Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Open Forum › I don’t get it, what does 3D has?
May 4, 2011 at 4:41 AM #44422Luis Maymi LopezParticipant
I don’t get it, why is 3D so popular this days?. I been reading articles that Videomaker had publish about 3D and in all of them it mentions that you need twice the amount of gear to shoot 3D. This goes from the camera, lighting and all the way to needing twice the amount of hardrives for storage. Since you need twice the equipment, you will need twice the amount of money to buy all that. Personally I don’t like 3D for one simple thing, I hate 3D glasses. I use prescribe glasses myself and having 3D glasses on top of my prescribe is not a pleasant experience for a 2 to 3 hours movie. Also I cry in every 3D movie I see, not because the movie is sad, is because the 3D glasses and the movie itself cause my eyes to burn. I seem to be one of those people who have difficulties seeing 3D, but in general, 3D is just seeing distances differences between objects…that it. I believe that you don’t need a 3D camera to show this magic, all you need is awesome camera angles, good music and the most important, a good story (which lacks in Hollywood movies this days).
As a video producer, who is slowly purchasing my equipment, I don’t see myself venturing in the 3D arena any time soon. I ask myself, if I offer 3D (let’s say for a special event) that will be exclusive so I could charge more, then again, how much people will be willing to pay for such a production?. Most of the things I do are DVD and web related videos, so for me 3D will be a waste of money right now. When no glasses are needed to see 3D, maybe I will consider taking a look.
May 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM #186053Grinner HesterParticipant
cuz it looks neato.
May 4, 2011 at 8:30 PM #186054pseudosafariMember
Some thought HD was just the latest and greatest, and wouldn’t last. I remember a local video store telling me they wouldn’t carry Bluray discs because it was a fad. Do you think 3D and HD are different in that respect? Will 3D last? My gut tells me no–3D has come and gone many times over the years, although this latest incarnation (from what I can see) is far superior than previous ones. I also don’t see as many 3D movies coming out now as came out a year ago (let’s see what summer brings, though). I’d have to go with “it’s just the latest fad” but we’ll see.
and, yeah, it does look neato. i saw part of Avatar on a 3D TV and was pretty impressed.
May 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM #186055AnonymousInactive
Sarge, i am with you.
Since i have a monocular vision, i can’t see 3D. Not in the real world, not in the movie theaters. When i put 3D glasses on, i just see 2D, instead of the ‘double’ lines.
But i do think it is going to stick around, specially because TV companies dont have anything else to develop. We already have internet tv, HD tv, LED tv, so what else are they going to make? They need to sell technology.
But yeah, it sucks for us, the ones who can’t perceive 3D.
PS.: I ‘see’ 3D in a different way than everybody else does. I basically use contours, relative size, and overlapping of objects to ‘see’ which objects are closer and which ones are the farthest. And that doesn’t stop me from being a photographer! 🙂
May 5, 2011 at 5:05 PM #186056PJParticipant
3D will stick around, but not the glasses kind and not the kind now that jumps out of the screen. I think 3D will develop into a much less noticeable form. Until then it is just a fad that 30% of the population like 40% doesn’t like and 30% of the population doesn’t care (my own guesses, don’t quote me on that lol). I think videomaker is going a little overboard since almost all of the last 5 issues have been going nuts over 3D cameras, gear, and editing. It makes me sick and makes me stop reading the magazine when I see those articles.
I agree, it is twice the work, twice the storage, twice the money, and twice the distraction to the viewer.
Until it is more subtle, it won’t catch on.
May 5, 2011 at 5:06 PM #186057PJParticipant
I do have to agree with Grinner though, it is neato
May 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM #186058composite1Member
“… why is 3D so popular this days?”
The thing I got from my research and interviewing people working in 3D today is; it’s another option to offer viewers/audiences, it’s a new tech challenge and it allows you the filmmaker to have an extra means of showing your work. As Jeff Cools said in my article, ‘you have two movies for the price of one for sale’. Meaning, when your 3D version has its run, you can still offer the 2D version because you already have everything in place to put it out. Then too Grinner does have a point, when it’s done well 3D is pretty cool.
But I’m like you, I went to see ‘TRON: Legacy’ in 3D and it was funky for about 30 minutes then I was switching between glasses/no glasses. Not to mention, there were only a smaller than expected number of scenes where it was advantageous to even have the 3D effect present. Really, they could have just shot it in 4k or better and it would have been just as awesome looking. Except for ‘AVATAR’, I really haven’t heard of or seen a 3D flick yet where the effect was truly integral to the story.
Though I plan on eventually making a 3D film, I’m down with PJ about ‘twice the work, twice the gear, twice the storage and twice the money’! But, just like all the rest of the stuff I’ve done all that will be factored in before I do it. Just like I said in the article, 3D’s here to stay, but 2D’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
May 5, 2011 at 10:08 PM #186059D0nParticipant
I see 3-d become HUGE for gamers and CAD projects on the computer, but more of a fad as far as movies go….
Just one more thing for manufacturers to try to sell gear with.. but before I drop cash on a new tv, it better meet two requirements… the 2d image quality better not be compromised, and it will have to cost about the same as the 2d tv’s….
just like when buying a camera, slrs do video and video cams do stills, but if I’m only buying ONE camera, it damn well better do BOTH WELL.
May 11, 2011 at 10:33 PM #186060
‘A good question, ‘Sargehero’ and one which I have often asked myself, although I have every intention of trying it when time permits, to try and ascertain what all the fuss is about. As one correspondent pointed out it is twice as much of everything, time, cost, trouble and general angst, so why bother for the sake of fleeting novelty? It has all been tried before and ‘bombed’, and here’s the reason why, I feel.
Whatwe demand of the ways we fill our leisure-time, is to be entertained, not ‘novelty’ per se. It may be a sobering thought, but a film which is a ‘bummer’, which is to say falls below a benchmark which across the industry is not as high as it ought to be, isin no way enhanced by presentation in 3D. The novelty quickly fades, and having done so, if the video/film is not worth the trouble of viewing anyway, then there is nothing worthwhile that3D brings to the equation. I detest the 4:3 format, have since the early 1970’s when I began shooting with anamorphics on 8 and 16mm film-stock, but I would rather watch an outstanding film in the 4:3 format (with the classics, there is usually no option), than a glitzy and totally contrived, animated waste-of-time which most people currently equate with ‘3D’. What is coming from the major studios, especially in the US, is NOT 3D as I conceive it; it is acomputer-generated pastiche, landscapes packed with cutesy, wisecracking and rather irritating small furry animals. These are the modern-day equivalent of yesterday’s ‘cartoons’ courtesy of ever more sophisticated computer-generated on-screen objects and techniques. All very clever on a superficial level, and possibly a genre inits ownright, but 3D worthy of being taken seriously, I think not. ‘REAL’ 3D filmed by two camcorders/cameras side-by-side, might well be worth viewing for more than the ephemeral novelty of the experience, but only if the production also satisfies certain criteria as ‘eetertainment’ as well.
There should be no particular sympathy felt towards the manufacturers and aggressive promoters of such equipment, (which is bound to be expensive), just to entice users, once again, into yet another cycle of’buying-and-replacement’. It will, however, appeal, I would say, to those who have an ‘image’ to project to the rest of humanity, and especially life’s ‘have-nots’. What I have seen of 3D during in-store demos, has failed to move me, I am afraid. Everything hard-edged, right into the far-distance with no differential focus, is a ‘turn-off’ in any medium. I’d need more than that, in order topersuade me to part with my hard-earned ‘dollar’.
May 12, 2011 at 2:32 AM #186061AnonymousInactive
When it is shot is real 3D and not converted, it is definitely “Neato.”
But homemade 3D still uses the red and blue glasses which is just like the 50s. It sucks.
May 12, 2011 at 5:59 AM #186062composite1Member
Yeah the oldschool stereoscopic anaglyph 3D tech actually goes back to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries (sans the red & blue glasses.) One of the major reason ‘homemade’ 3D flicks as you said, ‘creates a vacuum effect’ is because all too often the care and attention to making the effect work properly isn’t attended to and the story no doubt wasn’t anything to write home about as well.
Ian hit it on the head with his critique on current Hollywood offerings. The one thing to keep in mind concerning H-Wood and 3D is; they aren’t concerned about art, they are looking for gimmicks to get butts into theater seats and to buy Blu-Ray / DVD’s. That’s it. Until those who make 3D films and videos come to understand that the medium they’re using needs to be a part of their work not an accessory, we’re going to continue to see a continuing stream of crap flowing onto big and small screens. IMAX for example is excellent for showing grand vistas and making ‘bigger than life’ scenes (see ‘Dark Knight’.)
Using IMAX to shoot a lowbudget teen horror flick isn’t even considered because other than the cost, it’s just not suited for the genre. 3D on the other hand is a lot cheaper to make (unless you’re doing a stadium-load of 3D CGI rendering) so now everyone capable of making a 3D film is jumping on the bandwagon. So what will change all this is when some filmmaker whips out a flick into the mainstream that incorporates 3D into the story to where without it the film would be something completely different… and make it popular. When that happens, H-wood will scramble to do the same thing. Until then, don’t forget your waders….
May 12, 2011 at 10:56 PM #186063
Just a sidelight on the subject of 3D. There was quite a stir lately on the announcement that a high-profile Hollywood producer intended to make a 3D video of a lost-tribe in the Amazon jungle. Sadly, it’s all been done before. A young lady, (sorry I forget her christian-name for the moment, so I haven’t included it), resident of Wanaka in Central Otago, New Zealand, has already done a similarjob in Vanuatu, and done it very well, by all accounts, using two camcorders on a special ‘custom’ mount. The ‘Fox’ Natural History Unit in Dunedin, New Zealand, has been routinely shooting in 3D for twelve years, and recently our newspapers featured an article by one of its most successful cameramen, Max Quinn. I was not intending to be disparaging of what Hollywood produces, necessarily. Tastes, in movies, have long been perverted by the attitudes of modern society. What Hollywood, and most other sources, produce as a means of ‘getting bums onto seats’ is what keeps the industry going, but an enviroment dictated in-the-main by ticket-sales and TV-ratings is never going to be able to keep its head above water, unless it concentrates on the slickly sensational to keep the attention, during commercial breaks of those with short attention spans and a temptation to surf-off to other channels. That tends to make most of the material over-hyped, over-stated, and concentrating on the trite-and-trivial, not the real ‘meat’ of the subject. ‘Nero offered the citizens of Rome, similar ‘spectacles’ in his day, and look where it got him. Sooner or later we are going to have to offerviewers something more than ever ratchetting-upwards visual sensation, (the ever-more-mindless ‘explosions’, for example), or the industry is likely to implode, as viewers become over-saturated by the visual experience. Frantic cutting and over-amplified audio, is not the answer; ‘quality’ possibly could-be. Stereo 3D, on its own,is not the answer, either. It wasn’t in the 1950’s, and it’s unlikely to be in the future, unless other qualities of film/TV undergo an overhaul, as well.
There is excellent entertainment/education to be had on TV. I am currently watching a British Natural History BBC series ‘Life’, on local ‘Prime’ TV, and it is outstanding in ‘Hi-Def’. BBC Bristol and BBC East Anglia, over the years, have produced some magnificent stuff documentary-wise dating right back to the series ‘The Flight of the Condor’ in the 1970’s withoutirritating over-sensationalised presentation. When the ‘commercial’ imperative takes over and the needs of the market-place take centre-stage, we tend to get the crap that we deserve. To take such stuff, then add 3D to it, inappropriately in most cases, does not rescue it from its own ineptitude, it simply adds a further layer of irritation to the viewing experience. The solution, I feel, is to make better, more worthwhile, features/programmes, then to investigate whether adding 3D to the ‘mix’ will enhance them yet further.(For all that, I cannot wait to have my own ‘play’ with the technology).
PS: One feature I would definitely like to have seen in 3D, is ‘March of the Penguins’, but seeing it was filmed in-part, through an Antarctic winter, I cannot see much chance of that happening somehow.
May 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM #186064
May 13, 2011 at 11:51 PM #186065
The name of the ‘young-lady’ has come back to me, Rachel Wilson. The film was called ‘The108-year-old Chief’, with reference to a Vanuatu chief ‘Johnston Kowia’, who was fighting to preserve the traditions and culture of his tribe in the face of ‘progress’, (yes, the usual kind, busloads of ‘loopies’,cameras intrusively thrust into faces, and the inevitable corruption of traditional values).
The production was assisted by equipment/software developed by ‘Taylormade Productions’ in Dunedin, which may strike a ‘vibe’ with some, as the organisation to the forefront in animating America’s Cup Yachting, international golf, and other sports, to make them more comprehensible for general TV presentation. Rachel’s video, has only been seen in limited release, so-far, and I have not seen it myself, but I intend to.
Interesting, possibly, are the ‘rules’ of presentation which are still being evolved. I understand that the queaziness and nausea which attended earlier 3D screenings in the 1950’s and 60’s were due to most viewers being unable to come-to-terms with one or two matters to do with the physiology of how weseethe world around us. The principle problems, apparently, are the screen margins and especially images projected so as to be apparently on a plane forward of the screen. Those images being cut-off arbitarily cannot be resolved by many viewers, leading to feelings of disorientation similar to motion-sickness. That’s what appeals to me about the medium, it’s in the process of development, so at the moment, my ‘two-cents-worth’ is as valid as anyone else’s. That will ‘pass’, however when the tertiary education sector wades into the situation and sets up a monolith of ‘rules’ about 3D. Then, as always, most the fun and sense-of-achievement will be gone-from-it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.