Jump to content


Photo

Why 3D is truly EVIL!!


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:04 AM

http://www.audioholi...-to-your-health

Along with chewing tobacco, Daniel Tosh and heroin, because of it's heath risks, 3D should be banned from the Earth forever!!! :blink:
  • 0

#2 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:36 AM

After watching Captain America last night, I partly agree.
  • 0

#3 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 August 2011 - 01:22 PM

I'm not in favor of banning it -- let it die a natural death in the marketplace, which it seems to be doing yet again.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#4 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 02 August 2011 - 01:45 AM

But John, it's like a VAMPIRE, it's be rising from the grave every 15 years or so to plague mankind with REALLY bad movies based on crap flying out at the audience from the screen. I mean I UNDERSTAND why Cameron was forced to use it in Avatar, because without 3D the animated "Navi" looked like what they were, animation and no one would have taking them seriously (game changer my ass, they were doing this in the 50s, and this from a guy who loves Cameron's films) but every sense that attempt to cover up the obvious, 3D has fallen back into the circus clown exploitation garbage it's always been.

I recently saw Resident Evil: Afterlife (I'm a big Resident Evil fan and it is the highest grossing film in foreign markets of the series) in 2D and when I saw the intentional 3D shots, I couldn't help but think, WHY?, it was a decent story, Mila was great as usual, Ali added more spice, why OTHER than 3D was in vogue at the time. DID it add to the film, NO. Did it make it easier to sell, probably but what films lost out on being made during this insanity because they DIDN'T shoot some jinky, trendy bullshit format JUST to make more room for flash at the expense of substance (and again, we're talking about substance in the context of a RESIDENT EVIL MOVIE), therefore, let us put a stake thought this aberration's black heart and salt the earth in which it is buried so that no such evil demonic "game changer" will rise from the grave of this abomination ever again. :o
  • 0

#5 Damien Andre

Damien Andre
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student
  • New Joisey

Posted 02 August 2011 - 12:18 PM

there will be things in this world that you wont like. get over it
  • 0

#6 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 02 August 2011 - 10:45 PM

there will be things in this world that you wont like. get over it

I don't like liquorish, I don't like Tom Green movies, I don't like Insane Clown Posse music, I don't like French cars, I FREAKIN" HATE 3D bullshit exploitation of the cinematic experience. I'll "get over it" when substance becomes more important than a cheap buck!!! I actually LOVE this business and the more crap shoved down the public's throat by mega-corporations who's ONLY interest is the profit it makes dominates what should be an expression of art, the more our sole is poisoned by unmitigated greed and a self-serving quest for power. I TRULY HATE this s*it, and as an artist, so should you!! B)
  • 0

#7 Markshaw

Markshaw
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 03 August 2011 - 04:40 AM

there will be things in this world that you wont like. get over it


Why should we "get over it?" 3D is clearly dumbing down cinema, just to get asses on seats.
  • 0

#8 Damien Andre

Damien Andre
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student
  • New Joisey

Posted 03 August 2011 - 12:19 PM

3D is not the biggest factor in dumbing down cinema. no film has been ruined by 3D, the bad ones have had a lot more problems than a tackedd on technology that the the viewer can choose to see. and really, is 3D actually being tacked on to truly great films, ruining the experience? besides that not all films come out of hollywood, who historically release very few good movies in a year. most great cinema happens outside of hollywood imo away from 3D and all the gimmicky non-sense. 3D is not the enemy, bad film is. 3D can possibly enhance a movie, but it cant elevate trash, which is what its used on mostly.

did people rail against wide-screen and sync-sound like this when they were first invented? claiming it was literally harmful and a scourge on the craft?
  • 0

#9 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 August 2011 - 04:05 PM

3D is ruining 2D films because 9 out of 10 cinemas just leave the farking 3D polarizer in place and that dims the image substantially so that 2D films look like mud.

Today I sat through an impossibly dim 2D presentation of CAPTAIN AMERICA in what is a very good theater. No doubt they never altered the setup from when it was playing Transformers 3D.

Nearly ever single movie I have seen this year has been ruined by this disturbing trend. :angry:
  • 0

#10 Shelly Johnson ASC

Shelly Johnson ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 34 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • California

Posted 04 August 2011 - 12:06 AM

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health

Along with chewing tobacco, Daniel Tosh and heroin, because of it's heath risks, 3D should be banned from the Earth forever!!! :blink:


I think that 3D has not had a real chance to be widely accepted since there is no real 3D projection standard in terms of brightness. We researched this completely before doing our 3D color correction for Captain America. The lab recommended a projection level of 4.5 foot lamberts as a good starting point. Since Marvel had a tough time with Thor, which was color corrected at 4.5 FL as far as I know, we color corrected Captain America at 3.5 foot lamberts. We took test footage to random theaters and ran it as low as 2.9 FL and it looked fine. If that movie is looking dark, the theatre is running probably in the area of 2 FL which is inexcusable.

By the way, the foot Lambert reading is made measuring THROUGH the glasses. We color corrected using the Expand-D system, but the 3D DCP should set up properly depending on whatever 3D system the individual theater is running.

I saw Captain America at The Arclight, Hollywood in the Dome, and it looked very dark. Its a huge space and a long throw. They use the Expand-D system there. I've also seen it in Real-D with the silver screen and although it was bright... it had an enormous hot spot in the middle and unacceptable fall-off on the edges.

I'm not sure what else can be done to give the theater owners a better product. Marvel was diligent and put allot of work in creating the best 3D product possible... and it is enormously frustrating to see negative statements made about a good film, expressly for reasons of poor presentation at the theater level.

I would say for you to see it in 2D... but Matt makes a good point where, through lack of proper set up, some theaters are showing 2D films through their 3D projection lenses.

At this point, I think the burden falls onto the theater owner. If you don't like the way the theaters are presenting the movies that you spend money to see, then make some noise about it and get them to clean their equipment. change their bulbs and calibrate their systems properly. It's ridiculous to think that studios are releasing dull, dark images for a release of a major tent pole offering.

3D can be an enormously expressive medium. I'm not against 3D... but I think it needs to be presented properly to see it's potential. If it fails to project in a credible way, I think it's best to avoid as a storytelling element.
  • 0

#11 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 August 2011 - 02:54 AM

I'm not sure how this stands up worldwide.

http://uk.movies.yah...-than-ever.html
  • 0

#12 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:00 PM

I'm at the point where I am not going to the movies. And I am a guy who used to go twenty+ times a year. Now I go eight or nine times and most often, the experience is dreadful. Basically, unless it is a true IMAX theater (not a digital LIEmax) I know I will likely be not only disappointed, but infuriated. It was never like this with 35mm prints. They had their faults, but I could at least see the damn image on screen.

The only good experience I have had recently was in NYC seeing The TREE OF LIFE in 4k at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema. It was on their best screen and that theater actually cares. They are 1 in a million at this point.

I kid you not when I saw nearly ever 2D film I have seen in the last year has been ruined by 3D projection equipment left in place out of pure cheap laziness on the part of the theater owners.
  • 0

#13 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 05 August 2011 - 06:10 AM

3D can be an enormously expressive medium. I'm not against 3D... but I think it needs to be presented properly to see it's potential. If it fails to project in a credible way, I think it's best to avoid as a storytelling element.

The scientific reality is that about 5% of the population simply cannot see stereoscopic movies as 3-D at all. After all, there are several different mechanisms your eye/brain can use to generate a 3-D image; with a stereoscopic movie all you're getting are fixed parallax and fixed depth of field.

You can't move your head to make hidden details come into view or observe differential parallax shift, you can't cross and uncross your eyes or focus on different parts of the image to judge depth, and so on.

The extent to which your brain can "suspend disbelief" and accept a stereoscopic image as 3-D various enormously with individuals, and so you are inevitably going to a small segment of the populace who simply don't "get" 3-D, and are going to complain loudly about it.

I've gone to quite a few 3-D movies with a large group of people I know, and not a single one has ever complained about the 3-D experience itself. They didn't always like the movie itself, but I really expected at least a few complaints about the projection system.

As for the dim 2-D presentations, I can't say I've ever experienced that, but I'm sure it happens.

Definitely shooting live action 3-D is going to be more challenging than animation, because with something that's computer-generated, you can do as many "re-shoots" as you like until you get it right.

If I was going to bet on future movie technologies, I'd put money on "motion capture" scans of old 2D classic movies being used to generate new fully-CGI 3-D versions. The technology is probably some way off, but there's nothing inherently impossible about it.
  • 0

#14 Damien Andre

Damien Andre
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student
  • New Joisey

Posted 05 August 2011 - 01:43 PM

a certain portion of the population is blind or deaf, should we stop making movies, music, paintings and so on because some people are unable to experience it?
  • 0

#15 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 05 August 2011 - 02:42 PM

Definitely shooting live action 3-D is going to be more challenging than animation, because with something that's computer-generated, you can do as many "re-shoots" as you like until you get it right.


No you can't. John Lasseter said in an interview that they get it right during pre production before any animation takes place. Animation is very expensive so they only have one shot to get it right. Literary.

Edited by Joseph Arch, 05 August 2011 - 02:45 PM.

  • 0

#16 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 08 August 2011 - 02:05 AM

4.5 foot-lamberts is slightly more than one-quarter the traditional industry screen brightness standard of 16 foot-lamberts for film projection. It's my impression that digital IMAX 3D projection is brighter than 4.5 foot-lamberts. "Avatar" looked pretty good at my local AMC D-IMAX, it could have been brighter but it wasn't dark like the Real-D houses I've been in. Anyone know what's IMAX's brightness standard?
  • 0

#17 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 08 August 2011 - 03:01 AM

I’ve heard it’s 5.5 fL.
  • 0

#18 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 08 August 2011 - 03:31 AM

I think that 3D has not had a real chance to be widely accepted since there is no real 3D projection standard in terms of brightness. We researched this completely before doing our 3D color correction for Captain America. The lab recommended a projection level of 4.5 foot lamberts as a good starting point. Since Marvel had a tough time with Thor, which was color corrected at 4.5 FL as far as I know, we color corrected Captain America at 3.5 foot lamberts.

The lack of standard light levels for 3D is frustrating indeed!

I’m working at a cinema where we can currently reach 11.5 fL for 3D, measured through glasses. Both our projectionists and our audience seem to much prefer the brighter 3D image on pretty much any film, compared to the 4.5 fL ”standard”. We’re using XpanD 3D and a 1.4 gain screen, and with this setup we’re not seeing any artifacts from the added brightness.

Now, I do realize that ideally we should be projecting all films ”exactly as intended”, including matching the projector’s brightness to the light levels that the film was graded on. And I know that at least Disney explicitly says not to project their films any brighter than 5.5 fL – which is still way too dim, in my opinion. I guess that one of the reasons behind that recommendation is that over-bright projection causes problems on RealD silver screens, that are unfortunately popular in many countries including the US… On our screen, however, something like 7–11.5 fL for 3D looks just fine to me. If there are any problems related to gamma, saturation etc., the added brightness seems to by far overweigh them.

This seems like a great opportunity to discuss this with a Hollywood pro, so here goes: Shelly, did you test Captain America at high light levels (let’s say from 7 fL upwards) on an XpanD system? Did you see any serious problems, and if you did, would you care to elaborate? Would you object to see your film projected like that?
  • 0

#19 Shelly Johnson ASC

Shelly Johnson ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 34 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • California

Posted 08 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

Shelly, did you test Captain America at high light levels (let’s say from 7 fL upwards) on an XpanD system? Did you see any serious problems, and if you did, would you care to elaborate? Would you object to see your film projected like that?


We did not test it at any levels above 5 FL. I love the sound of high light-level 3D. It's possible to get very high light levels with multiple projectors and such (as is what is done for some I-Max presentations or long-throw events such as the Pirates premier, which used 6 projectors as I understand). The problem for Marvel was that they were needing to color correct for the masses... which puts you at an immediate disadvantage with 3D. The decision to correct at 3.5 FL was in response to what we see in typical projection around the country. They did not have the time to prepare several dozen different versions of the color in order to respond to various local theater deficiencies and provide a color corrected version for that venue, as what was done with Avatar. I was extremely disappointed with how Captain America looked at the Dome in 3D. Very dark and murky... which meant their projection had to have been at 2 FL or below... which turns my stomach to even think about. If we had color corrected at 4.5 FL, 5.5 FL or more, it would have been like looking at black leader.

I think that correcting and projecting at 11.5 FL thru the ExpanD glasses would look amazing. But, from my experience, you might have a tough time projecting that in any venue where you do not actually provide the projector and screen.

All this talk, however, does not solve the issue of how the brain responds to artificial 3D stimulus. Thats a tough idea to get around... and it does make me wonder if the studios presenting in 3D are hanging their hat on one very small and weak nail. But, we shall see.

I am still a fan of good old fashioned 2D at the moment, until I see something better.
  • 0

#20 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 August 2011 - 12:41 PM

... and it does make me wonder if the studios presenting in 3D are hanging their hat on one very small and weak nail. .


Yes, exactly. 3D today is about where color was in the 1920's, when they could only do two primaries, not three. I wouldn't call it evil, just inadequate on the fundamental science. Its "nail" is stereoscopy, which in real life only provides significant cues at distances under 16 feet (5 meters).





-- J.S.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineTape

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

CineLab