Here's an interesting article about the apparent demise of interest in 3D movies.
Is it real or just a bump on the road?
OT: Is 3D Already Dying?
Back to post
Comments
Ecquillii
wrote on 8/5/2010, 1:24 PM
Bouncing off John’s idea, I would say: The same story with the same plot would be different not only with each teller and with each telling (it better be or else it’s dead) but with each change in medium. If you were to transcribe an oral story told by a grandmother in a rocking chair directly onto the written page and invite someone to read it, they would notice right away that it didn’t read well. How we speak and how we write is entirely different, even if the process is somewhat invisible to us. Things which make sense in one context don’t in another. To work on the written page, the grandmother’s story would need a prose make-over: a change in medium necessitates a change in story.
How many novels when translated to the screen change significantly? One might say: well, the plot is still the same—but what about those kinds of movies where something like a death at the end is transmuted into something like a marriage? Whatever plot might mean, we could not say the plot is the same in those instances, no matter what arguments could be made about honouring the spirit of the piece. And so with 3D: if the analogues from other media hold, there is way to use the 3D medium to tell a story which cannot be told in any other.
Tim Robertson
How many novels when translated to the screen change significantly? One might say: well, the plot is still the same—but what about those kinds of movies where something like a death at the end is transmuted into something like a marriage? Whatever plot might mean, we could not say the plot is the same in those instances, no matter what arguments could be made about honouring the spirit of the piece. And so with 3D: if the analogues from other media hold, there is way to use the 3D medium to tell a story which cannot be told in any other.
Tim Robertson
farss
wrote on 8/5/2010, 4:43 PM
What Jay is overlooking is that cinema can be storytelling but more importantly the "telling" is done in a way that should make the viewer believe it is real. The obvious intent is to evoke an emotional response in the viewer. The whole film making process is a gimmick, an illusion. None of it changes the story, it all serves to manipulate the viewer's response to being told the story.
I would add that I've never noticed anyone gasp in fright and grab their chair whilst reading a book, I have noticed audiences doing it while watching a movie. If a movie is only a story, if it invokes no emotional response, then why bother. Save a lot of effort and write a book.
Bob.
I would add that I've never noticed anyone gasp in fright and grab their chair whilst reading a book, I have noticed audiences doing it while watching a movie. If a movie is only a story, if it invokes no emotional response, then why bother. Save a lot of effort and write a book.
Bob.
Serena
wrote on 8/5/2010, 6:16 PM
Books do invoke emotional responses, tears, fright (what's that creaking), happiness, etc. True, not the direct grabbing the arms of the chair.
I'm a bit surprised by the direction this thread has taken. It's as though there is something novel about discovering that the primary objective of film making is to tell a story. If you don't tell a story, what have you done? Even the infamous focus audience of 15 year old males in mid-western USA want a story structure (of sorts) on which to hang all the action and special effects. Perhaps we're talking about stories that are worth effectively telling? And how to tell them? Oral, written, theatre, film? The tale or the teller? Is there a debate in this?
Most certainly the story is more important than the technique (many films fail because the screenplay needed greater critique and longer development), but surely on this site there is a tacit assumption that everything to do with film making is about telling a story. If discussions of technique (e.g. foley, DOF, lighting, 3D) are answered with "only the story matters", I guess we'll have transmogrified into a writing blog.
I'm a bit surprised by the direction this thread has taken. It's as though there is something novel about discovering that the primary objective of film making is to tell a story. If you don't tell a story, what have you done? Even the infamous focus audience of 15 year old males in mid-western USA want a story structure (of sorts) on which to hang all the action and special effects. Perhaps we're talking about stories that are worth effectively telling? And how to tell them? Oral, written, theatre, film? The tale or the teller? Is there a debate in this?
Most certainly the story is more important than the technique (many films fail because the screenplay needed greater critique and longer development), but surely on this site there is a tacit assumption that everything to do with film making is about telling a story. If discussions of technique (e.g. foley, DOF, lighting, 3D) are answered with "only the story matters", I guess we'll have transmogrified into a writing blog.
Dreamline
wrote on 8/5/2010, 7:29 PM
You NEED 4k to keep up with youtube!
Alf Hanna
wrote on 8/6/2010, 6:13 AM
I will remind folks that haven't studied film history that there were people who ran panic stricken and screaming from movie theaters when they first came out. They thought the images of trains coming at them and people shooting guns towards the audience were real! There were also people who never thought sound would be successful. etc. Heck look at Charlie Chaplin!
3d will continue to mature and move forward. The craving of the audiences for new and different things to see, and the technology curve of eventually solving the problems that cause headaches etc, will lead to adoption, just not on the timeline the industry would like. As an example of a similar situation in a different field, Microsoft has has tablet PCs available for almost a decade if not longer. It took Apple and advances in technology to finally get the market off the ground.
As someone, I think Mark Twain once said, "Reports of my demise are premature". I wouldn't take a bet against 3D at this point. It's really only into the first lap of a very long race.
3d will continue to mature and move forward. The craving of the audiences for new and different things to see, and the technology curve of eventually solving the problems that cause headaches etc, will lead to adoption, just not on the timeline the industry would like. As an example of a similar situation in a different field, Microsoft has has tablet PCs available for almost a decade if not longer. It took Apple and advances in technology to finally get the market off the ground.
As someone, I think Mark Twain once said, "Reports of my demise are premature". I wouldn't take a bet against 3D at this point. It's really only into the first lap of a very long race.
Serena
wrote on 8/8/2010, 10:15 PM
Today I've read two reports of instruction courses for 3D cinematography. Pleased to read comments on DOF and the importance of understanding the technology. One in New Scientist may be of interest. Doing the Sony three day course would be better. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727725.400-innovation-mastering-the-art-of-3d-filmmaking.htmlSony 3D course[/link]
ushere
wrote on 8/8/2010, 10:47 PM
Some conventions are unlikely to survive a transition from 2D to 3D filming. One is a tendency for cinematographers to use a shallow depth of field to ensure that only characters and objects at a certain depth in the scene are in focus, so guiding the audience's attention. Objects at all depths, within reason, should be in focus in 3D films, as is the case in the real world - so movie-makers need to use different techniques to guide the audience's attention in three dimensions.
does that mean they'll be a lot of 2nd hand primes around when it takes off ;-)
does that mean they'll be a lot of 2nd hand primes around when it takes off ;-)
Serena
wrote on 8/9/2010, 6:21 AM
>>>a lot of 2nd hand primes<<<
I wouldn't think so. They'll need twice as many. As I'm sure you know very well, a prime lens (of good quality) gives the highest resolution. DOF is about aperture and focal length, not any property of primes (other than their maximum aperture).
I wouldn't think so. They'll need twice as many. As I'm sure you know very well, a prime lens (of good quality) gives the highest resolution. DOF is about aperture and focal length, not any property of primes (other than their maximum aperture).
farss
wrote on 8/11/2010, 12:30 AM
Australia'.s first 3D wedding was shot recently: http://vimeo.com/13874950
There's a few interesting comments in there:)
Bob.
There's a few interesting comments in there:)
Bob.
farss
wrote on 8/14/2010, 2:01 PM
Sorry it's in New York and it's already started :(
Link here.
Interesting article about the movies being shown and the 'golden age of 3D' in the New York Times.
Contrary to what many younger folk may believe the golden age of 3D was 1952 to 1955, even before my time. What killed it back then was the difficulty of running two projectors in perfect sync. Those old systems though were better than what's deployed today. Contrary to what I thought, they mostly did not use anaglyph, even back then polarized filters and glasses were the norm.
Bob.
Link here.
Interesting article about the movies being shown and the 'golden age of 3D' in the New York Times.
Contrary to what many younger folk may believe the golden age of 3D was 1952 to 1955, even before my time. What killed it back then was the difficulty of running two projectors in perfect sync. Those old systems though were better than what's deployed today. Contrary to what I thought, they mostly did not use anaglyph, even back then polarized filters and glasses were the norm.
Bob.
ECB
wrote on 8/14/2010, 2:10 PM
Don't laugh bit I still have a 2 - 3D cameras, 3D slide projector (dual 500 watt) , polarizing galsses, and a lenticular screen and on occassions still set it up. :)
Ed B
Ed B
Chienworks
wrote on 8/14/2010, 7:42 PM
I finally got around to seeing "Despicable Me" this week, in 3D. I was amazed! It just plain worked this time. No headache, no blurry, ghosted image. Just plain simple 3D. However, some of the previews didn't work well. Most of them showed ghosted images. In fact they looked very similar to improper deinterlacing. That got me thinking ... maybe the projectors were off by a frame. That would explain a lot. "Despicable Me" may have been the first time i've seen the projectors perfectly in sync.
Serena
wrote on 8/14/2010, 7:52 PM
Well, there you are: I thought the anaglyph technique was limited to print (magazines) and some computer games (Starship Titanic). Polarisers and conducting screens (to retain polarisation) was the only sensible technology; now I realise the basis of some remarks in this thread. Was there really a problem running two projector in sync? Same technology as running all selsyn slaved double systems (e.g. WWII fire control systems) . The real problems arose through film weave and sprocket hole wear, and ensuring that any repairs in print A were reflected in print B.