Movies Rated By 3D Strength - Mild, Medium, Strong, Extreme / Parallax, Pop-Outs etc

[Zivouhr]

Off topic, but I do agree that if a film was original made in 2D, then it doesn't have to be converted to 3D if glasses free 3DTV became mainstream in the future. It would be presented in its original flat format. Many cartoon series look fine in flat 2D as they were intended, even though 3D would bring another dimension to the films. Conversions and filming/rendering for 3D takes up twice as much data, so the costs go up. For that reason, I also wouldn't expect every film needing to be in 3D.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ We really shouldn't put clash of the titans and dawn of the planet of the apes on the same footing. One is full of artefacts, clearly wasn't made for 3d and honestly hurt the format. The other is Dawn, which whilst it may not have enough 3d (it's very mild), it still does the depth it does have well and is substantially better then clash is. I would go as far as saying the worst shoot in dawn would look substantially better then the best shoots in clash.

Guardians of the galaxy 1 and especially 2 are great example of 3d done right. Conversion or native doesn't really bother me, I only care about the results.



Done in such a way i'd agree, but change it to make a film mostly medium and then amp it up for select scenes to strong, and it is the right idea. There idea for there strong shoots was really just the baseline they should have been shooting for to begin with and then there amping it up scenes/moments should have been what we refer to as strong (whereas I would argue many following the formula you put forth went from mild to medium, instead of medium to strong). Still some shoots make sense being mild (eg: a closeup of a piece of paper or face, like the last shoot in dawn of the planet of the apes).

[Show spoiler]

Clash being just one example of the effect audiences can have to mild or poorly done 3D. The quality of the film being separate.

I don't mind films that have at least medium layers of 3D or better. At least there is a clear difference from being flat 2D. Of course stronger 3D is a lot more exciting to watch.

[Suntory_Times]

^ I just find strong 3d throughout to loose it's impact somewhat, I prefer shifting from medium, upper medium to strong and back. It's just more engaging to me. I'll take all strong over all mild any day though.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ I just find strong 3d throughout to loose it's impact somewhat, I prefer shifting from medium, upper medium to strong and back. It's just more engaging to me. I'll take all strong over all mild any day though.

I see what you're saying. It's actually rare to find a movie that has all strong 3D all of the time. If a shot is set for strong 3D up close, but zooms back to a medium range view, it can diminish the 3D effect, often for the sake of natural vision 3D and to avoid the perception of shrinking a city's sense of scale. One reason we wouldn't expect a view of a planet in outerspace to have strong 3D.

With filming 3D, it's a challenge to get every single shot as strong 3D, since the placement and framing of the scene will force the interaxial distance of the camera rig to require adjustment, with objects being closer to the screen needing a smaller distance between the cameras (or the separation of the two images could be too far apart for the eyes to blend/extreme 3D), forcing the objects behind it to lose 3D impact since the foreground object takes center stage. With converted 3D, that challenge can be somewhat ignored since the 3D is selectively adjusted per frame and layer.

On topic, it definitely seems like the director of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D, had a set it and forget it attitude, resulting in the barely there 3D, as already mentioned above.

[T. Warren Scollan]

This thread brings me back to the idea of how some of us (myself included) are such fanatics for the "Golden Age" 3D films. While a lot of these films are not very good (no better or worse than any random group of 50 from that time period) and even some of the better ones can be somewhat degraded by their out-of-dateness, they all seem to have really strong and obvious 3d. Even the really bad Ed Woodesque "Robot Monster", as an example. And that's why we love them and buy them all. Why can't Hollywood just build a digital version of a "NaturalVision" camera and just go to work. It's not like they can't afford it! I suppose that sounds a bit naive, but still................

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by T. Warren Scollan

This thread brings me back to the idea of how some of us (myself included) are such fanatics for the "Golden Age" 3D films. While a lot of these films are not very good (no better or worse than any random group of 50 from that time period) and even some of the better ones can be somewhat degraded by their out-of-dateness, they all seem to have really strong and obvious 3d. Even the really bad Ed Woodesque "Robot Monster", as an example. And that's why we love them and buy them all. Why can't Hollywood just build a digital version of a "NaturalVision" camera and just go to work. It's not like they can't afford it! I suppose that sounds a bit naive, but still................

It defies logic that modern 3d movies cannot match those of the 3-D Golden age. It is very hard to understand what is holding them back when there is so much technology available. Especially when you look at what was achieved in the 1950s with essentially no safety net.

As I understand it, a great many of those movies were filmed with just a single camera rig for the whole film. Modern Hollywood has multiple stereo camera rigs at its disposal, adjustable interaxials, all manner of cranes and steadicam rigs, drone cameras, gopro and other disposably inexpensive cameras capable of high quality images. They can film 2nd unit or close up shots with 2d and convert. They could film everything in strong 3-D, and just convert those shots where problems crept in. They don't have to resort to 2d rear-projection; they can do any kind of special effect. They can laser scan the geometry of their environment. They can film pop-out elements separately to ensure perfect focus and perfect framing. They can experiment with any idea they want and have instant playback to see if it works.

It boggles the mind to be confronted with such a lack of imagination. The sad thing is, for a lot of audiences, this is all they will ever see. They just think that's what 3D looks like. They've never tasted anything better, and many of them don't see the point.

[revgen]

My theory is that modern films, especially action films, shoot a lot of different shots and edit them together in rapid fashion. Old time movies didn't have so many takes. 50's action and western films sometimes had a good 5 to 10 seconds of actors slugging each other before going to a different shot. It takes time to setup a shot in 3-D, and when film companies are spending so much time shooting so many takes for rapid fire editing, there's very little time spent on composition. Frankly, a 3-D film is more interesting with longer takes and more careful planning.

[MercurySeven]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

It defies logic that modern 3d movies cannot match those of the 3-D Golden age. It is very hard to understand what is holding them back when there is so much technology available. Especially when you look at what was achieved in the 1950s with essentially no safety net.

As I understand it, a great many of those movies were filmed with just a single camera rig for the whole film. Modern Hollywood has multiple stereo camera rigs at its disposal, adjustable interaxials, all manner of cranes and steadicam rigs, drone cameras, gopro and other disposably inexpensive cameras capable of high quality images. They can film 2nd unit or close up shots with 2d and convert. They could film everything in strong 3-D, and just convert those shots where problems crept in. They don't have to resort to 2d rear-projection; they can do any kind of special effect. They can laser scan the geometry of their environment. They can film pop-out elements separately to ensure perfect focus and perfect framing. They can experiment with any idea they want and have instant playback to see if it works.

It boggles the mind to be confronted with such a lack of imagination. The sad thing is, for a lot of audiences, this is all they will ever see. They just think that's what 3D looks like. They've never tasted anything better, and many of them don't see the point.

Dead right.

It's disconcerting to me that you hardly ever hear a modern filmmaker, one who dabbles in 3-D, extol the virtues of vintage stereo cinema. Apart from Scorsese, even those vocal proponents of the format--Singer, Scott, Ang Lee, etc--never cite the work of De Toth or Hitchcock or Jack Arnold as examples of 3-D that's inspired them. It's all Avatar, Avatar, Avatar. As though Hollywood tacitly agreed to throw out everything that came before and reinvent 3-D from scratch.

I'll wager that a significant number of today's "flat pack" directors have never even seen a Golden Age 3-D film screened the right way. Because no way do you watch something as striking as Inferno's 3-D and then go on to be happy with your 3-D work on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or Thor. Maybe it isn't just that today's audiences have never tasted anything better in terms of 3-D; maybe our filmmakers haven't. A scary thought, right there, but it would explain a lot.

[Zivouhr]

Good points. Another reason it's great to have 3-D Film Archive restoring strong 3D films that may have been lost to the past.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

It defies logic that modern 3d movies cannot match those of the 3-D Golden age. It is very hard to understand what is holding them back when there is so much technology available. Especially when you look at what was achieved in the 1950s with essentially no safety net.

As I understand it, a great many of those movies were filmed with just a single camera rig for the whole film. Modern Hollywood has multiple stereo camera rigs at its disposal, adjustable interaxials, all manner of cranes and steadicam rigs, drone cameras, gopro and other disposably inexpensive cameras capable of high quality images. They can film 2nd unit or close up shots with 2d and convert. They could film everything in strong 3-D, and just convert those shots where problems crept in. They don't have to resort to 2d rear-projection; they can do any kind of special effect. They can laser scan the geometry of their environment. They can film pop-out elements separately to ensure perfect focus and perfect framing. They can experiment with any idea they want and have instant playback to see if it works.

It boggles the mind to be confronted with such a lack of imagination. The sad thing is, for a lot of audiences, this is all they will ever see. They just think that's what 3D looks like. They've never tasted anything better, and many of them don't see the point.

They make worse 3D now because they can. In the 1950s, they only had to pay attention to one camera rig, which literally couldn't do such small interaxials. They couldn't see immediate dailies, so they had to rely more on the 3D crew to get the shot perfect on set. Their possibilities were very limited, but by keeping it simple and letting the technical experts make the technical decisions, so was their margin of error.

Now we have multiple rigs to track simultaneously that can all dial down to tiny IAs, and the average director, who is trained for years at shooting 2D, gets to choose himself what the 3D looks like on set. What kind of 3D does he pick? 3D that looks closer to 2D. Or maybe he wants to speed up the shooting time on set because they don't have the budget or patience to line up multiple rigs for perfect stereo, so he decides to "set and forget" a conservative IA value. Only filmmakers who are 3D enthusiasts are going to create awesome 3D now, especially native 3D. It takes committed, creative team effort to do it right, but it's very easy to do it mediocre by just repeating what they already know for 2D, so that's what happens most of the time.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Good points. Another reason it's great to have 3-D Film Archive restoring strong 3D films that may have been lost to the past.

Yes, and now we can correct misalignments and other anomalies digitally, so they frequently look better than ever before.

[Suntory_Times]

^ A lot of films with mild shoots also push it back into the screen to create the sense (if you take the glasses of) that there is more depth then there is. Although it really isn't effective at doing so as when watching it, it is clear that the 3d is mild regardless of what I suspect are attempts to hide the fact.

Beauty and the Beast is a recent example that does this quite a bit. Play around with your convergence (often called the depth setting) and push the images together and you will see very little difference as it is mild depth present.

With that said I don't want the 50's 3d to return. I felt it was usually pushed to far, though for some films it created a very nice effect (Kiss Me Kate for example works well and made it feel more alive and like a stage show which really benefited the film). Other films like Inferno I felt whilst containing many nice shoots could have dialled it back for some scenes. Not to mild levels mind you, but back into upper medium and medium more often I feel would have made more sense in the smaller environments.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by AdamR

I think the weak 3D of the modern era is also driven by paranoia of what is "comfortable 3D" for those who get "headaches". The problem with this is that people who have eye/brain problems that lead to the headaches get them regardless if the 3D is strong or not. These people aren't 3D customers and shouldn't be catered to because you can't cater to them. I think the reasons why 3D gave headaches in the past beyond those with said eye/brain problems have all been remedied in the present age and parallax, unless over like 4-5% excessively, wasn't one of the headache causing problems to begin with.

I think it is also a bad business driven decision on top of the 3D paranoia so they can sell the first three rows of seats. It's bad because it drives away people who want a good 3D movie who are paying at an inflated price already.

Some of the paranoia from the start of the digital 3D wave has disappeared already. A lot of the Avatar era 3D movies had annoying convergence shifts done at edits that were designed to keep the audiences eye on the screen plane. The thinking behind this was really paranoid and resulted in shots that look weird and probably make the viewer more uncomfortable than if they hadn't done this. If this has gone away then so can the parallax paranoia.

3D headaches and eyestrain will never be eliminated because of the accommodation-convergence discrepancy. People who are sensitive to this have nothing wrong with their eyes or brain. They just have weak ciliary muscles and need to exercise them by watching more 3D--something of course they probably wouldn't be willing to do. You can search for less biased, more scientific explanations of this if you want, but for fun, here's Roger Ebert's explanation:

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-jou...ll-case-closed

Keeping the main subject at the screen plane actually does create more comfortable 3D. Even so, most people, have no problem watching strong 3D with lots of pop-outs for an entire feature as long as the subject returns closer to the plane in between creative shots. James Cameron has said he realized that after finishing Avatar, and will be a little more aggressive with the depth budget in the sequels.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ A lot of films with mild shoots also push it back into the screen to create the sense (if you take the glasses of) that there is more depth then there is. Although it really isn't effective at doing so as when watching it, it is clear that the 3d is mild regardless of what I suspect are attempts to hide the fact.

Beauty and the Beast is a recent example that does this quite a bit. Play around with your convergence (often called the depth setting) and push the images together and you will see very little difference as it is mild depth present.

With that said I don't want the 50's 3d to return. I felt it was usually pushed to far, though for some films it created a very nice effect (Kiss Me Kate for example works well and made it feel more alive and like a stage show which really benefited the film). Other films like Inferno I felt whilst containing many nice shoots could have dialled it back for some scenes. Not to mild levels mind you, but back into upper medium and medium more often I feel would have made more sense in the smaller environments.

If you had said this about 1980s 3D and Comin at Ya!, I might find some room to agree, but Inferno is pretty much perfect stereo to me. The camera distance to interaxial ratio is more about creating roundness/volume in the on screen subjects than it is about matching set size. Being in a smaller room with a wall behind the subject actually allows for more comfortable, strong round 3D because the background won't go on forever if you separate the cameras more.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

They make worse 3D now because they can. In the 1950s, they only had to pay attention to one camera rig, which literally couldn't do such small interaxials.

For some 3D rigs there would've been physical limitations on reducing the interaxial. For 3-D rigs with a similar configuration to Naturalvision, they could have arranged the mirrors closer together than they chose to. I don't think it was a technical impossibility; they just didn't see the need. It was fixed at about the same as the average human interocular.

There's a time and a place for reduced interaxials. The issue in some modern films is akin to someone who keeps using an automatic camera with the wrong setting. It's not the camera's fault for having that option.

I think another area modern native-stereo films go wrong is filming action scenes from a distance with long lenses, without increasing the interaxial (and adjusting the convergence) to compensate. The result is often characters filling the screen, but with all the flatness of distant background objects. Frankly they could be doing amazing things with 3-D if they would just play around a bit more.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by revgen

My theory is that modern films, especially action films, shoot a lot of different shots and edit them together in rapid fashion. Old time movies didn't have so many takes. 50's action and western films sometimes had a good 5 to 10 seconds of actors slugging each other before going to a different shot. It takes time to setup a shot in 3-D, and when film companies are spending so much time shooting so many takes for rapid fire editing, there's very little time spent on composition. Frankly, a 3-D film is more interesting with longer takes and more careful planning.

I agree that 3-D is generally more effective with longer takes. I also feel you don't need as many cuts with 3D. There isn't the same need to see the action from a different angle - in 3D it is already being seen from two subtly different angles.

I've thought about it quite a bit over the years: What is the thought process behind it that leads modern film-makers to make the decisions they do? Why can't they make the 3-D experience as satisfying as we know it can be?

I came to a lot of similar conclusions to those expressed in this thread. Ultimately I feel these are at best explanations, and at worst excuses.

[Zivouhr]

As a kid, watching 3D shorts at the theme parks, I was amazed at how these 3D characters were literally a few inches in front of my reach. It was so amazing that I became a 3D fan for life. Had that been mild 3D and they had me wearing glasses, I would have been wondering what the point of the glasses were.

I agree about how at first the eye muscles might not be used to the work out required to enjoy a strong 3D movie up close.
If it's a matter of getting used to watching 3D, then films should reach for an amazing 3D experience, preferably with stronger 3D, rather than weaken it as Laika so often does with their beautifully animated films, to the point that the 3D is almost pointless, since it's so mild most times and nearly 2D.

I was watching Paranorman 3D and while the scene with the autumn trees earlier on looked really good in 3D, for whatever reason, as the film went on, the 3D actually got weaker. It was so disappointing as a 3D fan that I got distracted and even began losing interest in the movie. Such a waste of what could've otherwise been amazing 3D if they were brave and pushed the 3D to reasonable limits of strong 3D. They are very timid with their 3D, and it shows. Filmmakers, make 3D exciting, not boring. Boring, mild 3D turns potential 3D fans away.

[JoeMarus]

Another thing that they worry about is making sure that the audience does not experience divergence. In other words, when you are looking at objects that are the farthest from the camera, your eyes should be at most parallel and not diverged. So for a 30 foot screen, you don't want the farthest objects to have a parallax more than 2.5 inches, the average inter-ocular distance for humans. That comes out to 0.7% of the screen width. With a 65" screen you can get away with a larger parallax of 3% or 4%. So that's another reason that the 3D can be mild.

[Suntory_Times]

^ I've literally gamed for hours on end with 3d at levels that make the 50's films look mild and my character standing outside of the screen with no issue.

It really isn't an issue.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by AdamR

Bolded sounds like something wrong. It's a bit more complex than weak eye mucilage for everyone prone to this.

Roger Ebert wasn't an expert.

I don't debate the focal point being on the screen plane is the most comfortable, I was stressing that filmmakers were anally paranoid about it too much.

There's nothing medically wrong with having weaker ciliary muscles that don't function as well solo. It causes no limitations for anything but watching 3D. It's like having a skinny bicep. All you have to do is exercise it. That's what causes the large majority of 3D headaches that aren't caused by bad projection. It's literally lactic acid pain from a fatigued muscle. Inability to see 3D and any severe nausea/vomiting, pain, or visual disturbance that doesn't go away shortly after stopping the movie likely points to a more serious underlying eye condition, like strabismus.

I agree that 3D gets an undeserved reputation for being a certain cause of headaches and eyestrain though--just read one of CinemaBlend's 3D reviews. They devote an entire rating category to that silliness. Often people who have one bad experience with it can never let it go. Filmmakers who think reducing to tiny interaxials is a good cure for eyestrain are just goofy.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by revgen

My theory is that modern films, especially action films, shoot a lot of different shots and edit them together in rapid fashion. Old time movies didn't have so many takes. 50's action and western films sometimes had a good 5 to 10 seconds of actors slugging each other before going to a different shot. It takes time to setup a shot in 3-D, and when film companies are spending so much time shooting so many takes for rapid fire editing, there's very little time spent on composition. Frankly, a 3-D film is more interesting with longer takes and more careful planning.

I started to write a post saying precisely the same thing earlier today then changed my mind. Today's films are shot with many cameras and at many different light levels. The camera is always in motion. The cutting is so fast that shots might last less than a second; literally, a shot can last for a matter of frames while the camera is moving. It is impossible to premeditate for 3-D under such circumstances. Depth of field is shallow, backgrounds are blurred when they don't need to be, and multiple angles are used when one would suffice. Studios don't want filmmakers to return to the traditional methods. They want films that are hyper fast even if there's no action.

The whirling rushing camera motion would have to be abandoned. If the depth is deep and the action is staged for it within the frame, mostly, audiences don't seem to object. 3-D can be that seductive. It is possible to speed up the cutting while shooting 3-D in the traditional -- spherical lenses fixed and matched, consistently deep focus, wide and variable interaxials, a single camera either locked down or in motion -- way so that the eye is led easily from one shot to another. This does take planning, but the results are worth it. There are a number of visual bibles -- including House of Wax, Creature From the Black Lagoon and Second Chance -- in addition to the new methods ushered in by digital technology. But ideally, all 3-D films should be shot on film and then scanned for post-production, digital projection and display.

[bavanut]

I hope to post more screen grabs soon, along with my personal observations. Be on the lookout.

I am very excited and gratified by the stimulating conversation in this thread. Passion and knowledge are abundant in this group, no question. I hope to respond to or highlight specific points soon, as I am able.

While it's on my mind, let me single out MercurySeven for special praise. The Parallax (Re)View? The "flat pack"? Puns are my meat, and you, sir, are a master!