Personal View site logo
Some Thoughts on 3D
  • B3GuyB3Guy

    Hi, all! I've added a micro-post to the blog with some short thoughts on 3D, and just thought I'd start this thread as a space for any greater discussion that might ensue.

    http://www.personal-view.com/photokina/blogs/caleb-genheimer

  • 12 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Big thanks.

    I want to suggest for everyone to watch more 3D, as much as you can.

    Not only few movies in cinema.

    it helps quickly understand basic concepts.

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    The post obviously looks at 3D through one specific film that I feel took a few baby-steps in the right direction, but the few very basic facts I touched on concerning 3D ring true for any 3D filmmaking.

    Cuts have a very high tendency to be jarring and disorienting.

    Shooting with shallow depth of field is an optical redundancy and can even force-erect the fourth wall, which is not naturally present in 3D.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @B3Guy

    Yes, you are right on all points.

    Basically you can find them in any instruction for 3D shooter, even old ones.

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    The challenge, of course, is that the language of film . . . the shorthand "tricks" that audiences all over the world take for granted . . . are all developed with 2D in mind (lots of cutting, shallow DOF, etc.)

    Developing a solid set of shorthand for 3D will take time, simply because audiences will need to "relearn" some stuff. It is no small or quick process, but I hope to some day watch a whole film shot in single-take 3D. (Octocopter, anyone?) Of course, reduction to a single take is unnecessarily extreme, but would be unique and hyper-immersive and would take certain genres (like thrillers) to a new level.

  • RRRRRRRR

    Good topic. If you set out to shoot 3d the same way as you shoot 2d, you are in for some problems.

    The principles are really simple:

    wide angle lenses = "more 3d" (more perceived depth)

    tele lenses = "less 3d" (cutout look)

    Deep DOF = always

    Bokeh/Shallow DOF = lost in space. (it does not work)

    besides the perhaps obvious principles with interaxial, parallax e.t.c.

    Do not overuse extremes.

    For editing (easy on the viewer)

    Longer takes, generally

    No quick jumps between different interaxials/parallaxes (step in, step out is better)

    Do not overuse extremes

  • fixfix

    @B3guy Loved your post. I never thought about the actual lenght of each shot in a 3d movie, it makes perfect sense the way you put it. There has also been a lot of talk about 48fps< could be the way to go. Maybe these two tricks combined could get us closer to a perfect 3d movie, or at least close to it. I have never seen a 3d movie with more than 24fps.. So I don't have a clue to how good it would look, but I actually think that as well makes sense after watching a lot of 3d movies.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    There has also been a lot of talk about 48fps

    Btw, I really suggest to use frame interpolation mode on TV for 3D. It helps, usually, especially with animation. 24fps is not the good framerate for 3D.

  • fixfix

    But the interpolation tend to make some strange motion sometimes not only 2d. Like its not consistent. Could be that some tv's do this better than others. I agree that 24fps is not good for 3d,particular those fast action shots.

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    Honestly, the main reason I went to Prometheus was that it is somewhat of a pre-taste of what The Hobbit should be capable of (same cameras and lenses). I was pleasantly surprised to find it stood somewhat on its own merit.

  • Mark_the_HarpMark_the_Harp

    I saw some IMAX OMNIMAX 3D many, many years ago (LCD glasses, projected inside a huge spherical space) and some of it was absolutely amazing. So if it works, great!

    One comment, though - I took my son plus a few others to the cinema a few times recently, and there's usually a choice of 3D or 2D. They always chose 2D - they said they didn't enjoy watching 3D. Don't know why exactly but think its something to do with wearing the glasses - it gets in the way of the experience for them. These are 7 and 9 year olds so you can't always get a well-reasoned answer out of them. Just mention this as I was quite surprised about their preferences and that sounds like something the technology needs to address if its to be successful.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    These are 7 and 9 year olds so you can't always get a well-reasoned answer out of them. Just mention this as I was quite surprised about their preferences and that sounds like something the technology needs to address if its to be successful.

    With such boys it is always necessary to know opinion in their group. If some guy who is alfa male told that 3D is not so cool, they could follow him blindly (same is true in reverse).

    Otherwise, as I said, it is necessary to watch big amount of 3D to understand.

  • kavadnikavadni

    Another possible reason why young children might prefer 2D is the common use of the 65mm interocular. Their heads are smaller, some of the pre-viz software is now appearing with smaller base settings, specifically for programs aimed at a younger audience

Add a Comment