James Cameron thinks 3-D will save the movies

James Cameron and several of his Hollywood peers seem to think that Digital 3-D will save the movie business, new window I say malarkey. Granted I’m not a movie studio executive, film director, or even directly affected by declining box-office ticket sales but I’d like to think that I have the ability to reason and think cognitively about what movie goers want. They don’t want 3-D, they want good movies.

Sure 3-D can offer some cheap thrills and big laughs at an amusement park but who really wants to sit through a 2-hour film with those ridiculous glasses (top left) on your face? 3-D movies may have been all the rage in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s but moviegoers of that era had significantly fewer entertainment mediums than we do today.

3-D failed because it was a novelty and I see no reason to believe that anything has changed enough to avoid that same failure again. Having to wear special glasses doesn’t foster an immersive experience, a great story backed up with great sound and image does.

Basic Instinct 2 and Larry the Cable Guy didn’t tank because they weren’t in 3-D, they bombed because no one cared, which is exactly the same reaction we’ll see with digital 3-D once the novelty wears off, again.

Link To Original Article

I just read this article in WIRED that talks about the technology (a very little bit) and the claim that 3D will be a bigger revolution than talkies. That seems a bit extreme to me. Maybe it will when it can be done with holograms or something and you don't have to wear those disposable glasses. The magazine had a chart with some of the upcoming 3D titles including A Christmas Carol, and apparently Dreamworks is apparently going all-3D by 2009. They also explain how it is pushing theatres to upgrade to digital projectors, where many were reluctant to spend the money before, but now if 3D releases are going to become mainstream they want to jump on board.

---

- OJ -

My HT and DIY Tempest
My DIY Dipolar rear surround
My DIY XLR to RCA cables
My DVDs

What moveigoers want is a 'show' that's more spectacular than you can get at home.
Right now you aren't getting that in megaplexes are anything approximating that.
70mm and dye transfer Technicolor gave a spectacular show that you couldn't get
at home but they've been abandoned. High speed prints cranked out from INs three
generations removed from the negative do not. That's all that's shown outside of
LA and some film festivals. What else is there to say? They must dramatically improve
the print quality and the presentation in cinemas since you can get better quality in
a home theater, especially with HD DVD. 3-D is a gimmick process (I know because
I made a movie, "Run for Cover", in the system) that comes in 10 year cycles. Each
new generation has fun with off screen shots until they become cliche and lose interest.


The only processes that brought in people to cinemas for longer than a few years each
cycle were the enormous wide screen and/or curved screen systems like 70mm or Cinerama
combined with dye transfer Technicolor. On the best and most expensive high end
audio/visual HD equipment, you cannot replicate "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Cinerama or
"Lawrence of Arabia" in 70mm. What's shown in cinemas today can easily be surpassed
in quality from what you can get from high end (and even low end) DLPs and DVDs.
Showmanship is virtually non-existent in most megaplexes. So where do we go from there?

Also, a number of people have problems watching 3-D due to various eye conditions from stigmatism,
wandering eye ('strabismus' like Jack Nicholson and Barbra Streisand) to being near sighted. The early
goggles used in 3-D IMAX were terrible for young children. I took my neices to them and the goggles
kept slipping on their small noses. So the 3-D polarizing or shutter glasses will always be a problem
for some people the way the rainbow effect is a distraction for some people watching DLPs. Fortunately,
I don't have any of these problems but I have some family members that do. I don't know what percentage of the US population has problems with 3-D imagery but it's probably more than a few.

In any event, people aren't going to rush to see 3-D movies for the long run any more than they did in the early cycles in the fifties, seventies and eighties. It's a great gimmick for some but it's only popular for a limited amount of time then fizzles out until the next generation discovers it.

One of my friends who bought a plasma display likes to play around with things like 3-D so he bought a couple of movies, the glasses and other appropriate hardware. Long story short is that it's fun for a bit and will definitely entertain the kids for a while as the animals and other various creatures come right out at you. I don't see many movies out there that would motivate people to invest heavily in it and I agree with pretty much all of the previous comments. In my opinion, if 3-D is going to do something spectacular in the home, it's probably going to be without glasses and have to surround the viewer with the image with some type of projection system.

Bob

---

"There is always hope, even if it is just a fool's hope."

Plus the glasses get trashed ....they get sat on scratched etc etc........I like the idea or any thing that will enhance my experience but it's got to work for everyone and be practical.

+1

Also.. I don't like having to keep my head still for the effect to work better.

Today's 3-D is so much better than that of year's past. I agree with Cameron. If you get a chance to see a movie at an IMAX in 3-D it is amazing. Granted the 60 ft. high screen helps, but the 3-D polarized effect is sweet.

The IMAX 3-D is effective but the format itself has problems. It's difficult to impossible to shoot in.
The camera is so loud you have to post dub the sound and the camera isn't very mobile. The
film stock is special order and expensive (70mm is only used for this process now). Reel capacity
is limited so it makes narrative features very cumbersome. Of course Cameron is talking about
shooting in a digital format and adapting it to film but that doesn't look as good as shooting in film
and has it's own set of problems. I shot a 3-D movie, "Run for Cover", back in 1995 and it was
a real pain in the neck on all levels. It was a challenge and I had some fun making and showing it
but I wouldn't want to do it again. The most difficult part was setting up cinemas for 3-D and trying
to show the inexperienced staff how it works. Most theaters didn't have qualified projectionists,
just 'operators' who were very young and who's technical expertise was limited to threading up the platter and turning it on.


The bottom line is I'm a 3-D buff but I realize it still just a gimmick process only suited for certain
types of stories and has a limited appeal for a limited amount of time. Otherwise, there would've
been decades of dimensional movies rather than the three year cycles every ten years or so.
It's not going to 'save' movies in theaters nor is it new enough technology to the make the kind
of impact something like Cinerama or IMAX has in the past.

I'm with most of you guys. It can be really cool, but it's still a bit too gimmicky in it's current state. If they could figure out a way to lose the glasses, and create some kind of actual 3D projection system, then I can see it getting big. And who knows, with things like those LCD-blackout windows and selective transparencies etc., maybe they can build some kind of multi-layered screen to project to or something. Of course then we're back to the theatre owners not wanting to shell out for expensive new technologies.

---

- OJ -

My HT and DIY Tempest
My DIY Dipolar rear surround
My DIY XLR to RCA cables
My DVDs

That's correct. Theater owners will show anything that can bring in customers providing they don't have to pay for it. Therefore if some new and improved (as opposed to old and revived) 3-D
technology becomes available, the production company and/or distributor would have to pay for the
equipment. One problem with polarized 3-D is that you need a silver screen to project it onto. Most
megaplexes do not have silver screens because while they increase the luminance for standard movies,
they also tend to be very directional and if you're sitting in an aisle seat far from the center, the light
drops off and the image looks darker. Also, 3-D looks best from the center row to the back. If you
sit to close it's difficult for your eyes to merge the stereo pairs. And...the theater needs to be showing the movie at an increased luminance of 18 footlamberts rather than 16 footlamberts for regular
movies because of the light loss from the polarizers.

Very interesting. I personally only like the 3-D effect for some movies, but for me I go to a movie to see a good story, so having things jump out at you isn't at the top of my list.

rhayes13,

I agree. 3-D certainly isn't suited for all movies which is why adopting
it in general is a bad idea.

@Richard, you never cease to amaze me with the knowledge you give us.
"One problem with polarized 3-D is that you need a silver screen to project it onto. Most
megaplexes do not have silver screens because while they increase the luminance for standard movies,
they also tend to be very directional and if you're sitting in an aisle seat far from the center, the light
drops off and the image looks darker. Also, 3-D looks best from the center row to the back. If you
sit to close it's difficult for your eyes to merge the stereo pairs. And...the theater needs to be showing the movie at an increased luminance of 18 footlamberts rather than 16 footlamberts for regular
movies because of the light loss from the polarizers."
That is very interesting.
3D has its place and if done well, Movies like Jurassic park could benefit from it but is remaking a movie in 3D really necessary? Im not sure I would pay to go see one.

---

tonyvdb,

Thanks but it's just stuff I picked up working in the industry. Anywone involved in production
and distribution will research these areas to see what they're about and if they're viable. In
my case I made a 3-D movie in 1995 called "Run for Cover" which is how I learned about the
technology and potential problems. I quite frankly was surprised at the number of people I encountered who got headaches and eyestrain from any type of 3-D process. It's not a universal
system that works for everyone unlike the various types of widescreen or stereo sound formats that everyone can enjoy.

Question for you ...
Instead of 3d what would and increase of frame rates buy you? I remember reading an article a few years ago where increasing the frame rate to around 60 instead of 24 produced a surreal visual effect. There were suposed to be some super theaters that could play these special movies. I'm not sure if it ever happened.

thanks much
-john

John,

You're referring to Showscan which was 70mm and shot and projected at 60 frames per second.

The purpose of increasing frame rates would be to generate a better persistence of vision
and eliminate the strobing that sometimes occurs when you pan past objects. The faster
the frame rate, the sharper the image will appear...in theory that is. Sharpness is a combination
of many factors including lighting design, color saturation, grain structure, contrast and release print generation. First generation prints (those struck directly off the negative) appear much shaper
that those made from duplicate negatives (the prints shown in the megaplexes).

Increasing the frame rate has been tried prior to this for the same reasons. To generate a smoother
image when projected and give the appearance of greater sharpness. The original three projector
Cinerama process used 26 frames per second. The first two Todd-A0 70mm movies used 30
frames per second.

The problems of increasing the frame rate are the same as they were in the fifites...how do
you create a standard release print of 24 frames per second for the conventional theaters
after they play the Roadshow (specialty) engagements. In the case of Cinerama travelog, they didn't. The three panel films only played in those specially equipped cinemas. The Todd-AO films were shot twice, once at the faster frame rate and again at the standard 24 frames per second frame rate which made the productions
more costly. Those were some of the trade offs. I know I used that word a lot
in all of my posts but I found it to be a good term to discuss most subjects.
It's rare that anything is clear cut or a win/win proposal. Most involve trade offs.


The other problems with increasing the speed of the film are release print reel size and damage. Aside from making alterations on the projector itself, you'd have to modify the feed reel and take up reel or platter size to accomodate more film.
Kodak would have to create release print stock in longer rolls with larger cans
too. The greater amount of film would also increase the cost of the release prints. Add to that the wear and tear on the print going so fast through the machine.
Then you still have the problem of limited bookings because unless you shot a standard 24 frames per second version simultaneouly with the fast rate footage,
you couldn't play the movie in conventional theaters.


In short, when you crunch the numbers it would be a very expensive proposal just to increase the sharpness and smooth out pan shots. With the limited demographic of moviegoers today, most probably wouldn't notice the difference or care and it wouldn't be spectacular enough to bring back general audience into cinemas.
Not a big enough 'gimmick' to wow them.


The history of the 24 frame per second rate is rather interesting. It turns out to be a random number based on the size and speed of the Vitaphone record discs in
1927. In the silent era there wasn't a standardized speed. All projectors had a dial on it to customize the speed of the film based on the information contained on the leaders of the film print itself. Cameraman also shot at different rates. A projectionist might get a print that would state it should be played
at 18 frames per second and another print that should be played at 20 frames per second.


Obviously this wouldn't work for synchronized sound so Warner Brother technicians calculated that the 33 1/3 speed of the Vitaphone record that they were synchronized to the release print for their early 'soundies' translated as the frame rate of 24 frames per second. It wasn't the ideal speed (Michael Todd calculated it to be 30 frames per second) but that's what became the standard solely because Vitaphone was the first successful sound system. By the time it
was replaced with optical track sound on the print itself by 1931, it was too late to change the frame rate because the theaters had already spent a fortune paying for the sound projectors and we were in the early days of the Depression.