I haven’t really posted on my (young) blog my general musings on industry trends, but it’s my blog and that’s what I want to do tonight. I have been thinking a lot recently about 3-D technology. These thoughts were certainly sparked by the release of Avatar and all the hype surrounding the new 3-D technology James Cameron helped to invent for this film. I have to admit that when I first saw previews for this film, it looked unappealing to me (some may think that comment is blasphemy, and I apologize). I am not really into fantasy-based movies, and while it appeared to be stunning visually, I figured I could pass. Anyways, after it’s release and all the hype and some rather positive reviews I figured I’d check it out in 3-D.
I have always been a little weary of whether I could even view 3-D properly. You know those pictures that are supposed to pop out at you if you look at them the right way? I have never achieved that effect, despite much time spent staring and concentrating. Apparently my eyes (I think they call it binocular vision) just won’t produce that image. And earlier 3-D technology was the same way for me, never really popping out the way people sitting next to me said it would. But I knew that the technology had improved so I figured I’d check it out.
As far as I could tell the 3-D in Avatar DID work for me. While I never felt that the characters were sitting in my lap or that I wanted to reach out to try to touch what I was seeing, I did see images emerging from the 2-D space. I would say, though, that it took me about 10-15 minutes of the film to settle into “how” to view the film, and I felt myself getting a little headache at the beginning. Long story short (as I don’t want to make this a review of Avatar), the 3-D was cool, but I left the theater feeling that it did not greatly enhance my viewing experience. If felt a little gimmicky to me.
Now I don’t want to sound like some antiquated techno-phobe. I am far from that. I LOVE new technology in the video field, and I try to embrace and use new tools as early as possible. I think, for the most part, advances in video imaging have really increased the viewing experience, as well as my enjoyment of producing these images. I just feel that 3-D is one of those things that does NOT need to become the norm. I know when HD came out, I looked at it as the holy grail, and a VERY expensive acquisition format, and now I have been producing at least 85% of my content in HD for the last few years, and shooting in some flavor of HD for about 5 years. But I look at 3-D and hope this does not become as prevalent in the tv/movie world as HD. Several tv networks are starting to build and roll out 3-D channels, and camera companies are starting to design 3-D rigs. Panasonic has developed this 3-D camera at a relatively affordable $21K.
So why don’t I like this? Well last night I turned on the Grammy Awards for a few minutes, just in time for the tribute to the late, great Michael Jackson. Right before the song they said to put on your 3-D glasses, and a little icon reminder appeared in the lower corner. Well, as it turns out, I don’t have a pair of 3-D glasses? Do you? So I sat and watched what I dubbed as “No-D” as a blurry Celine Dion and then many other famous singers came on the screen. My nice HD plasma screen suddenly looked like crap.
Basically I don’t want to have to wear glasses to watch tv. Many people already need some sort of corrective lenses, but they probably don’t want to have to put on additional glasses to view 3-D content. Can they make 3-D TVs that don’t require glasses? I don’t know. But either way I am not sure I really need to feel THAT connected to my television. I imagine some content would probably be neat in 3-D but I don’t think I need to feel like Al Roker is popping out of my television set.
While it would probably be interesting to shoot some 3-D footage for specific projects, I don’t think it needs to be the norm for all production. I imagine the equipment and post-processing load would be greatly increased, and I have yet to experience all the merits of 3-D. Will it become as ubiquitous as HD is now? I don’t know, time will tell.
I would love to hear your comments though on this issue.
Tags: 3-D, cameras, HD, technology
As a freelance producer/shooter of video content I have pondered similar questions about 3-D. I think 3-D in the current glasses-needed manifestation will not go far beyond gimmicky big Hollywood productions. I believe most theaters don’t even have digital projectors at this point and they are grasping at straws just to get people to pay a few extra bucks and come to the theater.
I will always welcome a larger, higher quality TV at home, but I will never ever WANT to put on glasses.
I wouldn’t worry about 3-D being a big deal as there are so many media outlets (like the web) that will in no way incorporate 3-D anytime in the near future. I think it will remain a very specialized type of shooting.
Keep posting!
Thanks Jake. It seems like you and I are of the same mindset. I know there are some that think this should be THE future. And it probably will be to a certain extent. What remains to be seen is how much it gets used.
While I feel the same way as you about watching at home- that I don’t feel the NEED to view television any differently than I do now- I DO think that 3-D may be the next big evolution in tv/movie viewing. I was annoyed by the glasses, and I occasionally found the 3-D distracting, BUT- and this is a big “but”- I also felt like I was IN the scene in a way that 2-D can’t replicate. I wonder if 3-D might just be the way we watch ALL programming at some point; that just the way HD made the image look more “real”, so will 3-D technology.
Not that I particularly care if it never turns out that way. I wouldn’t miss it, and I’m perfectly happy just seeing a regular, not-so-old HD 2-D picture.
I was informed tonight that there is technology to create 3-D displays that don’t require glasses, but they do require you to sit in exactly the right spot. But it will probably improve. I just hope we always have the choice of 3-D or 2-D programming. We’ll see, I guess.
I have similar feelings about 3D. But the most important thing to me is that even the best
3D theatre experience takes me out of the getting lost in the story and characters. Its those glasses that I feel around my eyes and nose that remind me I’m in a theatre. Its the slightly blurry image (my eyes don’t focus completely either).
that ironically doesn’t let me focus on the elements of the image that I can connect to. It’s the extra money I spent
that is tugging at my wallet demanding I get the most awestruck epiphany out of this flick that I can’t concentrate on.
So I can’t get past that and I won’t waste my money on it. Totally didn’t attempt to see Avatar in 3D.
I agree. I found in Avatar I was too caught up in figuring out HOW to watch this, and that was distracting. I guess if 3-D becomes the norm then we’ll get used to it, but I also though it all seemed less sharp than a nice HD 2-D display would have been.
By the way, your profile picture looks EXACTLY like my father. I would love if you could send me that picture so I could send it to him.
Andrew – to your point about the blurry image, I’m surprised more people haven’t brought that up. You see endless postings on these forums about resolution and image sharpness and yet the one (technical) drawback to Avatar for me was the softness created by the 3D. Maybe it’s my eyes, but I wish I had watched the movie in 2D Imax rather than 3D.
I think that there are too many things standing in the way of 3D. Multiple viewing formats, more expensive and complicated workflow, and people are reluctant to watch things in 3D.
We started watching Coraline in 3D on DVD the other day. We all had 3D glasses on but we couldn’t stand the way that it looked, so we flipped the disk over to the 2D side.
Between you and I, I sure hope 3D doesn’t become common place, I don’t want to have to wear 3D glasses in the editing suite!
Yeah, I imagine the HD format wars will slow down the progress of 3-D. I never even thought of having to wear glasses to edit, but yes, that would be a huge pain.
I don’t know if the movie as art industry needs 3D, but the business of making money in Hollywood need 3D to get people to leave their homes to go to the movie theater. See this BusinessWeek article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_05/b4165048396178.htm.
Also, the New Yorker has a nice piece on him as well.