"of sunny Brisbane"

Well as this seems to be your first post welcome from another Vegemite. I guess you know some relatives of the talent from the first Australian 3D feature "Cane Toads" then.
I can also add that half of that movie was shot with our SI-2K camera. I don't know if it was the left half or the right half though. Either way yes 3D is here, over lunch I glanced over a local trade magazine and one of the articles was titled "Is there any future for 2D cinema?" Hard to believe only very recently the question was "Is 3D just another gimmick?"

I've provided some input to another local Vegas user whose been trying out various 3D mirror rigs using quite cheap cameras. The problems are pretty significant. Getting the shutters to sync and the lenses to track are two big issues. At the moment the cheapest cameras that could be viable is the EX3 but that will undoubtably change. You can fudge shutter sync using LANC but you're really stuck with the lens problems. The best solution is matched prime lenses but that's way, way outside any prosummer.

What I really, really hope doesn't happen is we end up with a lot of bad consummer solutions. Good 3D is great, bad 3D is much, much worse than bad 2D. It takes a significant amount of additional skill to shoot good 3D and a lot of restraint. Even the chap I've worked with thought his efforts failed because it didn't look well, "enough 3D", I think he wanted things flying out of the screen and all the old sideshow horrors which are fun for 10 seconds and then you loose your lunch.

Agree Neo3D looks very interesting, It's a bit expensive and I'd like to see how it works in Vegas as it uses active metadata.

Bob.

In my opinion, 3D is just a gimick, a fad, a distraction from the fact that the content is sorely lacking.

At the turn of the century before last, 3D photography was the all the craze. It was a passing fad. In the fifties 3D movies were the rage. This most recent reincarnation of the fad too will pass. Not soon enough for me.

I love technology, but it doesn't always improve the experience. Witness how fade-to-black remains one of the few most effective transitions.

tididit said

There is something to be said for the KISS principle after all :)
(KISS = "Keep It Simple, Stupid", just in case anyone had any doubt)

Imho, if you try to dazzle your audience with by using every transition in your arsenal, they'll leave. People don't want videos that look like they were thrown together by a tabloid magazine front page designer.

As for the topic, I think this 3D "fad" will fade a bit once the novelty have gone away, but it won't disappear this time. Unlike the 50's we no longer have those hideous red/green coloured 3D glasses, though I'm still reserving judgement on active shutter. Those things give me a headache.

In spite of Jay Gladwell's upbeat and positive review of 3D technology, I'm really looking forward to it.

“Most of my life has been spent in the dark watching movies. Movies have been the literature of my life… and I think in our romance with technology, and our excitement at exploring all the possibilities of film and video, I think we’ve particularly lost something that we now have to reclaim. I think it’s time to renew our romance with the word.” Steven Spielberg, 1987, after receiving the Irving Thalberg award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

According to the New York Times, "Mr. Spielberg and his speech received the evening's biggest ovation."

OK, so in your opinion, recent movies suck.

Movies are not the only thing for which 3DTV can be used. I am particularly interested in seeing how it can be used for documentaries or live events.

"Movies have been the literature of my life… and I think in our romance with technology, and our excitement at exploring all the possibilities of film and video, I think we’ve particularly lost something that we now have to reclaim. I think it’s time to renew our romance with the word.” "

You want words, read a book.

Bob.

Jay:
Maybe you should go back to 4 x 3, 18 FPS, black & white, no sound, acetate film to make you feel better.
JJK

Bob, you to see the film put out by the Screen Writers Guild titled "Words" to understand what I'm talking about.

And contrary to popular belief, words--intelligently used words, in the form of a script--are required to make good motion pictures.

Guys, I've been playing around with 3D stereography editing in Vegas using these free extensions. Check it out if you have not seen it allready.

http://medtron.org/make3d.aspx

The reason many movies stink now is because all the epics have been done and redone, all the popular 70's and 80's stuff was redone, and there aren't any more Charlie Bronsons or Clint Eastwoods.

And if you mount two Flips on an aluminum bar you got yourself one-handed StereoScope, and there's no shutter problem because it doesn't have one, or a lens either.

"And contrary to popular belief, words--intelligently used words, in the form of a script--are required to make good motion pictures."

Plenty of great movie made from the first days of cinema until recently without a single word. Of course a screenwriter thinks words, just as a DP thinks lights. You can make a movie with no words, impossible with no light.

You need to study Marhsall McLuhan to understand where I'm coming from I guess, consider the difference between hot and cool mediums.

Today's audiences want an immersive experience and they're spending a lot of money to get one. Hollywood have been loosing market share to video games. 3D and immersive surround sound is their best shot at clawing back market share. Remember this is show business, no business no show. I'd add 'he who pays gets to say' to that and it's the audience who pays in this game and they are voting with their wallets. Us old farts needs to go out and talk to gen Y, they're the future, we're ancient history soon to only exist in dusty tomes on library shelves.

Bob.

"And if you mount two Flips on an aluminum bar you got yourself one-handed StereoScope, and there's no shutter problem because it doesn't have one, or a lens either. "

A video camera with no lens or a shutter, now that I and everyone else in this game would love to see. I can assure you the Flip does have both.

Bob.

I've been interested by 3D since my early teens (when I made my first 3D stills) and have been impressed by the technical capabilities now being demonstrated. At the same time I was less than impressed by 3D films of the 50s for their use of 3D effects (pointless poking stuff at the audience) and the technology wasn't adequate (which employed the same polarised glasses used in cinemas today, not red/blue filters). In some respects amateur facilities were better than those in the cinema, the Bolex H16 camera recording the matching frames side by side on the same film (none of that independent weaving that quickly produced headaches). In my scientific work using Silicon Graphics workstations I've used the shuttered glasses and they're excellent when the refresh rate is high enough.

But, as many have previously pointed out on this site, film making is a multi-dimensional activity and 3D just adds an extra variable. If a film has nothing to say then none of the technical dimensions will make it a good film. So I agree that word or idea is of utmost importance, and how that is translated to the screen turns a good idea into a good or not good film. I guess many will point to technically excellent works that earn money while being otherwise empty of point or narrative, and obviously 3D is an additional technical trick for enhancing impact over substance.

However, 3D is coming into the home entertainment business and right now there is very little content available. So there is a market to be exploited and probably wide open for "reality" event stuff. And presently a big increment in technical challenge and production costs for the small production house.

EDIT: supporting Bob's comments, it is essential that L & R frames are temporally matched (NOTE not "temporarily") . If using separate cameras they must be gen-locked, so that is the first increment in cost (a pair of PMW-EX3s). Then you have to be able to control the interocular spacing and convergence, so the rig isn't something you're going to hump on a shoulder mount . Can you gen-lock Canon 5Ds? I think not, but haven't checked. You can shoot without worrying about the technicalities (two unsynchronized cameras on a bar -- see YouTube), but headaches will quickly follow. Of course you could reproduce the Bolex technique of using a pair of prism systems to record L & R side by side. Some cunning instrument making would let you control the interocular spacing etc. And some more cunning in post production could translate the images into standard 3D format (at less resolution). Maybe the 5D has enough to spare? Of course 3D likes lots of DOF.

I read somewhere that it's just a pinhole in front of the CCD, and looking at mine, that's what it looks like.

"just a pinhole"

Well, lots of DOF, then.

I'm not a pro, so I don't know what DOF is, but it IS refreshing to read your comments. I think Aussie's have something like "Humping their bluey" for Waltzing their Matilda.

DOF = Depth of Field

Presumably some part of the image is in focus, and DOF then is a measurement of how much else is in focus in front of and behind the primary "focused" element.

A shallow DOF -- blurred background -- requires a very wide open aperture. A very small aperture -- like a pinhole -- produces an image where virtually everything is in focus, from foreground to background.

Oh, yes, I thought it was something high tech. It's a fixed field or "infinity" I suppose, no fooling around with focus.

I understand that 3D is now the 'new' technology in film that seems to be exploited. But for me it is not the best experience. I went to see AVATAR in 3D (like I'm sure most of us did) but untill they come up with 3D without using any special glasses, I'm not excited to get any of it.
I wear glasses already and watching AVATAR with 3D glasses overtop my own progressive lenses was not something that worked real nice for me.
I think a lot of people will have this problem, and therefore I feel it is not going to be accepted all that much.

Ted

Oh and Bud, maybe autofocus?

In my opinion, 3D is just a gimick, a fad, a distraction from the fact that the content is sorely lacking.

We see in color.

The first movies were in black & white. When the technology got better they were in color.
Do you think that color is "just a gimick, a fad, a distraction that the content is sorely lacking."?

We hear in stereo.

The first movies were silent. The technology got better. Then came monophonic sound. Then stereo sound. Then surround sound and more.
Do you think that stereo / surround sound is "just a gimick, a fad, a distraction that the content is sorely lacking."?

We see in stereo (that's 3D for those who don't know)

Movies were, for ages, 2D but as the technology got better they are more and more in 3D.

I will agree that many, if not most, 3D films are poorly done. Two well done recent films are UP and AVITAR. Poorly done 3D are those with "In Your Face" 3D every other scene. People (filmmakers) have to learn how to properly "do" 3D. You would quickly tire of a stereo soundtrack with "Ping Pong" effects all the time. Filmmakers have learned how to "do" stereo/surround sound, and (it may take some time) they *will* learn how to properly do 3D video/film.

Yes, the first round of 3D films were a passing fad, but time and technology marches on. 3D is here to stay.