View Single Post
Old 11-30-2017, 10:09 PM   #4
IndieTalk Moderator
jax_rox's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,875
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post
These questions and more are all very real questions that must be understood in order to make good and impactful 3D images/video.
I don't doubt you're very knowledgable on the subject. But I can assure you that every single one of those questions (and more) are addressed with every 3D movie that gets made. I can tell you with absolute confidence that no-one makes 3D movies (at least budgeted ones) without considering every single thing you've talked about. Keep in mind that many productions release in both 2D and 3D and therefore are constrained somewhat to what they can do depending on their budget and timing. Some productions do/have also done the 3D conversion in post, which adds a whole different element.

The people that generally work on these types of higher budgeted productions are specialists with at least as much, but probably much more knowledge about it than you. I'm not saying that doesn't mean you're not knowledgable on the subject at all. But don't just assume that because something may be out of whack, it was done so due to incompetence.

It's like when I see an out of focus image on screen on a $50million movie. There are many possible reasons for that shot being out of focus, and there are many possible reasons why it found it's way into the film. But I know that incompetence of the Focus Puller or editor will almost definitely not be the reason.

I'm not an expert in 3D capture, but having worked on some decently-budgeted 3D productions and talking with Cinematographers who have shot highly budgeted 3D productions, I would suggest the logistics of having two camera systems (along with lenses and everything) calibrated and matched and electronically controlled just so to get the inter-ocular and parallax and divergence etc. as wanted is, at best, a bit more complicated than getting a still image to look right, even if the fundamentals are the same.

As far as 3Ds future, I personally think that even glasses-free 3D is too much of a gimmick. It might have some success in the way that glasses-3D did for home viewing, but I don't know that people really want to watch 3D movies and television at home regardless of whether they have to wear glasses or not.

I could be wrong.

Last edited by jax_rox; 11-30-2017 at 10:22 PM.
jax_rox is offline   Reply With Quote