[Lumiera] stereoscopy

Sat Jan 2 02:09:40 CET 2010

Hermann,

I see where you are going with this.

Concerning creating a new "visual language" for 3D:

One can make motion, 3D, temporal narrative art, but this format will need
new conventions, and will lead to a significantly different format that will
share few things with film as we know it.

Unlike adding audio, which "tightened" up film and made people able to
pretend they were actually in the space presented in the film, or color
which made more-accurate to reality images 3D is more to film what film was
to still photography. You're adding a new dimension. Film added the
dimension of time-motion to photography (while just using a trick of
multiple stills) and 3D adds the trick of dimension (thru 2 images woven
together).

I remember all those stereoscope cards from the 30s-40s my parents and
grandparents are so fond of, and again we point to the cinema 3D movement of
the 50s. Maybe it will stick this time, but as you already mentioned, the
whole world seemed like it would never touch 2D again in those times, yet we
went back, who knows about the present.

3D is much like 10+ channel audio, unless there is a REAL demand from the
market it will fall. While marketing that a film is done in 3D increases its
overall sales (a little,) the percentage of viewers that actually go to see
3D showings are a) small and b) usually uneconomical.

I believe the main roadblock to 3D is actually the principle of viewing it.
People don't want to use a tool to see it, they want unassisted 3D. Of
course people can do hours of 3D viewing through glasses, people wear
glasses and sunshades for hours and days on end and it doesn't cause them
problems. The precision reminds me of jitter and flicker in early films, and
can be fixed with attention and innovation. But unassisted 3D is sparse and
in my opinion the only viable future of the format/visual medium.

But this is our creative/philosophical discussion, I think the technical
issues pertaining to Lumiera are fleshed out decently.

B.J.M.R.

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Ichthyostega <prg at ichthyostega.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brian Rytel schrieb:
> > On a purely creative note, a a recently graduated film student, 3D is on
> some
> >  shaky ground for taking over filmmaking. The main issue is that 1/4th of
> the
> >  population experieces a negative side effect (dizziness, nausea,
> headaches
> > etc.) by watching the films. A larger percentage of people don't want to
> > watch 3D films for one reason or another.
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> as a long standing "stereoscoper" I can't agree more. If you look at the
> history
> of stereoscopy, we had several 3D "waves" recurring at about every
> generation
> (25, 30 years). Repeatedly, there seemed to be a huge momentum, and
> everyone
> claimed clearly that "3D will be the future and future generations will
> laugh
> at our flat worlds of imagery"). But, for me, the most "interesting" part
> of this story is that each of these "movements" faded away into complete
> obliteration. It is almost as if the public got brainwashed. No one can
> even
> remember 3D. If you show up in public with a 2-lens stereoscopic camera,
> people get curious, but no one has ever heard of such a thing. "Hey this
> is cool...", "hey that needs to be a new invention from USA". If you then
> tell them that stereoscopy is as old as photography and that in the 19th
> century, there where more stereo cameras than one-eyed cameras,
> stereoscopic
> cards featuring news and sightseeing topics printed with million run, they
> look at you as if you where a madman... ;-)
>
>
> Regarding the dizziness, there are multiple aspects, according to my own
> experience. I should add that I did quite some slide shows and also some
> presentation of 3D video in the past.
>
> One distinct factor is precision. Doing a stereoscopic screen presentation
> poses very high precision demands, much higher than anything which is
> necessary
> for conventional imagery. Basically you have to match projected elements
> with a
> precision in the order of +-1mm, even on a large screen. And, most notably,
> there are certain geometric limitations, which don't exist for 2D. While
> a conventional image "works" as long as the viewer is at all able to see
> it, the stereoscopic vision does kick in only if the whole geometry is
> relatively near to our every-day's viewing experience. (People doing much
> 3D work of course are different, for example if I see a stereo pair printed
> somewhere, the two images almost immediately fuse for me into a 3D image)
>
> While it was possible to meet that precision criteria with the presentation
> of stereoscopic stills, it effectively wasn't possible with conventional
> mechanical film projection, unless the two images where mounted on the same
> film strip. Thus, using analogue film, 3D was possible (and in spite of
> that
> quite impressive), but it always created a certain strain, which couldn't
> be overcome, even not in IMAX, when using 2 separate projectors. I think
> this part of the equation can be solved rather easily with digital
> projection.
> Extrapolating my experience from slide presentation, I know that viewing
> 3D for hours without strain is possible even for moderately large
> audiences,
> given the presentation is done with the necessary care, which is mostly
> a psychological factor. No joke. I guess about 50% of the people just
> refuse to believe that you have to be "so f**cking precise. Come on,
> just relax and stay pragmatic". 3D won't work when applying this mindset.
>
>
> But there is another interesting factor: Over the first 100 years of
> cinematography, we've created sort-of a visual language. Most of this
> language meanwhile works in a subconscious way. And all of these
> visual syntax is directly rooted in the way we deal with images.
> Flat images. This doesn't mean it wouldn't work with 3D.
> Just, the bad news is: id doesn't work out of the box.
> And the fine point of that problem is: especially the "visual people",
> those doing the media, have especially sucked in this syntax of
> conventional
> imagery. They're playing on it virtuously, which makes them (us, for that)
> especially fallible to overlook the basics.
>
> Framing two image elements together in a symbolic manner? For example
> framing two persons close to communicate a relation between them? Doesn't
> work in 3D. Because in 3D there is now a spatial relation, which is
> established
> first class and perceived in a primary way, which puts any "symbolic"
> relations
> on a secondary grade; most people won't even get the point you (the
> filmmaker)
> want to communicate. At least you'd need to give the audience more time
> (and who dares to show an image for more than 5 seconds today??)
>
> Making a scene more "brittle, pressing and realistic" by using hand-held
> camera? Doesn't work in 3D. You're just forcing an completely unnatural
> way of viewing onto the audience. This way of viewing is perceived first
> class
> and will push away all the "meaning" you (the filmmaker) want to
> communicate.
>
> Making the narration of a dialogue more paced and to the point by
> intercutting
> between the involved actors? Doesn't work in 3D. You're overloading the
> visual
> perception of your audience. Contrary to 2D, in 3D, the conventional
> cutting
> techniques don't increase involvement, they reduce it and put additional
> strain on the audience, causing them to re-orient themselves with each
> cut. So, cutting in 3D has completely to be re-adjusted. That's a bummer.
>
> I've almost never seen any 3D film made by professionals in the past, which
> didn't more or less violate these basics. Thus, the cause of the dizziness
> and unwillingness of the audience is mostly the filmmakers, which want to
> stick to their proven habits and just add 3D as an effect. Btw, with the
> most notable exception of Alfred Hitchcock ("dial M for Murder"), which
> showed that doing it properly isn't even difficult and just means to do
> some small, knowingly adjustments.
>
> > That means: in order to create financially successful/popular movies, you
> > have to create a movie that "works"/looks good into 2D, and add 3D for a
> > "cool factor"/gimmick to those interested. This means that while more
> films
> > may add 3D as a feature, the primary format will remain 2D, and the added
> > expense (which is huge) of 3D will be questioned bee studio execs.
>
> ...I'd say, such an approach to 3D is dead before it's even started.
> Either, you're willing to let 2D go and do *3D for real*, or it will
> remain an effect without inner necessity.
>
> > Whether it will generate enough cash to become standard is yet to be seen
> and
> > cannot precisely be predicted, but the "format" of film is unlikely to
> > change due to its accessibility issues.
>
> Let's put it this way: as long as 3D is done just for some external needs,
> mainly business needs to escape the competition of youtube, it will remain
> a joke and an shallow effect and quickly fade away into obliteration again.
>
> But I see the chance that a 3D hype will put better equipment into the
> hands
> of those people, which understand and do spatial imaging driven by an
> artistic
> necessity.
>
>
> Hermann V
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAks+lbkACgkQZbZrB6HelLIgPwCg4GMfuu/Ik55DWQpniM15xLbn
> ISAAoImOtufY1qvoVcVZ1zP0qWWrqAvH
> =nhpV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Lumiera mailing list
> Lumiera at lists.lumiera.org
> http://lists.lumiera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lumiera
> http://lumiera.org/donations.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lumiera.org/pipermail/lumiera/attachments/20100101/7b077e59/attachment.html>