CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-27-2012, 08:40 PM   #46
DePaint
Banned
 
DePaint's Avatar
portfolio
Emre M.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers
Because articles like this are strictly designed to convince others to favor a particular opinion. We start off with a premise and it gets supported by a whopping 2 filmmakers who speak for everyone.


The article is a good counterweight to all the marketing "ra ra" about 3D that we've been exposed to since Avatar hit the screens.

The last 3 years has been all "watch this in 3D" and "watch that in 3D".

At its core, this was all motivated by industry trying to make - pretty big - extra profits from 3D by having 3D screenings in cinemas, special 3D BluRays, 3D TVs et cetera et cetera.

Now 2 cinematographers express their reservations against 3D to the BBC, and its all "anti 3D propaganda"?

We live in a free world. People have the right to express that 3D doesn't work for them.

Especially if you are a professional cinematographer who has been in the business for 30 years...

I don't see anything wrong with the BBC article. I think that it is interesting, especially since the cinematographers quoted explain in some detail why they don't like 3D.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 08:54 PM   #47
leigh
blahblah
 
leigh's Avatar
CGSociety Staff
portfolio
Leigh van der Byl
A cog in the wheel
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaint
The article is a good counterweight to all the marketing "ra ra" about 3D that we've been exposed to since Avatar hit the screens.

The last 3 years has been all "watch this in 3D" and "watch that in 3D".

At its core, this was all motivated by industry trying to make - pretty big - extra profits from 3D by having 3D screenings in cinemas, special 3D BluRays, 3D TVs et cetera et cetera.

Now 2 cinematographers express their reservations against 3D to the BBC, and its all "anti 3D propaganda"?

We live in a free world. People have the right to express that 3D doesn't work for them.

Especially if you are a professional cinematographer who has been in the business for 30 years...

I don't see anything wrong with the BBC article. I think that it is interesting, especially since the cinematographers quoted explain in some detail why they don't like 3D.


This.

If this article was an interview with a bunch of cinematographers raving about 3D, none of the 3D fans here would call it propaganda. Calling something propaganda just because you disagree with the opinion being expressed is borderline hysterical.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:07 PM   #48
dneg
Lord of the posts
paul franklin
VFX Supervisor
Double Negative VFX
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 635
3D is finding its natural level in the market place. The novelty factor has worn off, but the economic argument for 3D is still strong. It would now appear to be the default format for the vast majority of major animated releases (what was the last big animated film that wasn't released in 3D?) and the fact remains that whilst many filmmakers don't like stereo (I can think of one in particular with whom I'm quite well acquainted) the biggest film of the year - Avengers - made a shed load of money from its 3D presentation. You can be absolutely certain that the studio bosses at Sony, Fox, Warners, Universal etc are all planning assaults on that stellar $207 million dollar opening weekend figure. The only way to get there is with 3D; TDKR had more-or-less the same number of admissions (tix sold) as Avengers, but the lack of the 3D premium left its 3 day take trailing (the terrible events in Ariz didn't have that much impact on the first three days as many tix were presold so the money counts whether people showed up or stayed at home. Over the following weeks, the reaction to the shootings had a significant impact on TDKR's box office).

It should also be borne in mind that the studios are using the 3D premium as a way to get the exhibitors to pay for the roll-out of digital projection, something that the studios have wanted for years but weren't prepared to pay for. By offering the exhibitors - the cinemas - a slice of the 3D pie the studios can get them to cover the cost of installing digital projectors.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:12 PM   #49
redbellpeppers
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Chris
Standing, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaint
The article is a good counterweight to all the marketing "ra ra" about 3D that we've been exposed to since Avatar hit the screens.


If you don't mind my asking: what "ra ra" about 3D? Every article I have seen has been in opposition to it.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:12 PM   #50
elT
Frequenter
 
elT's Avatar
portfolio
Tarik Sabanovic
Prime Time
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 180
"(what was the last big animated film that wasn't released in 3D?)"

Only the Oscar winning Rango.

But yeah, stereoscopic is here to stay it seems.
__________________
Happy verts, bones and buckets!
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:18 PM   #51
dneg
Lord of the posts
paul franklin
VFX Supervisor
Double Negative VFX
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by elT
"(what was the last big animated film that wasn't released in 3D?)"

Only the Oscar winning Rango.

But yeah, stereoscopic is here to stay it seems.


ha! Forgot that one! The exception that proves the rule!

It's also worth noting that of the ten films in this year's VFX Bakeoff, 6 of them were released in 3D. At least 3 of them were shot native.

Last edited by dneg : 12-27-2012 at 09:21 PM.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:20 PM   #52
leigh
blahblah
 
leigh's Avatar
CGSociety Staff
portfolio
Leigh van der Byl
A cog in the wheel
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
After I left Avatar for the first time, it felt like I was in that jungle earlier that night.


Avatar is the only film I've seen in 3D where I felt the 3D actually added something to the film, although personally I didn't find it as immersive as you. Interestingly, what I liked about the effect in that film is that it was more of an in effect than an out effect, if you know what I mean - there wasn't stuff flying out of the screen, it was more of a case of the picture having a sense of depth behind the characters. Avatar was a very visually rich film too (I thought the story was atrocious, so the visuals were the only thing it really had going for it, for me), and I think that 3D can continue to serve films where the imagery is very strong. Directors like Tarsem Singh or even experimental directors like Ron Fricke may find an implementation of it that works for them, but personally I feel it's a format that shouldn't be adopted simply for the sake of it. It's kinda like black and white film usage these days - a lot of photographers process their photos into mono simply because they think it looks "arty" whereas mono photography is best done when it's actually shot specifically with mono in mind, using subjects which lend themselves well to the look. In other words, I think 3D is a format which only really suits some kinds of subject matter.

But the delivery needs to change. Wearing skanky re-used glasses is a bit gross, not to mention the discomfort for folks like myself who already need to wear glasses at the cinema.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:25 PM   #53
dneg
Lord of the posts
paul franklin
VFX Supervisor
Double Negative VFX
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by leigh
It's kinda like black and white film usage these days - a lot of photographers process their photos into mono simply because they think it looks "arty" whereas mono photography is best done when it's actually shot specifically with mono in mind, using subjects which lend themselves well to the look. In other words, I think 3D is a format which only really suits some kinds of subject matter.


Interestingly, similar arguments were used as a criticism of colour in the 1940s :-)
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:26 PM   #54
leigh
blahblah
 
leigh's Avatar
CGSociety Staff
portfolio
Leigh van der Byl
A cog in the wheel
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by dneg
Interestingly, similar arguments were used as a criticism of colour in the 1940s :-)


Gah, I just knew somebody was going to say that :-P
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:44 PM   #55
redbellpeppers
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Chris
Standing, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 721
And I think Roberto pointed out going from film to digital as well.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:45 PM   #56
dneg
Lord of the posts
paul franklin
VFX Supervisor
Double Negative VFX
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 635
Despite the films I've been working on staying resolutely 2D, I like 3D when it's well done. I thought Avatar benefited greatly from being stereo and when the HFR 3D Hobbit worked for me it really worked (I loved scene with the stone giants). I think, what it comes down to for me, is that films that have been shot in native stereo generally work better, not because the 3D is technically superior (though it usually is) but because in those films 3D has been considered from the outset of the creative process, not added on as a final - and often irrelevant - garnish.

The biggest problem I have with 3D is that the glasses make the bridge of my nose hurt, which in turn gives me a headache. But so does sitting in the front row of the cinema, which some people like.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:47 PM   #57
hypercube
frontier psychiatrist
 
hypercube's Avatar
portfolio
Daryl Bartley
vfx goon / gfx ho
hypercube
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,050
I think it's always good to keep the debate going to an extent, but so many of the same tired things get pulled out on both sides, it really gets aggravating. Same thing with the HFR/48 debate, it's going in circles, and there is lots of misinformation and uninformed opinion being thrown around.

It's interesting to hear people who are actually working with it talk about pros and cons, but the same cliche sayings and flip remarks from both "camps" really get on the nerves, especially when some thread starters seem to have an agenda.

I personally feel if 3D has stumbled anywhere it's in the home market, competing standards and lack of content, along with price of entry and accessories, have essentially made it a non-starter when it could have been a step-up. I think even as a feature though it is there to stay, sets just have it now, but it's not a big selling point.

Theatrical 3D is definitely not going away for a while though, IMO, it will just continue to evolve, and people will continue to have wildly varying opinions and likes and dislikes of it, when it's used well or not used well.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:47 PM   #58
vlad
Expert
 
vlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers
[QUOTE=vlad] Prometheus? Even the best and most convincing immersive 3D experience could not have saved this humongous wreck [QUOTE=vlad]

I personally liked the movie, altho I think Lindelof is a 1 trick pony and I wouldn't lose any sleep if he, orci and kurtzman all left Hollywood to become used cars salesmen.
[QUOTE=vlad]
Where you see Titanic and Lion King benefiting from 3D, I only see cow milking.[QUOTE=vlad]
And where many people see tattoo's as art and freedom of expression I only see scarring and stains. Yet, when I voiced this opinion I was chastised by many of a person on this forum for being against art and expression... and ironically is these same pro-art and pro-expression people who are so opposed to this medium.


Because articles like this are strictly designed to convince others to favor a particular opinion. We start off with a premise and it gets supported by a whopping 2 filmmakers who speak for everyone.

And we see it all the time.

And in large part, it works. Someone states that 3D is nothing but a gimmick... and before long you get a bunch of people repeating it to sound smart.

And what's funny about the "gimmick" thing, is that cinema is an entire gimmick all its own. It's an illusion of movement and mood created by the persistence of vision and manipulated by editing, trick lighting and color correction. It's all artificial.

Or the notion that 3D doesn't do anything to advance the story. Well, cinema used to be in Black and White. Did color by itself make stories better? For that matter ships on a string tell the same story as today's most advanced CGI.

But a little thought and reason doesn't stop people from taking a position based on incomplete thought.


Unlike 3D's detractors who want 3D gone so that people like me cannot enjoy it I am in favor of choice. I realize that not everyone likes the same thing- and that's fine. I'm just opposed to propaganda pieces like this.
I also understand that in Europe theater owners don't give you a choice- and I think it's up to you guys to convince the theater owners to put up additional screens for your choice. We don't have that problem in the states.

But as filmmakers adapt to this new medium I believe we'll see more and more of it.


Woah, wait a second here. People cannot have a concerted opinion? We're all a bunch of dumb sheep following some dogmatic opinion maker? So what then, all media is propaganda? May I remind you that we're talking entertainment here? Nothing really that hard to grasp that an enlightening beacons is needed for anyone to follow. Arent you being a bit paranoid here...
 
Old 12-27-2012, 09:52 PM   #59
BigPixolin
Banned
 
BigPixolin's Avatar
c none
US
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by leigh
Avatar is the only film I've seen in 3D where I felt the 3D actually added something to the film, although personally I didn't find it as immersive as you. Interestingly, what I liked about the effect in that film is that it was more of an in effect than an out effect, if you know what I mean - there wasn't stuff flying out of the screen, it was more of a case of the picture having a sense of depth behind the characters. Avatar was a very visually rich film too (I thought the story was atrocious, so the visuals were the only thing it really had going for it, for me), and I think that 3D can continue to serve films where the imagery is very strong. Directors like Tarsem Singh or even experimental directors like Ron Fricke may find an implementation of it that works for them, but personally I feel it's a format that shouldn't be adopted simply for the sake of it. It's kinda like black and white film usage these days - a lot of photographers process their photos into mono simply because they think it looks "arty" whereas mono photography is best done when it's actually shot specifically with mono in mind, using subjects which lend themselves well to the look. In other words, I think 3D is a format which only really suits some kinds of subject matter.

But the delivery needs to change. Wearing skanky re-used glasses is a bit gross, not to mention the discomfort for folks like myself who already need to wear glasses at the cinema.


I am right there with you except on the immersion, and the issue of wearing two sets of glasses. That alone to me would be annoying enough not to do it. I have been at theme parks that use the same glasses over and over, but never a theater they have always been new. For some reason after Avatar that evening at dinner, I kept having this surreal feeling like I just left that jungle. Not the facilities or ships, just the jungle. I think it was the way the foliage seemed to wrap around my vision, and the immense depth of the all the branches.

I also think 3D can serve a purpose in unexpected places. For instance at the beginning of the movie Step Brothers. The scene when they first meet in the yard and they are standing far apart then the title appears. Personally I think the depth in 3D can add a lot to the feeling of that scene. I'm not saying the whole movie deserved it for that sake only, but I would not shy away a 3d "boats" music video or a 3D Prestige Worldwide helicopter.
The more I think about the night vision goggles, licking white dog poo, and karate scenes could of been good too. Maybe that is just me, but it is honestly completely seamless to me on a good set up. So there is no reason for me to turn it down, it only adds to my experience.

Last edited by BigPixolin : 12-27-2012 at 11:11 PM.
 
Old 12-27-2012, 10:34 PM   #60
redbellpeppers
Lord of the posts
portfolio
Chris
Standing, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
We're all a bunch of dumb sheep following some dogmatic opinion maker?

Not all. But many- especially when you see a lot of the same points repeated.

And a lot of things other people complain about are more about the old red/blue 3D too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
Where you see Titanic and Lion King benefiting from 3D, I only see cow milking.


Which means people are paying to see it- which contradicts the notion that people hate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
I also think 3D can serve a purpose in unexpected places.


My example would be for Titanic: a scene where the camera sees Cal and Rose in the mirror heightened the intimacy, her feeling trapped, and the drama of the scene.

Last edited by redbellpeppers : 12-27-2012 at 10:42 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.