Why are so many 3D movies now released only have depth and no pop out.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by TM2-Megatron

It just seems to be an issue of semantics, here. I don't know where the term "3-D storytelling" to refer to this style of shooting came from, either...

Yeah. I'm not trying to disagree or shoot down anyone's opinion or get any sort of satisfaction at the expense of someone else. I just want to get some definitions straight. "3D story-telling" and "depth scripts/depth plans" do NOT refer to that one style of shooting (flat 3D with select scenes in strong 3D). "3D story-telling" is simply the art of telling stories using stereoscopic 3D. A "depth script" is a graph or story-board that plots out how much 3D should be used in each scene. All 3D filmmakers who know what they're doing use depth scripts and pre-visualization. Flat 3D with select scenes in strong 3D is just one type of a depth script. I think we can agree that most of us here do not like that type of 3D story-telling. We prefer depth scripts with consistently strong parallax and creative 3D story-telling techniques.

[3dfanman]

Greetings all. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in this flat 3D thread.

I see "rebooted 3D" as a new device for movie makers. Obviously Hollywood is heavily financing this resurgence, but is also experiencing a pretty strong negative backlash from many movie goers, with lots of paying customers saying they don't like this 3D thing and that it doesn't add anything to movies and other popular complaints you've heard from this side.

Producers are trying to mediate this love and hate relationship. On the one hand they want to keep 3D lovers drooling, on the other they don't want to alienate customers. So they're now walking this non offensive 3D production line, which has produced all these recent flat movies that try to "satisfy" both 3D fans and 3D haters (Why would non-fans even see 3D movies? Consider the couple where one enjoys 3D and the other doesn't or the family where the kids and dad love it but mom could care less...as a merchant you need products that make both sides at least kind of happy when they're buying tickets or blu rays)

Unfortunately though, this non offensive route results in poor 3D expereince, leaving 3D fans cold because they aren't getting what they're looking for (strong - / + parallax and 3D actually being a constructive aspect of the story), and non-fans shrugging their shoulders often saying things like "I said this 3D is cr*p and a money grab it doesn't do anything for the movie..." or worse yet actively putting down the technology altogether.

Some fans are saying producers don't have the skill or knowledge to use 3D correctly yet. I agree to some extent, but take into consideration there probably is enough money in a production to get a technically astute stereo-specialist on board. Rather it's a matter of Hollywood trying to hit a happy middle, or at least what they seem to consider as such.

Overall 3D has been "reborn" and there is no going back despite what non-fans say. It's like when color was introduced into the medium and things have never been the same since. Only that 3D has a steeper "liking curve" that many movie lovers are trying to avoid. Hollywood is striving to appeal to the lowest common denominator for now until tastes align and the tech becomes more accepted and polished.

Obviously artist are also learning 3D. Employing the 3rd dimension as an elemental block in a visual story hasn't been explored that much in the language of cinema so far and we are yet to see and know things like "trademark 3D shots" from specific directors and so on, but that's coming it's only natural. Again artists are limited by studio directives especially for commercial products.

[nycomet]

While I personally enjoy immersive depth, I want the 3D viewing experience to practically poke my eyes out.

So far, Sammy's Adventure is my top kick azz 3D pop-out favorite. Yes, there are several nice momentary pop-outs in other films, but they are few and far between. My gripe is that it seems that directors are being too conservative when it comes to making the 3D experience more in-your-face.

[Zivouhr]

Plenty of good points have been made regarding flat 3D and strong 3D.

Let's pretend for a moment, every 3D movie ever released had the 3D flatness of the flattest 3D movie you can think of. How many of us would still be 3D fans here? I know I would've held off getting a 3DTV.

Thankfully, we have filmmakers who care about pushing 3D to it's reasonably strong 3D level, giving us the sense that we're almost IN the movie, seeing things as if we were there. That is a big point of 3D, and the flatter it is, the more useless the "3D" becomes.

STRONG 3D FILMS: They look mostly blurry without your 3D glasses on:
More filmmakers need to watch the STRONGEST 3D films around Journey CE 3D, Sammy 3D, Open Season 3D, Hugo 3D, Avatar 3D (waiting till 2016's Avatar 2, apparently for a general blu 3D release), My Bloody Valentine 3D, Imax 3D, Final Destination 3D, feel free to name more strong 3D films you enjoy.

MEDIUM STRENGTH 3D FILMS: They look somewhat blurry without your 3D glasses on:
These are acceptable and some are really, really good examples of 3D, whether converted or filmed in 3D. Too many to name, but Prometheus 3D, John Carter 3D, Beauty and the Beast 3D, Kung Fu Panda 2 3D, Captain America 3D, Avengers 3D, Resident Evil Afterlife 3D, all being medium to semi-strong 3D in many ways, but not quite on the 3D level of Hugo 3D.
Then there are the mostly average 3D films, that only give us decent 3D.

WEAKER 3D FILMS: They look 2D without your 3D glasses on:
Too many conversions or flat 3D films are still being made and give 3D a bad name by those who see these poor examples more than the strong ones. There are actually too many to name, so I won't. But they resemble the flatness of a 2D film most of the time despite a few, rare shining 3D moments (usually action scenes).
At the top of my head, I'd point out: (And I hate to say it because these are mostly good/great movies, but...)
Star Wars 3D, mostly felt like 2D.
Amazing Spiderman 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for nice action 3D.
Green Lantern 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Harry Potter Hallows 2 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Tron Legacy 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Up 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Lion King 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Conan 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Clash of the Titans 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
And too many more to name.
All of them could've been amazing 3D if they kept the 3D strong throughout instead of going the safe, boring 3D route.

Disagree?
Most of us want Strong 3D throughout the entire film.


Is there a better way to determine strong 3D than our opinions?
3D NOTCHES OF SEPARATION: When you watch a 3D film without your glasses, the foreground characters are usually 2D (for convergence purposes) and the mid/background has notches of separation for the dual layers. EXAMPLE: A light on a black background, you'll see two lights of the same light, but how far apart are they? How many centimeters or notches apart?

From a comfortable viewing distance, measure from 1 to 10 centimeters:
1 centimeter difference of separation between the two would equal weak 3D.
2 to 4 centimeters would equal average or better 3D.
5 to 10 centimeters of separation between the dual layers equals strong 3D.

Forgive that long winded post.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Is there a better way to determine strong 3D than our opinions?
3D NOTCHES OF SEPARATION: When you watch a 3D film without your glasses, the foreground characters are usually 2D (for convergence purposes) and the mid/background has notches of separation for the dual layers. EXAMPLE: A light on a black background, you'll see two lights of the same light, but how far apart are they? How many centimeters or notches apart?

From a comfortable viewing distance, measure from 1 to 10 centimeters:
1 centimeter difference of separation between the two would equal weak 3D.
2 to 4 centimeters would equal average or better 3D.
5 to 10 centimeters of separation between the dual layers equals strong 3D.

Forgive that long winded post.

10 cm of separation is pretty strong. Isn't it true that separation larger than one's interocular distance is impossible to converge upon? This would make an interesting self-test to see how far you could push the depth and still see 3D comfortably.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Plenty of good points have been made regarding flat 3D and strong 3D.

Let's pretend for a moment, every 3D movie ever released had the 3D flatness of the flattest 3D movie you can think of. How many of us would still be 3D fans here? I know I would've held off getting a 3DTV.

Thankfully, we have filmmakers who care about pushing 3D to it's reasonably strong 3D level, giving us the sense that we're almost IN the movie, seeing things as if we were there. That is a big point of 3D, and the flatter it is, the more useless the "3D" becomes.

STRONG 3D FILMS: They look mostly blurry without your 3D glasses on:
More filmmakers need to watch the STRONGEST 3D films around Journey CE 3D, Sammy 3D, Open Season 3D, Hugo 3D, Avatar 3D (waiting till 2016's Avatar 2, apparently for a general blu 3D release), My Bloody Valentine 3D, Imax 3D, Final Destination 3D, feel free to name more strong 3D films you enjoy.

MEDIUM STRENGTH 3D FILMS: They look somewhat blurry without your 3D glasses on:
These are acceptable and some are really, really good examples of 3D, whether converted or filmed in 3D. Too many to name, but Prometheus 3D, John Carter 3D, Beauty and the Beast 3D, Kung Fu Panda 2 3D, Captain America 3D, Avengers 3D, Resident Evil Afterlife 3D, all being medium to semi-strong 3D in many ways, but not quite on the 3D level of Hugo 3D.
Then there are the mostly average 3D films, that only give us decent 3D.

WEAKER 3D FILMS: They look 2D without your 3D glasses on:
Too many conversions or flat 3D films are still being made and give 3D a bad name by those who see these poor examples more than the strong ones. There are actually too many to name, so I won't. But they resemble the flatness of a 2D film most of the time despite a few, rare shining 3D moments (usually action scenes).
At the top of my head, I'd point out: (And I hate to say it because these are mostly good/great movies, but...)
Star Wars 3D, mostly felt like 2D.
Amazing Spiderman 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for nice action 3D.
Green Lantern 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Harry Potter Hallows 2 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Tron Legacy 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Up 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Lion King 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Conan 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
Clash of the Titans 3D, mostly felt like 2D except for decent action 3D.
And too many more to name.
All of them could've been amazing 3D if they kept the 3D strong throughout instead of going the safe, boring 3D route.

Disagree?
Most of us want Strong 3D throughout the entire film.


Is there a better way to determine strong 3D than our opinions?
3D NOTCHES OF SEPARATION: When you watch a 3D film without your glasses, the foreground characters are usually 2D (for convergence purposes) and the mid/background has notches of separation for the dual layers. EXAMPLE: A light on a black background, you'll see two lights of the same light, but how far apart are they? How many centimeters or notches apart?

From a comfortable viewing distance, measure from 1 to 10 centimeters:
1 centimeter difference of separation between the two would equal weak 3D.
2 to 4 centimeters would equal average or better 3D.
5 to 10 centimeters of separation between the dual layers equals strong 3D.

Forgive that long winded post.

I need to watch a lot of those "weak 3d" titles again lol. I think I remember really liking the 3d on deathly hallows part 2 thinking it had plenty of strong 3d moments. Again it's been awhile for that movie and a lot of these.


green Lamtern though really disappointed me. Some really good 3d moments in the 1st 3rd and then it felt like it completely dies. Maybe I might try watching that one again, but I remember it looking not as good or decent as I remember it looking theaters

[Salvador Nogueira]

I guess there's another element going into this. Flat 3D not only prevents head-aches and eye strain, but also saves money from the studios. That's because most 3D films are conversions. And the more you push depth and pop, the more the artists will have to fill in the blanks for the second eye's frame. Keeping it flat surely saves time, hence money.

It is a shame we get so many bad conversions, but we surely can grasp the logic.

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by Salvador Nogueira

I guess there's another element going into this. Flat 3D not only prevents head-aches and eye strain, but also saves money from the studios. That's because most 3D films are conversions. And the more you push depth and pop, the more the artists will have to fill in the blanks for the second eye's frame. Keeping it flat surely saves time, hence money.

It is a shame we get so many bad conversions, but we surely can grasp the logic.

Does it really cost more when a 2D to 3D conversion incorporates more depth and pop-outs? I would imagine the cost wouldn't change simply for a few pop-outs, but I could be mistaken.

I also have to ask: which eye is the second eye, the left or the right?

[Salvador Nogueira]

Originally Posted by nycomet

Does it really cost more when a 32D to 3D conversion incorporates more depth and pop-outs? I would imagine the cost wouldn't change simply for a few pop-outs, but I could be mistaken.

I also have to ask: which eye is the second eye, the left or the right?

I guess the more the artists have to work on a given frame, the more it costs to convert it. But never heard anyone talk specifically about that from the stereoscopic industry. (I suppose it goes against their business to tell us the studios pay for "cheap-version" 3D.)

About the second eye, this is an interesting question, actually. And the answer is, it depends on the company and the method used for conversion. I've been reading about it, and there are several approaches. Depending on the shot, they can use the original 2D as left or right eye (again, they will choose the option that have them working less in filling in the blanks). Surprisingly enough, sometimes they use the 2D as a "middle eye", extrapolating both a left and a right eye images from it.

This goes to show how much thought is put into conversions, even when we rate them second-class...

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

10 cm of separation is pretty strong. Isn't it true that separation larger than one's interocular distance is impossible to converge upon? This would make an interesting self-test to see how far you could push the depth and still see 3D comfortably.

Yes, 10 cm's (notches) in width from one duplicate to the next when looking at the dual image screen without glasses is an amount mostly reserved for pop outs. I was watching RE: Afterlife, and a lot of that movie, despite some shining 3D moments during action scenes with say 5 cm's separation or more, mostly tends to be about 1 cm separation, which is not very good/the bare minimum (see the shot of Wesker sitting on his white chair in his black suit for 1cm separation (it looks 3D, but nothing great). You can still see the 3D with 1cm, but hopefully Resident Evil Retribution 3D this fall 2012, won't play it as safe.

Originally Posted by mseeley

I need to watch a lot of those "weak 3d" titles again lol. I think I remember really liking the 3d on deathly hallows part 2 thinking it had plenty of strong 3d moments. Again it's been awhile for that movie and a lot of these.

green Lamtern though really disappointed me. Some really good 3d moments in the 1st 3rd and then it felt like it completely dies. Maybe I might try watching that one again, but I remember it looking not as good or decent as I remember it looking theaters

Yes, Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 2 3D has a majority of 1cm shots, with only a few shining 3D moments of maybe 4 to 5 cm shots. It sounds silly to talk in centimeters(cm) of separation, but it's a good way to measure the 3D beyond opinions.

Originally Posted by Salvador Nogueira

I guess there's another element going into this. Flat 3D not only prevents head-aches and eye strain, but also saves money from the studios. That's because most 3D films are conversions. And the more you push depth and pop, the more the artists will have to fill in the blanks for the second eye's frame. Keeping it flat surely saves time, hence money.

It is a shame we get so many bad conversions, but we surely can grasp the logic.

Really good point. With 3D conversions, it's easy to play it safe and deliver underwhelming, boring 3D. It's cheaper and a faster turnaround.

Originally Posted by nycomet

Does it really cost more when a 2D to 3D conversion incorporates more depth and pop-outs? I would imagine the cost wouldn't change simply for a few pop-outs, but I could be mistaken.

I also have to ask: which eye is the second eye, the left or the right?

Yes. Not for a few pop outs here and there, but for an entire movie, yes. The wider fill ins (say 3 to 5 cm's apart) for the missing parts requires a lot of careful tracking and attention to detail. No easy task by any means, time consuming and costly.

As suggested, it depends on the filmmaker. In a computer animation program, a 3D camera rig can be set up so the right eye is the lead, and the left eye stretches out to increase the 3D layers' distance, or interaxial distance between the two cameras on a parallel rig, later to be converged post editing to create more depth and converge the foreground objects so the sides of the screen don't confuse the eyes.

[80sfanboy]

Depth is the most important thing to me. In most cases it's too hard to focus on something coming right out at you in one instant pop especially if it is directly in front. This experience takes me out of the movie as the quality seems to lessen during such scenes. I prefer mild popping out and more depth and quality.

[The Last Goonie]

Nycomet, I'm with you and BluTiger...I want to see the 3D in the room with me--not out a window. Instead of going on about the reasons why positive dimension is not used nearly as often, can we get a consolidated list of movies that have more of it? I just blew a big chunk of change on the TV so I don't have too much extra to spend on a bunch of overpriced movies.

So far, it seems like 'Sammy's Adventure,' 'Journey to the Center of the Earth,' and 'Under the Sea' are the top of the list...what else can yall recommend?

The 3D selections in stores are so small, it almost seems like owning all of the 3D titles is realistic, don't you think? Haha...

[mredman]

Journey 2 also has amazing 3D pop outs and depth a real treat for the eyes

[Tns49]

Originally Posted by mredman

Journey 2 also has amazing 3D pop outs and depth a real treat for the eyes

The 3d effect on this one is great, making a soso movie into a good movie.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Tns49

The 3d effect on this one is great, making a soso movie into a good movie.

agreed. thinking about ordering Journey 1. Is the 3D just as good as journey 2?

Have you seen Underworld 3D it is really flat at the beginning then it really gets stunning in 3D with great depth and pop outs

[jeffs]

The 3D in journey 1 and 2 are both great. The movie itself IMO is watchable, but due too the 3d quality they were both great. If I wasn't able to watch in 3d, I would have turned them off within 30 minutes.

[americanamberg]

If you want 3d to stick around then it needs to improve, and give you more.
People aren't going to keep paying extra money for more depth.

[poke smot]

Originally Posted by americanamberg

If you want 3d to stick around then it needs to improve, and give you more.
People aren't going to keep paying extra money for more depth.

+1
it almost seems that a lot of movies avoid pop out by sending objects to the sides and corners of the screen. lame! if what i have seen so far holds up, then the new judge dredd movie will give audiences a much needed pop out fix!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by tuck301

+1
it almost seems that a lot of movies avoid pop out by sending objects to the sides and corners of the screen. lame! if what i have seen so far holds up, then the new judge dredd movie will give audiences a much needed pop out fix!

is dredd full of pop outs NICE'

this is how ALL the movies should be so 3D will make an impact. Depth doesn't do anythng exciting for the viewers but pop outs do