SIGGRAPH Day 2 – Stereographic
Its been another head ’splosion sort of day and I really just need to do a brain dump to get my thoughts out there. My main focus for the day was stereoscopic. It’s something I’ve been interested in for a while and it was cool to hear people go WAY beyond the surface level stuff that you always read. The panels talked about some very technical stuff dealing with convergence, handling the edges of the frame, upcoming technologies, etc. But the thing that was really great to hear was the ensuing discussion about the creative possibilities and drawbacks.
On the plus side, you’ve got depth. Its cool, its another tool that the director can use to help tell his story. I was glad to hear all of the panelists agree that the focus of their efforts had been on using depth to enhance storytelling. However, I was also blown away by how many minuses come along with stereo. Its incredibly difficult, screen size is a big challenge, you have to use tons of workarounds to solve problems, and even though it gives you a new tool to work with, it also takes away some of the previous tools we had. One big issue is that long lenses and DOF don’t work well in stereo. Basically, our eyes have a perceived “focal length” which is kind of like a fixed setting on a zoom lens. The issue with stereo is that once you use a lens that is significantly different, the 3D effect breaks down and causes issues. I’d bet that at least 90% of all shots you see in movies use a longer-than-natural focal length which accomplishes several things:
1) It’s flattering. It’s just some fluke of human perception, but people look more attractive with longer lenses.
2) It gives a “larger than life” feeling. This is similar to #1 but it adds a lot of heightened emotion to scenes.
3) There is a huge range of flexiblity. From extremely wide angle to long lenses, the cinematographer has a very extensive range to work within.
4) It throws the background elements out of focus. This helps focus the eye and gets rid of extraneous detail.
Another big issue with stereo has to do with inter-ocular distance, or the distance between our eyes which is what causes the stereo effect. Basically, we all walk around with a fixed distance between our eyes. We are used to that distance, and its a big cue to our brains as to how large an object is. The problem is that in order to add depth, its sometimes necessary to move the virtual eyes further apart. This adds depth, but it also causes things to start to seem very small. The Dreamworks stuff in particular suffered from this. They showed a sequence from Kung Fu Panda that they had “stereocized” to test their workflow, and also a scene from Monsters vs Aliens. The content of both scenes was very cool and epic, but they had pushed the stereo so far that it made you feel like you were watching a bunch of mice. The Monsters vs. Aliens clip was especially bad because it started with this huge panning shot over an expansive environment to show the scope of this military operation. However, the 3D actually caused it to have the opposite effect and even the “giant alien” felt like it was about the size of a coffee can.
Part of my brain thinks that this could be a really cool tool. You can make something feel smaller which is a very interesting and effective artistic idea, but the other half of my brain keeps asking if its worth giving up depth of field and long lenses. I’m totally open to conversation on this one. I was actually dead set on doing my next film stereoscopic, but now I’m starting to lean hard the other way. Its great for U23D and other “live events,” but I think its a step backwards for narrative filmmaking.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I remain mystified at studios clamoring to declare their next decade of releases will be stereoscopic. 3D strikes me as something that’s fun in small doses, like a motion-simulator ride at a theme park, but pretty exhaustive over longer stories. The industry-wide push reminds me of CinemaScope in the 50s and 60s, as theatres tried to compete with TV’s draw. But something tells me today’s audiences are more numb to novelty than they were a half-century ago. They’re not staying home just because their HDTV competes with the big screen; they’re staying because they have more options, or it’s cheaper, or they hate other moviegoers chattering throughout the film.
Also, releasing everything in 3D is the same wrongheaded blanket approach as Disney shutting down cel animation: movies are great because of stories, not because of some technological panacea like CG or 3D. Certainly there are some ideas that would be great in stereoscopic projection, but suit the medium to the story – not the other way around.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Hey Lucas, as you’re away this week, can you please do a longer podcast when you get back to make up for it
August 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Hmm, I personaly can’t see how adding depth can realy add to the story telling, especialy if it takes away depth of field.
I wouldn’t get more interested in a movie because its in 3D, well maybe once or twice for the novelty, but its like Jameson said; it’s the story thats most interesting bit. Maybe you can tell us, Lucas, what 3D added to the storytelling in those Siggraph examples?
August 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
The panels talked about how it brings a bit more life just by drawing the audience into the image. They also said that they tried to amp up the stereo effect in sections that were supposed to be more intense. Sounds good in theory but I personally don’t really see it. Of course, it is true that this is a very new technique and perhaps someone will figure out a better way to make it really work well.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Well, I can see the ‘more life’ bit. My only 3D experience sofar was ‘Friday the Thirteenth 3D’ and a WNF CG flick. so its a bit limited but although you get more involved in the picture (meant as image here, not movie), I find it actualy detracts from the story.
Its kind of getting in the way.
So in conclusion I think I like to see 3D films for the novelty but prefer 2D films for the story telling. But you are right Lucas, maybe someone will find a way to make some good use for it. Maybe a start would be to stop using the ’see?-this-is-a-3D-movie-in-your-face’ tricks.