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

[UFAlien]

As long as it's done well, I'm usually fine with any of these. It's an artistic decision, unless the conversion company just screwed it up. I WILL say, however, there are times when the actual usage of 3D is underwhelming.

Case in point, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. It was converted, sure, but it was planned for 3D the whole way through. With the inherent absurdity of the script, character, and directors, I was really expecting a lot of pop-out. Unfortunately, there was very little. That said, I'd debate its status as "conservative/weak 3D" - there was usually a lot of clear depth and some very substantial doubling without glasses. It was really just the cinematography that didn't take advantage of it.

I know a lot of people had similar expectations of Star Wars, but that seems misguided and silly to me. It was shot in and planned for 2D over a decade ago. Anyone who saw it in 2D should've realized there were very few places to apply pop-out without creating awful window violations or completely redoing the effects. Much of the depth was conservative but I felt it worked well, though I can understand how some people could be disappointed.

I guess I just... can't vote in the poll since there's no option to match.

[americanamberg]

Got to be strong.

I'm a movie buff like a lot of people here. I like watching 2d movies.

If I do choose to watch 3d, and I love the format, I want it living out of the screen amap.

Let's be clear just because things are coming out of the screen doesn't mean it's cheesy imo. It doesn't feel cheesy unless it's used poorly. Pop out alone doesn't = cheesy for me. In the future I envision movies coming alive in your living room all around you.
Sort of like art house theater, or that room aboard the enterprise where you can go into a fantasy world. When I aim for 3d I want it to come alive, and live outside the screen. Otherwise stay in 2d. Just more depth, which is nice, isn't enough to make me spend more money on a 3d release.

More pop can and should be used. If used correctly it takes nothing away. It just makes the movie come to life, and it's more enjoyable to watch(if im in the mood for 3d). That is up to the film makers. They have to make it better, and when done it's a true joy to watch.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

And when is using a certain kind of 3-D (strong, subtle, etc.) *not* an artistic choice?

Is someone who pushes the 3-D to the max *not* making an artistic choice when they do that? Or do you see it as merely a marketing ploy?

And please don't say condescending things like "get an idea of...", at least not if you want to show that you respect points of view different from your own.

No matter what people say in an online board, it is almost guaranteed to NOT be representative of all audiences, because many of them do not have time for it or do not care to post in online forums. Especially parents with young kids, who already have a gazillion things to do at home.

Blu Bonnett,

When I say "Get an idea of", I actually meant to say "For us 3D fans to get an idea", as when someone says "(to) Get a better idea of how this works" as a general statement; it wasn't directed to you personally because I have nothing against you or anyone on this board. The bottom line is, you're a fan of 3D, so that could only be a good thing, right? Sorry not making that more clear. I'm no one to be condescending to anyone.

"Artistic choice" Does a person with two functioning eyes consciously make an artistic choice to see in normal three dimensions in their everyday life? Artistic choice, in this case, is when the stereographer decides some scenes deserve "more 3D than others" instead of the entire movie having an even level of three dimensions, as we see in every day life, irrelevant of the emotional impact of the moment.

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

Strong 3D for me.

Subtle 3D gives me the shits, if I am going to the effort to wear 3D glasses, I don't want to forget I'm watching a 3D film otherwise what's the point.

Well said. If the 3D looks almost the same with glasses or without, it's too subtle for me as well and not what I bought a 3DTV for. Most of us buy 3DTVs for unmistakable, strong 3D. Not saying subtle 3D doesn't have a place, but I prefer easy to watch, strong 3D also along the lines of Hugo 3D, Avatar 3D, Open Season 3D, etc... It brings the viewer "into that world" quite a bit more than subtle 3D or 2D seems to, based solely on the images, not counting the story or movie itself in this case.

Originally Posted by mseeley

Strong and normal 3D for me all the way!

I think Tron should be put in the normal 3d range. While I admit watching it at home recently, the 3d felt a little subtler to me at home than it did when I saw it in the theaters at Imax 3d and real d 3d formats. I hope I didn't get a bad copy lol.

One reason Tron Legacy has a more subtle conservative 3D depth, is no doubt due to the strong color contrasts of black against bright neon/white. With current technology, had they made this strong 3D, we'd be seeing a ton of ghosting all around the objects, like when you look at a 3D star on a black space field.
You notice the middle star pops out, but on each side, you'll notice two faint white dots, which is not a problem with the film, but the 3D technology being limited by the fact it can't completely block out all light.
I'd bet this current technical issue played a big role in why they chose to tone down the 3D depth to intentionally avoid this ghosting, something they might have not envisioned prior to deciding to make Tron Legacy, a 3D film.

In the future, ghosting won't be a problem with advanced 3DTV technology, so it'd be nice if they made two versions, one strong 3D for the future of 3D years from now, and one as current technology demands (ghosting).

[DavidGQ]

Originally Posted by Nommag

I think when you pay a premium for 3d you should expect/get strong 3d. Any less then strong and it probably means that you will enjoy the cheaper 2d version.

Agree with ya. Isn't that why we pay more for our 3D TV or watch 3D in the theater?

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I know a lot of people had similar expectations of Star Wars, but that seems misguided and silly to me. It was shot in and planned for 2D over a decade ago. Anyone who saw it in 2D should've realized there were very few places to apply pop-out without creating awful window violations or completely redoing the effects. Much of the depth was conservative but I felt it worked well, though I can understand how some people could be disappointed.

I guess I just... can't vote in the poll since there's no option to match.

I agree with you regarding the expectations for SW. There really was no particular need for "pop-out", imho.

Originally Posted by DavidGQ

Agree with ya. Isn't that why we pay more for our 3D TV or watch 3D in the theater?

Um, no, it is not. Or, it might be for you, but it definitely isn't for everybody. I was very happy with the 3-D in movies like TPM or even Toy Story 3. It didn't need to be cheesy or needlessly call attention to itself every other shot. And I got my money's worth - in the case of TPM, all 4 times.

[joenostalgia23]

I actually think Tron had really strong 3D. I think it'd very dependent on the brightness of the image.

I can understand if it looked flat, because the image is pretty dark. My TV has pretty good black levels, and I raised the brightness a bit and the depth looked really great. The light around the sets and costumes really stand out too. There's a lot of dimensionality.

I wouldn't call it conservative, especially the IMAX sequences(I still think those scenes look better than any 2.35-2.40 3D film on Blu-ray). It just doesn't have a lot of pop-out.

Again it's all really subjective. We get very different experiences from different hardware. And we all want different things from 3D.

Some people go crazy over pop-out.
Others just want to see the deepest image possible.
And there are those who like dimensionality and textures(multiple objects on different planes)

[joenostalgia23]

Honestly, I think it'd be better to just take away the examples, because people will argue about them.

Some people think Afterlife looks great(it was shot natively) and some think My Bloody Valentine looks terrible(dark image, lots of ghosting) and I actually think Tron is one of the Strong titles.

I can't judge, since I haven't seen a lot of the examples, but it seems like people will have different opinions on the 3D. Just look at reviewers and forums.

[Captain Jack]

I think conservative 3D will be much more acceptable once glasses are not needed, but atm, whilst people have to go to the trouble of wearing glasses that darken the image, well stuff better damn well pop and remind us why we are going to the trouble. If there were no glasses I think even mild 3D would still be enjoyable, not as an immersive experience as such, but as a light improvement on 2D.

[mxracer47]

I enjoy normal to strong 3D. Sammy's adventure strictly for the 3D is a great reference tool that the industry should follow. Everyone I show this movie to is wowed by the 3D effects ! The movie is not to bad either though a bit long winded to get to the point. I have most of the movies currently out in 3D and that movie shows what 3D effects are really possible.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

Honestly, I think it'd be better to just take away the examples, because people will argue about them.

Some people think Afterlife looks great(it was shot natively) and some think My Bloody Valentine looks terrible(dark image, lots of ghosting) and I actually think Tron is one of the Strong titles.

I can't judge, since I haven't seen a lot of the examples, but it seems like people will have different opinions on the 3D. Just look at reviewers and forums.

I see what you're saying. On that note, I think it's important to understand why there are so many differences of opinion when 3D itself is more of technical thing, such as when black and white TV went to color, and some sets had better color reproduction, but it was the movies that either had vibrant colors (like in the Wizard of Oz) or more pale colors, as in Underworld series or a 70's movie at the neutral color setting. There are so many variables, but there has to be a standard somewhere in there.

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

I think conservative 3D will be much more acceptable once glasses are not needed, but atm, whilst people have to go to the trouble of wearing glasses that darken the image, well stuff better damn well pop and remind us why we are going to the trouble. If there were no glasses I think even mild 3D would still be enjoyable, not as an immersive experience as such, but as a light improvement on 2D.

Good point. I agree that 3D will be mainstream when they provide advanced 3DTVs without the need for any glasses along with plenty of content like 3D programming, movies and more. Once that happens, it might be like stations choosing to "go 3D" as they chose to "go color TV" for their shows (The Beverly Hillbillies as one example).

3D is actually a natural extension of how we see things with our own two eyes in every day life. It seems cinema and TV are getting closer to our visual experience if we consider how things keep advancing over the decades, from photos, moving photos/film, the addition of sound to film, black and white film turning to color, standard definition in a square frame advancing to high definition in a panoramic widescreen view, and seeing in three dimensions, without the need for any "gimmick glasses" as the critics suggest. Eventually, there might not be a need for a 'screen'...

Originally Posted by mxracer47

I enjoy normal to strong 3D. Sammy's adventure strictly for the 3D is a great reference tool that the industry should follow. Everyone I show this movie to is wowed by the 3D effects ! The movie is not to bad either though a bit long winded to get to the point. I have most of the movies currently out in 3D and that movie shows what 3D effects are really possible.

Thanks for the post. This is another good reason to include examples for what seems to be "strong, normal or subtle 3D", even if we don't all agree on the same thing. There has to be some reason Sammy and several other examples like Hugo 3D, fall into the "Strong 3D" category compared to other films that don't quite reach that level.
A simplfied answer is, how much depth is there between the layers in the shot? Is everything closer to the 2D plane like a flat piece of paper, or separated into the 3D plane like a pop out book, and to what degree? (not counting errors, cardboard cut out look of a quick 2D to 3D conversion, etc.) If 3D fans can't agree on that basic definition of 3D, what can we agree on?

[Jbug]

I absolutely like 3D but am always wondering if it's use in movies has reached it's limits. Is depth and out of screen it? I once posted a thread on the possiblity of doing a scene of varying length totally outside of the screen and got some interesting responses but are there are some untouched avenues for 3D.

[Jack_Ryder_2012]

I think glasses free will be the next big thing and maybe even eventually 3d movies/games will look like holograms in our living rooms, i think that would be pretty awesome

[Nighteyes]

Glasses-free displays exist already. Altough they're terribly expensive and don't offer a really convincing 3D-perception yet.

The holodeck might still be a little ways off.

[Jack_Ryder_2012]

Yeah its not something you can go buy at walmart yet, i would upgrade as soon as a vizio brand comes out since those are very nicely priced i just hope its not like 3ds tech where you have to be in a certain position to notice it

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by Jack_Ryder_2012

Yeah its not something you can go buy at walmart yet, i would upgrade as soon as a vizio brand comes out since those are very nicely priced i just hope its not like 3ds tech where you have to be in a certain position to notice it

At CES 2013, they said Vizio had the best 4K glasses free panel. It had UNLIMITED viewing angles! Well, they said if you got out of a viewing space it would just appear 2D. It wouldn't give you that weird broken window effect like the 3DS. Now that I think of it, they may have said they are working on an unlimited viewing angle set.

[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).

[SonOfArathorn]

I've seen these words bandied about quite a bit and rarely are they followed by explanation.
In an effort to get us all to better understand each other I'd like to know what is meant by each of these.
When you say "strong 3d" are you talking lots of pop outs and visual gimmickery? Lots of depth, a blend of both, etc?
Of course opinions on individual movies will vary person to person but if we at least understand what is meant when we say "I thought the 3D was weak in this movie" or "3D effect was medium to strong" then it will be to the benefit of all.
Just a thought.