Home Your Ad Here

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > Making The Film > Cinematography/Lighting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2017, 06:47 PM   #16
jax_rox
IndieTalk Moderator
 
jax_rox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,825
Interesting. What do you think about VR and it's potential for a more immersive experience...?

I agree - as I said up top, I think 3D as an 'immersion' medium is/was potentially under-utilised, although in saying that I think the large majority of big budget Hollywood releases went down the path of immersion, perhaps alongside gimmick (although gimmick in so much as being 3D, not gimmick in the old ways of throwing things at you).

That said, I don't think that every film warrants or requires that immersive experience, and many certainly are not worth paying extra for it.

I like the idea of VR as even with my limited experience in it, it feels even more immersive than any cinema screen could. It seems like to go 'full immersion' you would want 3D-VR, which sounds extremely expensive and challenging to capture!

I think in regards to 'immersive 3D' there haven't been many films where the storytelling is borne out of the technology, I imagine mostly because most films had to work as a 2D and 3D story. I have seen a small handful of IMAX 3D films where the storytelling is more tied to the 3D technology and that is very interesting. Is that what you mean when you talk about an immersive experience?

Personally, I find that in the right 3D movies I can become immersed in the world of the story, but when the story and the technology go hand-in-hand, it becomes a different immersion. I don't know if that would work for every story or every movie, and I wonder if you limit accessibility by relying too much on 3D?

Anyway, just thoughts. Interested to hear your opinions.
jax_rox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:19 AM   #17
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax_rox View Post
.......................
I think in regards to 'immersive 3D' there haven't been many films where the storytelling is borne out of the technology, I imagine mostly because most films had to work as a 2D and 3D story. I have seen a small handful of IMAX 3D films where the storytelling is more tied to the 3D technology and that is very interesting. Is that what you mean when you talk about an immersive experience?

...................
This!
3D is added as an extra to movies instead of treated as a new form of media.

The same happens with 360videos. I've seen 'corporate 360 videos' that were shot as a normal video, but with a 360 camera. Trying to project a new medium on an existing one does not always work.

With stereoscopic movies it can work very well, but there might be a much bigger and differentent potential that is not being used. At the same time: movies rely on theatres. So from that point of view the current use of 3D is not that strange.
WalterB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 09:52 AM   #18
Velusion
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 102
Chain of thought

I became interested in stereoscopy when word of James Cameron's Avator came out. "state of the art 3D" "so immersive you'll feel like you're there" If anyone could do it, it would be Cameron. He is a technically minded director who accepts nothing short of perfection and who has the money to invent new technology if it doesn't already exist. I was sold. If Cameron was making a 3D movie then 3D is the future!!

I was not impressed with Avatar the way I thought I would be, or wanted to be. Yes, it was a technical marvel and the story telling was good but, I didn't feel any sense of immersion. The characters were on the screen (or in the screen) and I was in the audience watching. I was not within the world being shown on the screen. Later I asked myself 'why not?'.

As you guys have already mentioned. You both said it but Walter put it very well "Trying to project a new medium on an existing one." For me, the biggest problem with 3D movies is that they are shot with a 2D mentality. Same camera angles. Same camera movis, and same editing style... and I understand why they still do this; the movie has to show well on a 2D screen as well as 3D. They can't afford to commit to "storytelling -borne out of the technology".

What would a 3D movie look like if the film makers committed to make a true 3D movie that is immersive? I have thought about this for years and I'm convinced that scale would have to be maintained and the editing cuts would have to brought down to a minimum. None at all would actually be the best. In essence, you would be watching a stage play. The people on the screen would have to be seen at true scale; about 6 feet tall. No close ups since there are no close ups in life unless you physically move in closer to someone. The pont of convergence (where the image appears ON the screen) for the stereo pairs would have to coincide with the actual distance between the viewer and the screen. Again, it would be like being present at a stage play.

So much for pure 3D movies. I don't think anyone will sit through a movie like that. Not even me.. So, we compromise. We use close ups and editing and we don't maintain true scale BUT we do modify the editing to make it less intrusive (good editing should not draw attention to itself anyway).. We use a deep DOF, longer establishing shots with fewer close ups, cut aways and all the other techniques that work well in 2D but will remind us in 3D that this is not real.

It seems like a losing battle. It seems like immersive 3D is a pipe dream. Any presentation that reminds us that what we are seeing is not real can not possibly be immersive.

But wait, that isn't true at all. I have been immersed in plenty of films. Everyone has but, here's the thing; none of them were 3D.

Jaws, close encounters, indiana Jones, Star Wars, The Exorcist,Breathless, Alien, Kramer vs Kramer, Wisdom, King Kong 1976. That is a partial list of films that I felt immersed in. Those are films that sucked me in and made me feel like I was there.

STORY TELLING!! that is and always has been the answer to the question 'how do you immerse the audience in the reality of your movie?'. Story telling.... Adding 3D to a so so story leaves you with a 3D so so movie. It won't be elevated by the magic of 3D because 3D is only 'more information' in much the same way that color film is only more information than black and white film.

This might sound strange coming from a guy who claims Hollywood does not understand what they are doing. I still stand by that. I mean, if they did, I think they would at least modify the way they shoot and edit a movie that will be presented in 3D. That is the least they can do. The most they can do is make a pure 3D movie that is designed to be a 3D movie. In the middle ground, they are completely capable of making 2 versions of the same move; a 2D edit and a 3D edit. Good planning and a good editing team could make this a reality.

... but at the end of the day, I believe the true immersive experience hinges on the story and the telling of the story. In conclusion, 3D is just more information.

BUT, if you are going to use it, you should use it well. Stereoscopy offers its own bag of tricks that can be used to help tell a story. Strange, I've discovered these tricks but from what I can tell, other 3D people have not. I never talk about them in detail because I don't want to just give them away. I either want to lay claim to them by using them in a movie or presenting them in my book. After that, anyone can use them. They don't cost anything.

Last edited by Velusion; 12-05-2017 at 09:59 AM.
Velusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 11:39 AM   #19
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,408
What you describe is a consequence of projecting on a screen: the only thing that can be done is turning a screen into a 'box', like a stage.
I don't think rreverting back to the stageplay is the way to go.
The filmtheory of montage is one of the elements that elevate movies from the medium of stage play.

I think the combination with 360VR will make a truly immersive experience possible, but it will presents its own story boundaries, since cutting will be hard and you can not control the frame anymore.
VR is already being used to treat PTSS or to train psychiatrists to make them experience a psychosis.

I love to think about what different media can be used for.
3DVR can be a great medium for short stories, but also as a spectator-medium for certain events.
But I think it's full potential lies in gaming: there you can interact and move within the VR space.
WalterB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 12:52 PM   #20
Velusion
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 102
VR has great potential. I haven't studied it but I believe you're still looking at a screen. The screen is attached to your head via goggles or a headset and uses sensors to recognize head movement which triggers the VR to rotate the 360 video view to match the viewer's head orientation. It's a fantastic first step toward the Star Trek holodeck.

... VR seems best suited for "in the moment" events; video games, observing a water fall, just watching something happen.

Last edited by Velusion; 12-05-2017 at 12:56 PM. Reason: spelling
Velusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 02:57 PM   #21
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post
VR has great potential. I haven't studied it but I believe you're still looking at a screen......
True, lol, but the screen is no longer fixated on 1 location with confined and (if you far away enough) visible boundaries. Like you said: the screen cannot be unseen unless you close your eyes. And when you move your head, the view doesn't end with an edge, but shows the view from that angle.

This technique poses new struggles. At the moment: longer than 3 minutes is nauseating for many people. Having 'no body' while looking down also boggles the mind. So more and more VR experiences are made with a body. Together with gloves and AR, they can give you VR-hands that move like your own.

For this kind of stuff: forget lineair filmtheory. It is a totally different beast.
WalterB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 05:36 PM   #22
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post

I don't mind being challenged. I love defending my position, just make sure the thing you are challenging is real and not the product of not being able to read...ok?
Okay, I'll give it a try. I hope I meet your criteria for a real
challenge.

“One of the things I learned right away is that a majority of the people making 3D movie content did not understand what they were doing.”

I read this and reread it. My challenge to you isn't a comprehension
issue, (I am able to read) it's a different opinion. I believe that
the majority of people making 3D movies understand 3D very well.

“there is no difference between making a single 3D image and shooting 3D video”

The difference between a 3D photo and a 3D moving image
is vast. One can't just set up a “still frame” and have things
move around in it. Hitchcock did that in his one and only 3D
film and while the 3D was terrific, as a movie it didn't work.
One of his few failures. You have done both video and stills
– have you made a narrative film? Short or feature?

Just because some people experience eye strain doesn't mean
the filmmakers did not understand what they were doing. No
one looks at single 3D images for 90 to 120 minutes. I think
it could be argued that the movement (which is essential in
a motion picture) and the length of time viewing causes the
eye strain more than the filmmaker not understanding what
they were doing.

What did you think of Scorsese's “Hugo”? A very accomplished
filmmaker working with a very accomplished DP who both spent
a lot of time studying 3D before embarking on the movie.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 09:37 PM   #23
Velusion
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 102
How disappointing. I was hoping this thread would spark conversation and the exchange of real information. Instead it has become an attempt to discredit me by people who don't really know anything about stereoscopy. It seems that your 3D accomplishments are limited to only knowing other people who work with 3D or having seen movies in 3D... so sad..

anyway, here we go.

Quote:
“One of the things I learned right away is that a majority of the people making 3D movie content did not understand what they were doing.”

I read this and reread it. My challenge to you isn't a comprehension
issue, (I am able to read) it's a different opinion. I believe that
the majority of people making 3D movies understand 3D very well.
Nice general statement. What makes you believe they understand 3D? Because someone is paying them to do it? Is it because a majority of the 3D movies you've seen were immersive and made you feel like you were there? ... I don't disagree that they know how to capture 3D images but that is only the first step if you goal is to create an experience that is more than just images with depth.


Quote:
“there is no difference between making a single 3D image and shooting 3D video”

The difference between a 3D photo and a 3D moving image
is vast. One can't just set up a “still frame” and have things
move around in it. Hitchcock did that in his one and only 3D
film and while the 3D was terrific, as a movie it didn't work.
One of his few failures. You have done both video and stills
– have you made a narrative film? Short or feature?
You could not be more wrong. Yes, you can set up a still frame and have things move around in it. You don't know this because you don't know anything about stereoscopy.... and just to save you the time of typing a predictable counter-argument, yes, if things are moving around within the frame it may be likely that the dp wants light fixture movement and light modifiers syncronized to the movement to keep things well exposed but that is true of any set up. The 3D camera, once the point of convergence is set up, does not have to change no matter what is going on before the lens and THAT is a FACT.

Quote:
Just because some people experience eye strain doesn't mean
the filmmakers did not understand what they were doing. No
one looks at single 3D images for 90 to 120 minutes. I think
it could be argued that the movement (which is essential in
a motion picture) and the length of time viewing causes the
eye strain more than the filmmaker not understanding what
they were doing.
Wrong. People experience eye fatigue because their eye muscles can not handle the exertion of having to converge 2 images (left and right) that have too high of disparity. This is a known problem and is easily dealt with using a technique called depth budgeting. It is a simple but important technique that can eliminate eye strain for most people. There will always be some people, like my friend Ian, who can not watch 3D movies for more than a minute or so before he gets a head ache. Those people are in the same group as people who say they can not see the 3D effect in a 3D movie. Quite simply, 3D movies are not for everyone however, depth budgeting make watching 3D for extended periods of time easier for everyone else. What is depth budgeting? As of today there are 2 techniques that I know of: The first is to have some 2D shots in the 3D movie. It give your eyes a chance to rest and, believe it or not, you really can't tell the difference. Your brain fools you into thinking you're still seeing a 3D image. There is nothing jarring about going from 3D to 2D then back to 3D in a movie, but, as is true with anything, you must plan in advance how you are going to use this technique. The second way is to use some sophisticated software that can warp the stereo pair in a way that compressed depth. In essence, if you have a stereo pair that has disparity that ranges from 1 to 4, the software can compress the depth through warping techniques to reduce the disparity range to something line 1 to 1.5 or 1 to 2 (these numbers are not real. I only use them to demonstrate the idea). The idea behind depth budgeting is to use less depth (or none) where it is not needed so the eye muscles can rest thus allowing you to watch the entire movie with no eye strain.

Quote:
What did you think of Scorsese's “Hugo”? A very accomplished
filmmaker working with a very accomplished DP who both spent
a lot of time studying 3D before embarking on the movie.
I never saw Hugo.

Last edited by Velusion; 12-05-2017 at 09:43 PM. Reason: typos
Velusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:08 PM   #24
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post
How disappointing. I was hoping this thread would spark conversation and the exchange of real information. Instead it has become an attempt to discredit me by people who don't really know anything about stereoscopy. It seems that your 3D accomplishments are limited to only knowing other people who work with 3D or having seen movies in 3D... so sad..
I'm sorry you feel my questions are just trying to discredit you.

I'm sad that you take my lack of understanding of something you have
spent 5 or 7 years learning about "so sad". You are correct, I have no
3D accomplishments at all so was hoping to learn a little from you. Instead
you put me down for my lack of accomplishments.

I regret asking my questions and posing my challenges. You did say were
were not expecting to be challenged by a non-practitioner so I should have
just stayed out of it.

I won't ask you any more questions or offer my opinions. A sad day for
this forum.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:20 PM   #25
Velusion
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 102
What questions did you ask? 'cause I think I missed them.

Anyway, I've got a few minutes to spare.

Let's start

Introduction

Stereoscopy is more than just taking 3D pictures. To only consider capturing the images that will produce the stereogram will leave you only be looking at half of the equation. The other half has to do with presentation, how will your 3D pictures be seen and under what conditions? There is a lot of talk about not putting too much depth into your pictures or you may cause eye strain but how do you do that? How can you predict how much 3D effect is too much? I have read some general answers to that question that are very unsatisfying but nothing that really tells you anything at all. In this book, we will answer that question. I won’t say there are rules to the question of how much is too much but there are ideas and things to consider. If you want to call these things rules then by all means do but also understand that the rules can and should be broken under certain circumstances.
A wonderful truth about stereoscopy is that it does not require precision. Our two eyes and brain working together are very adaptable and can see past small errors in a 3D image as though they were not there. With this in mind you will see that stereograms are not the product of precise measurements and strict rules. Instead they are a product of basic understanding and estimates. You don’t need to be a mathematician or a physicist to create good 3D images.. Once you have an understanding of Stereoscopy and how your eyes see, all you really need to be is a photographer. Shooting a 3D image is just as easy as shooting a regular planar 2D picture.

We will spend a lot of time talking about 3D images or Stereograms but we will also be talking about 3D movies or videos. Now here is a surprise for you; it doesn’t matter if we talk about images or movies, the theory and application is pretty much the same. What you learn here can be used to make movies or still pictures. That’s up to you. Some of the techniques are specific to movies only because movies are animated pictures and everything can move, including the camera(s).
Velusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:34 PM   #26
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Dude, you win.

I was wrong to get involved. I won't do it again.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:46 PM   #27
Velusion
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 102
That's just it, directorik. You didn't get involved. You only tried to call me out....

The thing is this; I've been involved in 3D talks on other forums. Some people knew a few things about 3D, others asked questions but nobody said anything like "I don't know anything about 3D but I'm sure you're wrong".. I know you didn't say that in those exact words but you did say that.
Velusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:50 PM   #28
jax_rox
IndieTalk Moderator
 
jax_rox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post
Instead it has become an attempt to discredit me by people who don't really know anything about stereoscopy.
There are no attempts at discrediting, only attempts at clarifying the accuracy of information. As I've said in previous threads, when attempting to educate clarity and accuracy are vitally important.

You've certainly tried to discredit pretty much everyone making 3D films by suggesting they don't understand what they're doing.

I'll refrain from any further commenting on this thread lest it be misconstrued or lead to personal attacks.

Please keep in mind that discussion should always be civil and to refrain from personal attacks.
jax_rox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:54 PM   #29
Velusion
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 102
I agree.

3D window: inside, on screen, outside

The goal of Stereoscopy is to create the sensation of 3 dimensional depth in a 2 dimensional image. Regardless of how the image or video or film is presented or projected, the goal is the same; to capture or create 2 images, a stereo pair, in a binocular fashion that when presented appears as one image, a stereogram, that has the appearance of actual depth. Because we are talking about bringing depth to a flat image we need to understand the relationship between the depth and the 2 dimensional plane holding it. Because a 2D image exists, in a physical sense, in 3D space, our eyes will see it that way. In other words, a stereogram, will appear as a 2 dimensional window into a 3 dimensional world. A small 3D picture that you hold in your hand is a 2 dimensional window into a 3 dimensional world that you are holding in your hand. With this in mind we can say that the 3D window can be broken down into 3 distinct regions of the 3D space; inside the screen, on the screen, and outside the screen. Inside the screen is the same as behind the screen or piece of paper the image is printed on. On the screen is exactly on the screen or paper it is printed on. Outside the screen is right in front of you, inside the theater or wherever you happen to be when viewing it. The object is closer to you than the screen or paper it is printed on. It appears to have come "out of the screen". Objects in the 3D picture can exist in any one of these regions or even in all 3 at once.

Before we go any further I want to make sure you are not confused about the terms 2 dimensional screen or just screen, 3D window, and 3D screen. The 2 dimensional screen is simply the actual physical plane that is being used to present the stereogram. It is the movie screen or the piece of paper the image might be printed on, or the computer monitor screen or the television screen in your home. It is called 2 dimensional because a plane has no depth, only height and width. The 3D window and the 3D screen are essentially the same thing. When looking at a 3D image it appears that you are looking into a window so, you can call it a 3D window. A 3D screen is exactly the same thing except we say "screen" because televisions have a screen, movie theaters show movies on a screen. Your computer monitor is a screen. Almost every way to present a 3D image is via some sort of screen. Yes, 3D images are also printed on paper which is sort of like a screen except that you don't project the image. It simple exists as ink or dye on the surface of the paper.. Anyway, both 3D window and 3D screen make sense and are accurate. I may use them interchangeably.
Velusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 11:47 PM   #30
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post
That's just it, directorik. You didn't get involved. You only tried to call me out....

The thing is this; I've been involved in 3D talks on other forums. Some people knew a few things about 3D, others asked questions but nobody said anything like "I don't know anything about 3D but I'm sure you're wrong".. I know you didn't say that in those exact words but you did say that.
I'm sorry you feel I said that. I was expressing my opinion. I was
very careful to NOT say that because I wanted to learn. I have
never made a 3D movie, I have only watched them. I was not calling
you out I was expressing a personal opinion based on what little I
know. I see I was wrong to do that.

You said you didn't expect to be challenged and I did that. I see
I was wrong to do that, too.

I. too, will refrain from commenting on this thread any further.

I suggest you see Hitchcock's only 3D film in 3D and Hugo in 3D. Both
seem to me to be from filmmakers who did understand what they are
doing.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk