation and Live-action were in completely different leagues. For example, the Disney short 'Old Mill' (1937), was billed as a '3-D cartoon'. By that they meant multi-planing. The Fleischer studio went further and introduced multiplaning of cells on top of a real set: the 'Tabletop 3D Background Process' in 'Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves' (1937). Both processes were billed as 3D and 3-D, but neither was Stereoscopic.


Still of Popeye in the Tabletop 3D process

At the same time, since 1920 shorts and films have been released stereoscopically in theatres, billing themselves as '3D', '3-D', '3-Dimension' and 'Third Dimension', depending on the whim of the PR department.


Poster for Audioscopiks (1935)

There have been numerous creative terms used as well, such as 'DimensionScope', 'FreddyVision', 'Future Dimension' and 'HorrorScope' (it is a long list) and this tradition continues to today, with terms such as 'Fusion 3-D'. In 3-D, little changes over the years...

Since the 1980's, in general, '3D' is used to describe '3D CGI', so simply computer generated imagery, while '3-D' most often refers to Stereoscopic imagery.


Ultimate 1980's 3-D film fodder

One way of avoiding confusion is to employ the word 'Stereoscopic' whenever you write '3-D', or 'Stereo 3-D' for short (an abbreviation coined by James Cameron). Personally, I find the shortest abbreviation of 'S3D' or 'S-3D' (coined by Neil Schneider of MTBS3D) ugly and even confusing so I'd never use that.

On a side note, interestingly, techniques such as Pulfrich and Chromadepth should not be be called '3-D' at all, as they are not based on two unique images combined to form a single volumetric image, but rather play on the brain's laziness or confusion to create the illusion of depth (certainly not volume).

And then I have had Italians talk to me about '3D Lenses', which will be a literal translation from Italian. I am sure the Spanish use a similar term.

Still, 'Stereoscopic 3-D' is the international standard term and my advice is to keep using '3-D' in stead of '3D' when talking about two-eye imagery.


1950's 2D animated 3-D with Bugs Bunny

With modern day advertising and PR press releases, what strikes me as odd is the paradox of what Stereoscopic 3-D is made out to be and supposed to become, according to the over-quoted Katzenberg, Schklair and Cameron, and how it is marketed time and again. The famous ‘3-D’ logo on film posters should say enough of what 3-D is to producers and distributors: a marketing tool.

If 3-D is supposed to be the new standard and all films are supposed to be shot in 3-D, then why put the 3-D logo on the poster? And if people can choose between seeing a film in 2-D or in 3-D how can that be justified in artistic terms? Is the film shot for 3-D presentation or does the 3-D not really matter? Because do we offer cinema-goers the option of seeing films in black&white or silent, and is the fact that a film is shot in colour and with sound advertised on film posters? No, of course not, because that would be silly, right? Yet this practice is par for the course with 3-D.


My Bloody Valentine: 'modern' 3-D
with classic subject matter

Worryingly, punters are indeed already opting to see the 2-D version of 3-D films at their local cinema and have started lambasting plans for shooting upcoming films in 3-D in film forums because of indifference towards the artistic merits of eye-poking 3-D shots, the $2 surcharge for 3-D cinema tickets and an aversion to wearing 3-D glasses.

So I suggest this statement: that 3-D is not so much an evolution of cinema in the line of sound, colour, 3-D, as different medium, somewhere inbetween film and theatre. But that is a different discussion altogether. Actually, click here for that discussion...

Top three 3-D movies of all time

Just a quick top three after a recent visit to Box Office Mojo:

The top three 3-D movies of all time
Numbes reflect total International Gross
Corrected for inflation (ticket price)

1. Spy Kids 3-D (2003)
35mm Anaglyph projection
$230,504,018

2. Jaws 3-D (1983)
35mm Polarized projection
$197,970,873

3. Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D (2008)
Digital 3-D projection
$96,387,658

So not only is the highest grossing 3-D movie of all time a very 'simple' anaglyph 35mm projection, its budget is definitely also the lowest of the three.

It is good to see a polarized 35mm projection on the number two spot, and then, finally, a digitally projected 3-D film. James Cameron must be hissing and huffing and puffing. Well, with his upcoming 3-D movie Avatar having a $195,000,000 budget and a niche Sci-fi market to play the movie to, he will certainly continue to do so...

And so which film of the top three is the most recognizable and memorable of them all? Exactly, Jaws 3-D. That film from 1983 that today’s journalists can’t bash enough – whenever they aren’t generally bashing anaglyph as a release format, that is. Too bad then it’s not them, but Robert Rodriguez who is laughing all the way to the bank with a hefty $186,000,000 cheque in his pocket for the anaglyph Spy Kids 3-D. People, wake up to the reality of what works in 3-D and why.

Glib Reduction

When reading recent articles about 3-D Stereoscopic production in the 21st Century, one cannot escape being snowed under by slick corporate press release material rather than being presented with objective news and facts about 3-D Film production. A recent article in a prominent and well-read television & film industry magazine provides a very good example. It published so many unresearched, uncritical, copy-pasted press release material that I decided to spring into action and reply to the editor-in-chief regarding the gross inaccuracies. Of course, an editor will never admit to these kinds of mistakes and no confirmation of receipt was ever sent back, so here are the article extracts and my responses to them for your 3-D fact finding pleasure.

---

Article:
"The presentation of films in 3D is as old as the movie business itself, but clumsy technology and unrealistic effects have so far kept it out of the mainstream."

Reply:
The 3-D boom of 1953-54, when over 100 Hollywood 3-D feature titles were released, did so using twin-camera filming and polarized projection - the only difference with today's technology being that it was done on 35MM film, rather than on HD video. You have clearly never seen a twin-projected film from 1953, as most of them blow today's 3-D releases right out of the water in terms of a 3-D cinematic experience. The claim of "unrealistic effects" is based on nothing, as exactly the same 3-D compositions, shots and camera moves are employed today as they were then.


Article:
"The technology to achieve and watch 3D has come a long way since cinema-goers wearing red and green glasses leapt from their seats during Jaws 3D. That was in 1983, when a film created for traditional projection was then rendered into 3D in post-production."

Reply:
Sorry, but this is completely based on fantasy and, I strongly suspect, misinformation supplied by modern day 3-D camera system providers. Jaws 3-D was shot with a 3-D camera adapter called StereoVision, on 35MM film. This was then projected using, as in 1953, polarizing projection lenses, but this time using special StereoVision projector adapters. The beauty of that system is that it all worked with existing technology and standards of the time - unlike today's need for digital switch-over before 3-D can be presented. No red-blue anaglyphs were ever used to project this movie other than maybe for poor cinemas in the Asian subcontinent and lagging-behind (or poorly supplied) Europe!


StereoVision 3-D adapter for 35MM film cameras

Article:
"The high resolution of the twin digital images can now be maintained not only in post-production but through to distribution and exhibition, as digital cinema systems replace 35mm print reels and projectors."

Reply:
I have to remind you about 70MM film 3-D presentations that were done in the 1970s - no newer format other than IMAX has ever gotten close to that image quality. And although digital projection is obviously more stable than 35MM projection, the eyes cannot distinguish between 35MM film projection of 3-D and digital projection of 3-D.


Article:
""There are very few technical challenges left for deploying 3D," declares Joshua Greer, president of RealD, which holds a monopoly on 3D presentation systems."

Reply:
There are at least 3 competing big name digital 3-D projection systems on the market, being Real-D, Dolby 3-D and NuVision, although I can understand that Joshua Greer would like to see that point differently. It is true, though, that Real-D does have the most aggressive marketing strategy and has managed to convince more theatres than any other 3-D projection brand to incorporate their technology in the new digital projection rooms.



Real D Projection adapter

Article:
"Four releases to date have suggested that 3D could drive studio profits in the next decade. Disney's Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D and Sony's Monster House all earned three times as much revenue per screen as the 2D version of the same film on their first weekend of release."

Reply:
The real fact is that the cinemas showing these movies charged more for the cinema tickets, explaining the higher profits. So although 3-D can mean higher revenue in the short term, it is not a sustainable and realistic business model in the long term, as consumers will not continue to pay higher prices for their cinema tickets. Will you? Especially if 3-D becomes something of a standard?


Article:
"It also currently costs an extra US$10m-15m to make a 3D movie"

Reply:
Compared to what exactly and for what kind of a movie? Animation will quickly cost 130-150% in 3-D, while live-action will easily cost 150-175% of a regular movie. Talk to any stereographer and 3-D consultant like myself and you will hear the same numbers.


Article:
""None of the 3D systems in the past allowed you to immerse yourself in the frame," Walden Media CEO Cary Granat tells Reuters."

Reply:
I am sorry, but that is just pure nonsense. Go and see 1953's 'House of Wax' or 'Dial M for Murder', followed by 'Chicken Little' or 'Meet the Robinsons' and have another look at that statement. Immersing yourself in the frame with 3-D is everything to do with the 3-D camera work, not the technology. And they did that a hell of a lot better in the 50s and 80s than they are doing right now.

---

If you are a journalist or an editor and you would like to learn more about 3-D Film, from a more accurate perspective, I will be more than happy to write you a piece on the subject. Large and well-respected magazines like Animation Magazine have already published some of my writing on 3-D focusing on 3-D stereoscopic animation production and the technical and creative implications of 3-D filming and animating.

Alexander Lentjes
3-D Revolution Productions