3D Depth: Do you prefer strong 3D or conservative 3D?

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Jbug

I absolutely like 3D but am always wondering if it's use in movies has reached it's limits.

Definitely not. There's just not a huge interest on the part of filmmakers for creatively using 3D as part of their story-telling because most of them are trained for 2D. Being generous, there's maybe 10-12 films a year that make 3D an integral part of the visuals for the entire movie. Around half of those have a story worth talking about, and at least two belong to DreamWorks.

Avatar --> Hugo --> Life of Pi

Monster vs Aliens --> How to Train Your Dragon --> Megamind --> Kung Fu Panda 2 --> Puss in Boots --> Madagascar 3 --> Rise of the Guardians

We are still exploring!

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Definitely not. There's just not a huge interest on the part of filmmakers for creatively using 3D as part of their story-telling because most of them are trained for 2D. Being generous, there's maybe 10-12 films a year that make 3D an integral part of the visuals for the entire movie. Around half of those have a story worth talking about, and at least two belong to DreamWorks.

Avatar --> Hugo --> Life of Pi

Monster vs Aliens --> How to Train Your Dragon --> Megamind --> Kung Fu Panda 2 --> Puss in Boots --> Madagascar 3 --> Rise of the Guardians

We are still exploring!

I agree. As awful as Silent Hill was the way it used 3D was every bit as good as the way Hugo did IMHO.

They need to stop forcing it on directors who aren't interested in using the tech properly and start giving those who want to explore the medium & develop it's use more of a go.

[formula_nebula]

I'm very curious and anxious to see how JC is gonna up the par, for 3D in the next 2 Avatar films.

[Zivouhr]

3D Range: Determined by how far the 3D cameras are separated when filming and editing:
Extreme 3D: Too much eye strain for most viewers means the 3D has gone TOO far.
Strong 3D: Great amount of layer dimension as with Imax 3D's best.
Medium 3D: Good layer dimension.
Weak 3D: Poor layer separation, nearly 2D and defeats the point of "3D".
Flat 2D: Single image with zero layer dimension.

When most films offer 3D on par with the best 3D shots in Avatar and the strongest IMAX 3D, that really is the visual goal/limit of how far 3D can go, excluding future technology display advances such as glasses free and holographic 3D.

With IMAX's best 3D efforts, the viewing is comfortable yet looks amazing for the 3D for layer dimension and pop outs, to the point the object is 2" in front of your face in an IMax Theme Park Theater that wraps halfway around the room (not the flat square Imax screens), while avoiding eye strain.

Being too conservative with 3D doesn't help the 3D industry if that was the first 3D film a new viewer saw, they might walk away thinking "Eh, this 3D stuff is a waste". Medium to Strong 3D can be a goal for 3D filmmakers, eliminating weak 3D whenever possible along with including weak 3D as part of their "3D storytelling" (unless it was only for a minute at the most IMO).

Inside the Screen vs Outside the Screen 3D: Parallel Camera Rig:
If you want stuff sticking out of the screen, as a filmmaker, don't post edit converge the two images and film with a wider interaxial distance as with IMAX 3D, when filming with a parallel 3D rig.
If you want everything inside the screen, converge the two images as much as possible, when filming with a parallel 3D rig.
(not accounting for "window violations" where the pop out's missing it's lower torso, which is a matter of preference IMO, as long as the top of the head is not cut off and pops out).

[xyscaling]

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

I'm very curious and anxious to see how JC is gonna up the par, for 3D in the next 2 Avatar films.

Me too.