Yea, I know. I said no more 3D posts. But my interest in this new/old format is really growing. So I’m going to continue with a post workflow how-to that will be up shortly. Then we’ll look at the science of 3D cinematography, various camera setups, rigs, prep, etc. The wave of the future is sending a tsunami toward me and I’m not ducking all the 3D meatballs, swords, and bullets!

In the meanwhile, here’s a 3D film competition that SONY Europe is sponsoring. There are no limitations as to who can enter or from where. Nice thing is the prize package. First and foremost, your film will be included on a Blu-ray disc that will be shown in stores around the world when demoing Sony’s new 3D TVs. People buying these TVs will also get this Blu-ray. And of course you get a TV/home theater system yourself. Pretty cool. Here’s the site.

And, even better, the are a number of video tutorials and pdfs that do a nice job of explaining how to make a 3D short, primarily in 3D animation/CGI software. Good luck everyone!

By the by, great reading in Post. Filmmakers, remember we’re a team, not only in post, but in prep and production as well! 3D, the great equalizer of 2010.

Tags: Sony

OK, I promise that this will be the last 3D post for a while. Since I left this subject six weeks ago, the world has gone cuckoo about 3D filmmaking and whether it should even exist.

Top questions:

1) Should any films at all be exhibited in 3D?
It’s a moot question. Scorsese is shooting his next film in 3D. Studios are making more money based on increased ticket prices. Electronics manufacturers are ramping up 3D TV. Lots of loot at stake and there are very few naysayers. In fact, some scripts are perfect for the format. And if the filmmakers have high integrity, and plan and shoot with a 3D workflow, then let technology be unleashed! Should most films be made in this format? No.

Roger Ebert v. James Cameron. Is there a middle ground? Will there be a victor or a draw?

2) If so, what kind of films should be shown/made in 3D? Are some genres more amenable than others?
Some animated, some science fiction and fantasy, some horror, some comedy...the key modifier is some. Storytelling must rule all decisions. Is the film more dramatic, funnier, more suspenseful if 3D is employed? I even buy that some films could simply “look cooler,” mostly in the CGI realm. Shots of things coming out at you or flying through clouds or over water are fine when used occasionally in already gimmicky films. Otherwise, let’s use 3D to enhance reality and draw us into a world and story that stands on its own. Just as music and sound mixing transport us to either a more realistic representation of our environment or a fantastical world we had never heard of before, 3D should work hand in hand with the other key elements of the film to boost the artistic intent of the director.

3) Should 3D films always be shot in 3D and taking 3D production standards into account? Or is it alright to convert a 2D film into 3D during post?
Yes, prep, shoot, and post in 3D! Not only does this process ensure that the finished product will not look awful, it forces the filmmakers to think about their intent in using 3D. Plan what you are going to enhance/feature using 3D. How will the story change using this format? Are script changes needed? Are we using the right DP, Production Designer, etc.? Exactly what workflow makes sense, rather than simply being expeditious?

All this said, I do believe that on rare occasion there might be the perfect project for post production conversion. It also depends on the capability of the post house performing the conversion....I wager there are at least 10 today and more by year’s end. Like all filmmaking, there are some that are cheaper, faster, lower quality. Studios, producers--if you want people to keep attending 3D screenings, use the best quality houses for post conversion. And use very sparingly.

4) What are the economic ramifications of 3D popularity? Is there an impact besides higher BO and increased studio revenues?
The obvious answer is higher revenue and possibly greater profits for the studios and other key players. To be realistic, it’s a complex equation. There are increased costs during prep, production, and post, depending on how you create the final 3D film. Exhibitors must spend in order to retrofit/build/enhance their facilities.

Since some theater capacity is being cannibalized by 3D conversions, 2D films have fewer screens to be shown on. Dramatic/indie/adult films especially are/will be impacted.

5) Should editors and editorial teams be studying 3D workflows? What resources are out there? When should we get involved in the 3D production/post process?
This question gets a separate blog entry. Lots to serve up. Stay tuned. Or DVR me.

Of interest:

• “Making 3D is easy, but making good 3D is hard.”
• “Bad 3D will sour consumers on the experience.”
• Jeffrey Katzenberg regarding quality.
• No glasses needed. Quality, cost probably not there yet, but once it is...

Tags: Katzenberg, Cameron

Since I last commented about 3D and its permanence, artistry, and the like, an amazing number of filmmakers, producers, studios have all convinced themselves that 3D is indeed, THE FUTURE. (Of course, AVATAR’s cash hoard helped.) But what about 3D that’s been converted from 2D? Last year, I toured a facility in Burbank that helped pioneer this process, and was mildly impressed. The sports footage they showed me was fairly well integrated, but I can also imagine what happens during a rush process. Apparently many of the quickies end up with very distinctly visible layers as the result. Certainly, if I plunk down my largish wad of cold hard cash at a theater, I want really good 3D. Preferably, for me, I want 3D that doesn’t call attention to itself; I just want it to enhance the terrific movie I’m watching, as an epic soundtrack would.

Here’s an interesting “conversation” between some huge directors and producers:
http://www.movieline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-avatar-producer-ensnared-in-great-3d-conversion-battle-of-2010.php

Tags: Cameron, Michael Bay

So what about 3D? Is this a game changer? Will it take over the industry? Will audiences expect films like THE LAST STATION to someday be shot/presented in 3D? Or will it remain a niche? Or go away nearly completely, as it has in previous industry cycles?

HD was the last tech innovation that transformed our industry. I think in 2009 it finally became a mainstream fixture. Consumers adopted it in droves and most content is being planned with an eventual HD release in mind. It makes sense. After all, TV certainly never reflected the images from film accurately. Even most content shot for TV looked crappy on TV. And of course film on VHS and even DVD was a horrific wound inflicted on filmmakers for years. So HD made sense and the evolving upgrade of the picture viewing experience will continue to go forward.

But 3D? Is it inherent in life? Well of course. We see in a resolution far greater than HD and we see and live in three dimensions. So should it be inherent in our visual entertainment? I don’t know the answer. Personally, I think 3D is fine and fun in certain films. Would AVATAR still be a compelling movie without the technical innovation? Would it have collected the BO loot that it has if not for the visual wizardry? Again, I don’t know. Will 3D at home, on your TV, be something you will harken to soon? Eventually? Only when you don’t need glasses anymore?

Or, is there another “innovation” that will catch the public’s imagination instead of 3D? Anything new coming up? Ultra HD? Films that allow each person to make true choices within the story, so that each person’s experience is personalized?

Tags: Avatar