You probably noticed, everything is 3D these days. I don’t mean, you or your coffee cup or that half eaten sandwich on your desk. They’ve always been 3D. I mean let’s go to the movies, get your plastic specs on and check out the extra dimension.
3D is the latest in a long line of fancy-shiny-things in the battle betwixt your telly and cinema. The cinemas enticed us with wide-wide-screens, ear-bleedingly loud surround sounds and big-super-extra-giant-bucket sized cups. Sure, you can drink out of a bucket at home but so far the EXTRA DIMENSION is only available at the movies. But is it any good?
Is 3D the dawn of a new type of cinema or is it just a new way to make films even more expensive to create? At least it doesn’t use the red-toffee-paper green-toffee-paper glasses of old. Man those boys used to give you a rotten headache. The new ones look like national health glasses circa 1950. But it is dark in the cinema so I guess that’s not important.
3D glasses, circa 2009
I saw Coraline, a great film, an Oscar contender and more serious than some of the other 3D blockbusters. There are parts of this film, the opening needle and thread sequence and the landscape in which the house is set, the tunnel between the “worlds”, where the 3D is breathtaking. It’s a very strange experience.
I did become very aware of the bottom of the frame as near things appear and disappear behind it. Also, in the real world you’re not distracted by near things because you can focus where you want but in a film everything is fixed. So I sometimes found I was looking in the wrong place in a shot because an irrelevant object was “nearer” to me than the thing I was supposed to be looking at.
In some scenes you don’t really see the 3D. In fact in whole sections of the film, I forgot it was 3D. So when something 3D happened again, I felt surprised and slightly pulled out of the narrative.
I can’t say that I have ever been sitting watching a good film and thought to myself “This is great but I wish someone would start firing ping pong balls into the audience or something.”. I mean what does 3D add to story? Nothing. It adds to the spectacle. But there are so many films that are just spectacle and nothing else. Spectacle is great as long as there’s a good story and characters. That’s why Coraline works but I have to say, I think I would have been just as happy to see it in good ol’2D.
But that’s just my blurb. What do you think - 2D or 3D?
Loading... 
I have to say I’ve been very impressed with the 3D movies I’ve seen so far.
And clearly with the likes of Dreamworks and Pixar deciding to render all their future (and past?) CGI movies in 3D the big players obviously believe it has some sort of future.
I think it’s true to say, however, that both movie-makers and movie-goers need to learn how to make best use of the technology and how to best view the results. In much the same way as early cinema-goers had to learn not to run screaming from the cinema whenever a train approached the camera.
As for 3D just being about spectacle, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with adding spectacle to the cinematic experience. After all, isn’t that part of the reason we still go to the cinema rather than huddle round the TV?
If only they could come up with a way to make 3D work without having to put on a pair of specs…
Robbie
(Report comment)
Apparently the real reason for the recent 3D fad is the attempt by the big studios to force cinemas to convert to digital projection.
The cinema owners have been reluctant because they own reliable equipment (Their 35 and 70mm projectors) and don’t want to splash out on the extra projectors.
For the studios, however, not having to provide 35mm prints that have to be replaced every week due to wear and tear would mean a great deal of savings.
Dolby3D and RealD are only available digitally, so it’s: “Convert or miss out”.
Rumour has it that once the world has stepped over to the digital side, 3D will become as rare again as it once was.
The other possible outcome is that 3D makes the jump onto TV.
The last Studio I worked in had a Vvue 3D monitor that uses the same circular polarisation technique as Real D cinema projection.
It looks great and the glasses are comfortable enough.
I’m sure this technology will become standard for the gaming world in the future, and, as a side effect, I wouldn’t be surprised to witness the birth of the 3D blueray disk.
I guess we will have to wait and see…
I, for one, love 3D, I’m still collecting old View master disks…
Felix
(Report comment)
3D is the natural way we perceive the world around us. Transition from monoscopic to stereoscopic is as natural as transition from monophonic to stereophonic (or even surround) sound. If production companies stop patronising the audience with gimmick scenes (no more balls thrown ‘out of the screen’ please!) then people will understand and appreciate it better. Digital projection made things a lot easier for us 3D-stereo people and issues such as synchronization are virtually solved now (that means less people in the audience with headaches and upset stomachs).
Coraline 3D was nicely made, heck even Bolt 3D had quite subtle yet decently animated 3D cameras. As for bad examples, I still wonder how the ‘Fly me to the Moon’ people got away with such terrible 3D-Stereo execution. Such stuff should be outlawed as a health+safety risk or something.
Just my two cents.
(Report comment)
Me again.
If you want some superb use (with the exception of one gimmick shot) of 3D in a good movie, try to see Alfred Hitchcock’s: “Dial M for murder” in it’s original linear polarized stereoscopic version.
I saw it about 6 years ago at the NFT in London.
All the typical hitchcockian techniques, like concentrating on Grace Kelly’s handbag, before Ray Milland removes the key from it, are enhanced by placing the bag in front of the screen, while everything else is behind.
Very well done indeed.
Felix
(Report comment)
I think these are all fair points, almost enough to make me want to go see a 3D film for myself! I know it’s not rational, but with poor depth perception and an inability to see stereograms, I just can’t muster the enthusiasm to do it.
What’s wrong with 2D? I’d like to see film makers tackle bad stories, poor design, and plasticky rendering before they start worrying about the extra dimension.
Now excuse me while I return to knitting on my rocking chair while listening to my gramophone.
(Report comment)
The idea of wearing glasses to watch a 3D movie at the cinema seems like very old fashioned technology to me - compared with the advancements in HD, CGI, special effects etc over the years 3D seems a bit old hat.
Saying that, I have to admit I love the effect. I’ve been to see both Bolt and Coraline in 3D and been blown away. I think the films themselves weren’t ground-breaking - I felt the story in Coraline was not particularly strong (and I may get slated for saying so!) but the 3D just emphasized the beauty of the animation, and I didn’t want to blink for the whole film.
I think seeing a film in 3D definitely gives the cinema and extra edge when competing for audiences who might otherwise wait for the DVD or download an illegal copy. Now all they need to do is work on the pricing - I got charged an extra £1.50 for the LOAN of a pair of 3D glasses at the Showcase Cinema De Lux - wtf?!
(Report comment)
They do that here too! You have to buy the glasses every time you go to the cinema, regardless of whether you already own a pair or not… Crooks… I shake my fist at you, 3D crooks! (but will probably give in eventually).
(Report comment)
Anyone for 3D YouTube videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2tBoJXDYac
(Report comment)
Personally, I’m disappointed that the current wave of 3D films seem to be so preoccupied with distancing themselves from the idea that 3D is just a gimmick that they choose not to make the most of the fact that .. well .. it *is* just a gimmick - and one that they should revel in. Opportunities for cheesy 3D tricks are wantonly passed-up in favour of such things as “wanting to make a half-decent film”.
As a 3D junkie of old, I *want* to see bad actors pointing needlessly towards the camera, eyeballs popping out on sharp pointy things or icky goo being blasted out of the screen in a way that provokes an involuntary ducking reflex and much amusement throughout the audience. This is what I pay my extra £1.50 for. Not a heightened sense of perspective or lush looking landscapes.
(Report comment)
These are all really interesting comments about 3D, which I’m writing my dissertation about. Seems that someone covers every base in terms of opinion.
Personally I think that 3D does make a difference from an experience point of view, but I enjoy knowing that I’m in a cinema and still feeling sucked in by a film - I noticed yesterday at ‘Up’ (abo****ely brilliant film) that the glasses ‘framed’ my experienced and forced me into the screen even more.
If anyone has 2 minutes and would like to help me with my dissertation, go to
http://mistercastro.squarespace.com/dissertation
and leave a comment on the top blog post. It’s gonna be an interesting research project I think.
mc
(Report comment)