Cinema Blend kinda slams Amazing Spider Man 3D (you guessed it: oh, noes they di'nt!) - Page 2

Thanks for the correction.

I read that e-mail bit. It sounds like he has very different goals for 3D than the majority of us forum 3D enthusiasts and movie-goers in general. Hopefully, he is willing to keep an open mind and consider Clyde's and our criticisms in an effort to keep improving and make better 3D in the future, especially if he is going to be involved in the sequel. I'd like know if there is any evidence to his claim that the audiences loved the 3D. BoxOfficeMojo says only 44% of the audience chose a 3D or IMAX 3D ticket, which is less than the 3D revenue percentage for John Carter, Wrath of the Titans, The Avengers, and Prometheus.

Again, I agree with your comments about disliking "2.5D" that looks unnaturally flat and just has a few stand out, realistic-looking moments. Hugo's 3D won so many awards because the whole movie stood out as awesome 3D with consistent round, realistic-looking depth, motivated stereography for dialogue and action, and sets and scenes designed and framed to look good in 3D.
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/9/12 at 1:56pm

Ok, continuing on the volume comparison....

If I could BARELY hear the dialog, then we have a problem.

I don't object to the technique of varying the 3D intensity depending on the scene, but at least make it legible at all times.

Comparing it to use of color, it would be like harshly switching between full color and black and white, when really you just want to adjust color timing subtly.

3D should always strive to achieve a sense that the events are unfolding in and beyond the theater space. Long lenses and tiny interaxials flatten characters in a way that is NOT NATURAL, and causes viewers to become disappointed as they seek out binocular cues.

These guys need to get their heads out of the sand and listen to consumers. I'm not talking the average Joe consumer who likes every piece of crap movie that comes out- I'm talking about the intelligent minority of consumers whose feedback can be taken to heart.
Edited by cakefoo - 7/9/12 at 2:36pm

Ahem! I think **cough** yes, they did, in reply to your second question.
Your first idea about Tron actually makes sense!
Edited by realvision - 7/10/12 at 2:44am

One of the stereographers from TASM here... actually, this person is claiming knowledge about something he has no knowledge of... sorry dude. The 3D in this show was set regardless of the stereographers' personal opinions of "good 3D". It wasn't our job to execute our opinion, we were executing a plan set by the production, which is still a process requiring creativity and problem-solving. We did our job to exacting specifications, and the production was pleased with the results. Regardless of the opinions stated here, many hundreds of thousands of people really liked the 3D. Everybody measures "good 3D" with a different ruler, and some people will not be happy with anything.

Could there be more 3D in the intimate dialogue moments? Certainly. But the production specifically wanted to minimize the 3D there based on their experience of watching other 3D movies with heavy 3D. They wanted to keep the emphasis on the dialogue, and, for better or for worse, that's what we did. If you are the one spending $240M, we'll do it your way next time. By all means, complain about it on the internet, but I'm pretty sure it will not change IA settings on scenes that were shot 18 months ago.

And certainly, the more complaining that is done about a native-shot 3D movie, the bigger the argument will be to shoot the next one in 2D and convert it.

In the parlance of today's youth, I do believe that some of the whiners in this thread just got pwned.

3D quality is incredibly subjective, perhaps more than any other technical aspect of filmmaking. The way one viewer perceives and experiences it can be radically different than another. Some people absolutely hate pop-out effects, while others insist that there's no point to 3D at all without constant pop-outs. From the sounds of it, I was correct in my previous assumption that the choice to have minimal depth in non-action scenes in this movie was a deliberate artistic decision. You can choose to dislike this decision, but it will accomplish about as much as complaining that Spider-Man's costume is too red.

For that reason, the attempt to objectively rate the 3D quality of a movie on an absolute scale is a futile effort.

With all that said, I still haven't seen Spider-Man, but I personally found it really annoying that Prometheus stopped being 3D in the second half. C'est la vie.

After viewing the film I too believe that the lackluster 3D on much of this picture was probably deliberate. What I don't understand is why these studio higher-ups, who probably make these decisions, don't want to differentiate their 3D product from their 2D. Less people are picking the 3D version of a film at theaters and the question is is it just the money or is there not enough difference in the versions to justify the extra expense and the glasses. I think they are killing the current revival of 3D because there is a corporate disinterest in it.

At my local theater they have started scheduling the 3D version of the same film at non-prime time times because, according to the manager, people were complaining that they didn't want to see the 3D version. I believe lackluster presentations like Spiderman, Disney's Pirates and Tron are turning audiences off on 3D. All three of these films were native 3D and looked less impressive than converted Avengers and Capt. America. 3D films need to make a visual artistic statement. We can argue about what kind of effect works best where in shots but the bottom line is it's a 3D movie so it should look different from the 2D version playing next door at the cineplex. It should be a totally different experience on a visual level.

I think the fears of eyestrain have caused corporate heads to decree less depth is safer and they hire directors who really aren't into filming native. We'll just post-convert. Well this safe viewing approach may be keeping them safe from some audience complaints but has put into grave jeopardy the ticket pricing premium they so love.
Edited by SFMike - 7/10/12 at 1:10pm

Thanks for joining the conversation and sharing an inside view on how the 3D was created. Congratulations on being part of a very successful native 3D film project and perfecting the technical aspects of Spider-Man's 3D. Please do not take any of our negative comments personally.

The 3D in CGI sequences, most of the action scenes, and especially the finale was gorgeous. I bet that is what most people will remember about the 3D as dialogue moments were visually forgettable in comparison. It sounds like that might be the goal that production had in mind when they made the IA decisions. I just think the 3D, especially in dialogue scenes, could have been more successful with different creative decisions, allowing the viewer to connect emotionally with the characters even better. The internet is a fun place to describe our experience and discuss or "complain" about 3D and think of ways that it could have been done better or improved upon in a sequel. We probably wouldn't make so many specific "complaints" if the film was a conversion because we wouldn't care about (or enjoy) its 3D element nearly as much.

I am curious though. Do stereographers usually get any input about how the 3D should be used creatively (like deciding IA, convergence, scene composition, lens choice, camera movement, etc. for each scene)? Does it just depend on if the producers or director wants their input?
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/10/12 at 12:30pm

Thank you for your input.

I don't think anybody is knocking the 3D as such and many have openly said the 3D when present is very good indeed. It's the switching back and forth between 3D and virtually 2D that is jarring but we understand that it is ultimately the director’s decision that has resulted in this "artistic" choice.

It doesn't hurt though to point out to film makers and indeed stereographers, who can hopefully influence the producers, that our experience as audience members differs from the experience they "think" we get when we watch a 3D feature! Perhaps then they can make a more informed choice and allow the real experts such as your good self to help them achieve a better result?

I can assure you that very flat 2D dialogue scenes don't help me concentrate on the dialogue in a 3D movie one bit. They just make my mind wander while I question why the 3D doesn't appear to be present at a particular moment in the movie. We are used to seeing 3D in our everyday lives and switching from 2D to 3D is very unnatural. I think film makers need to be aware of that when working with 3D. The best 3D movies don't do this and I am rather surprised that the producers of TASM have not grasped that, particularly when we are led to believe they consulted James Cameron who is a firm believer in 3D enhancing intimate dialogue scenes.

As for the 240 million, well of course the audience collectively spends a great deal more than that at the box office but if the difference between the 2D version and the 3D version is not significant enough to justify the higher box off ticket price, 3D will just die out anyway. In the end if 3D is to survive and have a lasting future it has to offer the audience something extra, specifically the third dimension throughout the movie. That is at the end of the day what we are being charged eatra for!

I don't think any of us are arguing that the problems are really anything to do with the fact that the movie was shot natively or otherwise. It's the choices that have been made by the filmmakers in certain scenes. It is then highly unlikely that we are going to stop complaining about natively shot 3D movies if the producers make choices that 3D fans like us disapprove of. At the end of the day, the only way we can decide to invest or not to invest in the higher priced 3D ticket is based on the reviews and comments posted on forums such as this one. So complaints are going to continue and so they should when there is currently no other way in which to judge the way in which producers have chosen to use 3D in their movie they expect us to pay extra to see.

Lastly, please don't take any of our complaints to heart. We love 3D here with a passion and want it to succeed and it is people like you that are helping to make that happen so thank you very much for your hard work which I can assure you is much appreciated.





.
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/10/12 at 1:05pm

I've got to be honest, I've kind of been wanting to do that ever since I saw the Marshal McLuhan movie line scene in "Annie Hall".

All joking aside, I agree with most of the opinions stated by people on this thread.


On small shows, yes, the stereographer gets to weigh in on everything. Check out the review for "Hidden 3D". Certainly don't seek it out to watch it, it wasn't what anyone would call a great movie... but it was a small show and I had a carte blanche, and that's what I do when left to my devices:

http://www.avforums.com/movies/Hidden-3D-review_10739/movie.html

TASM, as I mentioned, was kind of set in stone when I got there. Did I weigh in on many things that affected the stereo on that show? Yes. But the general plan for the show was already there. It was actually quite an experience to do stereo, not as me, but as an extrapolation of the production. Everyone will have their own opinion as to the final result. I certainly learned a lot. Of the many things on Spiderman I am proud of, depth opinions aside, is that even though this was a native-3D show, there are absolutely minimal retinal-rivalry situations in TASM, and absolutely no shots in the movie that even partially "don't work" from a retinal-rivalry standpoint. I find this to be a valuable trait in 3D, probably because I personally know a lot of people who are sensitive to these kinds of problems. This is the one aspect where conversion often beats native 3D shooting, and I am happy that the finishing process on TASM was able to make this natively-shot movie sing in that respect. Even recent 3D movies that are often heralded as great examples of native 3D shooting still contain a surprising number of "uncomfortable" 3D shots.


I hate to break it to anyone counting dollars, but my bet is that movie prices aren't going down. If anything, 2D prices are going to move up to match the 3D prices. I don't set the prices, certainly. My biggest issue with the price difference is that, by charging more for 3D, it suddenly holds the 3D out as something that has to be judged as to whether or not it's worth the extra five bucks. If the studios did the same thing with color or surround sound, we'd be discussing all of those things ad nauseum, too, and many people would be watching movies in mono and in black and white because they didn't feel that certain movies warranted such extravagance. In a perfect world, 3D is just part of the storytelling process, and although it's probably blasphemy to say it here, a good 3D movie should allow the viewer to forget that they are watching a 3D movie.

The thing that most 3D fans fail to admit, is that a 3D movie isn't just put out there for 3D fans, and many people outside of the microcosm of 3D critics actually do enjoy the dynamic range of minimal 3D -> big 3D. Although some people would like to believe otherwise, you can't measure quality 3D with intensity, no more than you measure the quality of a soundtrack with volume, or the quality of a movie's color palette by measuring the saturation.

Certainly, everyone's opinion is valid, and some people will like the decisions that were made on TASM and some won't. I am pleased with the total package of this movie. I'm even pleased, in general, with what we accomplished with the 3D given the parameters set forth by the production. I sat through several screenings of it and listened to several hundred people leaving those screenings over the course of a few days, and I was blown away with how many people I overheard complimenting the 3D, in ways that I never even thought the general public would have identified. Yes, it's anecdotal, but it's all I need to make me feel like we were "in the range" of what people wanted to see. I didn't hear anyone complaining about it being too flat except for the folks on 3D lists. Which is kind of what I expected.

In closing, I don't know what to do about Hollywood and 3D. I know for a fact it will never create the eyeball-popping 3D that we have come to expect from the IMAX production brand. Compared to what Hollywood aspires to be, IMAX is a ride-film. Does the Hollywood machine sometimes make ridiculous movies that should have never been made? Yes. Do the non-money people aspire to be greater? Yes. Do the artists that work on these shows all want to be working on the next classic feature? Yes. Is that happening? Who knows? What does this mean for 3D? Who knows? This is a good article that goes into this situation more in-depth. It was really funny to be on set, working on one of the movies it mentions, while reading it last year:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris

The best I can do is try to educate productions and do the best work I can. Sometimes my hands are tied. Regardless, I still find a way to enjoy the 3D, and the process of making it.

I've actually had Hidden 3D on my radar for a while after seeing a Russian 3D clip on YouTube. I'll check it out for sure if it gets a U.S. region A BD3D release. The only region A 3D version I've seen available was a Hong Kong import on e-bay, and I got out-bid.

Could you elaborate a little more about what it means to eliminate "retinal-rivarly?" I think I get the general concept of reducing eye strain by having certain aspects of a scene be present and visually identical in both stereo images. But how does Spider-Man achieve this better than other 3D movies?

I don't know how other shows address it, or what makes someone look at a shot that isn't working and say, "Yes, it's working".
Every production has constraints and limitations, so probably somewhere therein lies the rub.

Not for one second do I believe that the person in charge of the stereo was inexperienced. There are many factors at play, shooting week after week, 14, 16, sometimes 18 hour days. It's not a slow-paced process... and sometimes holding up a production that is costing $50K an hour is not an option. Actually, it's never an option, in my opinion.


Don't go too far out of your way to find "Hidden". We would sometimes joke on set that the name of the movie was relevant. :-)
Edited by dzignlight - 7/10/12 at 6:35pm

I liked the 3D too, but only the action scenes. The dialog felt very bland. Hugo is proof you don't need to dumb down the 3D for dialog.
It would make more sense if they just learned that wider interaxials, and 3D-conscious set design and composition would have been the keys to improving ASM's dialog scenes.
Obviously feedback has a long turnaround time in the movie business, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it.

This guy IS the guy who's email bits I have been quoting in the article. In an attempt to keep his credibility , I had refrained from saying who he is.

He's swiftly gone into Damage control mode, after even more "knowledgeable" stereographers on the Yahoo board, actually stereo veterans, said that the narrative parts are all flat.

He is covering it up more than he should, on his lack of understanding on how to create rounded 3D. OF COURSE you cant change what you did 18 months ago. that does not mean people should not call you out on your error or whine about it.
(one does not have to have billion dollar movie credits to their name, to know what rounded and flat 3d is)

IF no one pointed it out, guess what you would be doing the next time?
Instead of saying yes, we all are learning (and we really all are)... he says that, but YET defends it and tries to pass on the buck to the entire production unit and decision makers.

Now I have no doubt that the Director/Dp etc might have actually called for subtle 3D. BUT WHAT HE DID was plain flat 3D. NOT subtle 3D.
flat cardboard layered 3D, on top of bad framing (by the DP) is what made the narrative scenes insipid.
AND that has to be called out, owned up properly and then people move on. They do not shamefacedly deny it

even worse they do NOT insult the public and 3D hobbyist by name calling and de-riding other peoples intelligence.
THAT is what he did to AVS members Cakefoo and BleedOrange11.
here's his post on Yahoo's 3D forum: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31596

(people might have to be members to read it, i'm not sure, but i take the liberty to copy it below)
This guy used to be a friend. But I can see that there's more to his character than meets the eye. He preaches being the "agreeable guy" and riding the middle lane (all good advice) but yet detests straight fowardness and critique, going on the defensive and twisting facts to confuse and mis-direct people.
That last line I explained in my 3rd paragraph above, and is a classic example of him trying to confuse the topic.
Note: He does not expand on what parts of my statements are unfounded, illogical and incorrect postulations (could they perhaps be that I called the 3D flat and yet the other stereographers also did along with the public? or something entirely different?...hmmm)

Then from a previous of his posts on Yahoo: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31598
You see the sarcasm here, and then the twist of argument towards the end (No one said they wanted to see Deep 3D all of the time as he claims).

...here he tries to blame us, the critiques, as to the reason why 3D might fail and movies will be converted. NOT claiming responsibilty or accepting the notion that FLAT and bad NATIVE 3D might certainly make producers want to convert in the first place.
Not once saying that he "sold out" (if he claims he knows what bad 3D is, yet wanted the money) or.. conversly, admitting that he did a bad job on His 3D choice, and acknowledging it without twisting it around.

Here's one noted and revered stereographer (John Rupkalvis) calling out the 3D on the narrative shots: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31592
JR does not, I repeat Does Not need to have billion dollar movies to his credit (and he may have too), to know good from bad 3D. He is one of the beacons of the art, that many of us stereographers have learned from way back to 2003 via his advice and insight shared (for free) on the yahoo boards.

Finally, here's my last reply to this guy who cant straightfoward say that he worked on the parts of TASM that we are complaining are flat: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/message/31599

If he did not care about people's dignified opinion (even though their usernames are undignified), why then is he here...onm AVS... doing Damage Control?
By itself the quote I posted of his is not that stinging in nature, but this persons true penchant for sarcasm and sneaky behavior can only be gleaned from following his style of between the line meanings, and thread of previous and follow up postings.

Sorry for this rant (and it is a rant with tinges of a personal attack, which I am sorry about, but feel it has to be done)

Kind Regards
Edited by realvision - 7/13/12 at 9:33am

Different people have different opinions and preferences for the ways that 3D should be handled in movies. Demanding that your personal opinion is the one and only valid way to make a 3D movie just makes you sound like a raving loon.

Whether you agree with it or not, the decision to film the dramatic dialogue scenes in Spider-Man with minimal depth was a deliberate artistic choice. You might as well go scream to Christopher Nolan about what an idiot he is for not shooting all of the scenes in The Dark Knight in IMAX format, because you would like the movie better that way.

Can't say that I have too much sympathy there, given the posting histories of those two individuals.

I don't see anything unreasonable in the allegedly-horrible quotes you posted.

3D is a relatively new way to "see" movies for many of us. It is bound to attract strong opinions on what does or doesn't work, the right or wrong way to use it etc etc in my opinion.

I have now on two separate occasions seen the opinion posted that a "surprising percentage" of people enjoy subtle 3D! I would like to meet one of these people because I don't believe any such person exists, at least not a "real" fan of 3D. People either like 3D and expect objects and characters to actually look as realistic as the current technology allows or they hate 3D and would rather it just died. I think people that say they like subtle 3D are really just people who belong in group two but don't want to appear to be quite as dramatic as they would if they publically admitted they would rather not have any 3D at all. That or they have eye sight problems or health issues that make 3D uncomfortable for them.

I, like many others don't like shots that try and rip my eyes out of my head but decent stereography avoids any such issues by design. Avatar managed to keep people entertained for over three hours with good levels of 3D in almost every single scenes, particularly dialogue scenes and very few people expressed any desire to see the 3D reigned in for something more subtle.

Some of the comparisons between 3D, sound and colour are a bit over stated in my opinion. In everyday life colour varies from place to place and sound does the same thing. In a city colours may be fairly muted but sound may come from every angle. In a county garden colours may be incredibly intense with deep blue skies, thousands of shades of grey in clouds and greens in foliage and trees. Blooms may exists in all the colours of the rainbow and many in between. Sound may be limited to the sound of a few birds or the odd bee though.

What is consistent though in both of the above examples is that EVERYTHING within a certain range is in 3D. We don't have to have 100% full sound code all the time, the world isn't like that. We don't need colour vibrancy peaking in every scene either, the world isn’t like that. Why though should all scenes in a 3D movie be in 3D? Because the world works that way, we are used to seeing 3 dimensions ALL THE TIME so if a movie is supposed to be in 3D then it should be in 3D in every scene to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon how distant objects are from the viewer.

I don't want flat cardboard characters in one scene and fully rounded 3D characters in another, nobody who enjoys 3D movies can possibly want that so like it or not, the people that chose to do this in TASM got it wrong. I want natural looking 3D and there is nothing unreasonable in wanting that I would suggest!
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/13/12 at 1:28pm

Somewhere there has to be a line for what good 3D and bad 3D is. Are you going to use this argument to say that the 3D in Clash of the Titans can't be categorized as "bad 3D" because rotoscope artists made some "artisitc decisions" during the conversion and some people might prefer how that 3D looks compared to Avatar's more rounded forms?

Clyde literally wrote a book about how to film good-looking 3D. He is a professional 3D stereographer/3D expert that teaches other people how to shoot 3D. He knows what he's talking about and isn't making any unreasonable criticisms. There are other 3D experts that agree with him, so it's not just the majority of "3D hobbyists," myself included, on AVS and Blu-ray forums that thought the dialogue 3D looked bad and needed improvement.

Clyde and others here are not saying that 3D with a smaller depth of field can't be used artistically or that all 3D has to conform to their opinion of perfect 3D. And definitely not that every moment has to have "theme-park 3D" or pop-outs or strong IMAX-style 3D depth. If that is what dzignlight took away from our comments, then he missed the message. To be blunt, nearly all of Spider-Man's dialogue 3D literally looked so flat and boring with 2D-style thinking and framing that it was unnatural and distracting. It looked worse than normal 3D and arguably worse than regular 2D. Better technical decisions regarding different lens choices, camera movements, scene composition, and depth of focus would have made the 3D okay-looking, while still achieving the production's goal of 3D that doesn't distract from the content of the dialogue and has IA smaller than action sequences. Technically, that's just my opinion, but when an unusually large amount of outspoken others, including 3D hobbyists and 3D professionals, share similar ones, then just maybe there are a few things that could have been improved about the stereography and the way they chose to shoot the 3D. I am 100% sure that dzignlight is a knowledgeable 3D expert and knows more about shooting 3D than I ever will. I'm sure he and his team did their best to squeeze out the best 3D they could. They may or may not be part of the blame. It may be entirely on the DP or "production" or some one else. I'm not in any position to say.

No one is complaining just for the sake of complaining or to force their opinion on others or to wish upon a star that Spider-Man's footage can be altered. We just want to discuss our 3D experiences and hope that people who work on Hollywood productions are willing to consider our feedback in an effort to improve and make better-looking 3D in their future projects, including TASM's sequel. We are part of their target audience and their biggest fans who choose to buy the more expensive 3D versions of their blu-rays and our opinions deserve a modicum of respect and consideration.
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/13/12 at 8:36pm

I've never seen anyone say this either, implying that they like flat 3D. I've seen "I like subtle 3D that doesn't distract from the story." However, in my mind, that doesn't equate to flat 3D filmed with 2D conventions. Usually, 3D that doesn't distract implies somewhat realistic-looking depth with no gimmick moments. No one ever gets distracted during real-life conversations by the dimensionality that the human form naturally displays. However, it would be pretty distracting if a cardboard cutout walked up and started talking to me.

Real-life people only look flat-ish when you are looking at them from a long distance away. Long telescopic lenses capture how people look far away, and when you use them during static movie dialogue moments to show up-close shots of actors talking, it looks really unnatural, even moreso when combined with seriously reduced IA and blurred backgrounds or foregrounds. I think most people share the opinion that stereoscopic 3D, with allowances for clever artistic liberties for story-telling, should simulate natural vision. This is the biggest thing that TASM got "wrong" during dialogue. It just looks really unnatural and 2D-like, and there is no good reason within the story to justify this look, which makes it a bad distraction. To help viewers focus on the content of the dialogue is not a good reason. Their collection of producers and filmmakers responsible for the 3D just got that one part horribly wrong, in my (and other people's) opinion.

(I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Haven't we already explained this?)
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/13/12 at 7:23pm

If you want to see how I'd prefer the dialog shots, see The Hobbit trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOLnp5ramY

Edited by cakefoo - 7/13/12 at 7:52pm

Following up on this, I suppose there is an exception. Apparently, most filmmakers who spend their lives working on 2D movies prefer flat 3D that looks more like 2D and what they're used to.
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/13/12 at 8:38pm

That would appear to be the crux of the matter. I read on the news group that some directors and dop's would appear to find the appearance of faces in dialogue shots in 3D grotesque and prefer that they look flatter like they do in 2D. Any filmakers that have that opinion should stay well clear of 3D features and stick with 2D instead because clearly they don't like 3D. I think it may be that the director of TASM falls into this category hence the flat dialogue scenes.

Very much looking forward to the Hobit movie too. I have a feeling PJ will embrace 3D in its entirety based on the clip Cakefoo posted.
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/14/12 at 4:20am

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to dislike the stereography in this movie. However, a distinction needs to be made between something that's a straight-up technical botch job like Clash of the Titans and something that's a purposeful artistic decision that you happen to disagree with.

As I posted earlier in the thread, I was personally very disappointed that Prometheus essentially stopped being 3D in the second half. In that case, there's nothing in the content of the movie that would explain or dictate a decision to revert to 2D. It just looks like Ridley Scott got bored with it and stopped trying after getting a handful of whiz-bang novelty moments out of the way in the first half.

At least in Spider-Man, my brain can comprehend why a visual distinction is being made between dialogue scenes and action scenes, much like The Dark Knight switches to IMAX for increased impact during its action scenes.

YMMV.

For whatever it's worth, a lot of readers on my site have said that they liked the 3D in Spider-Man.

May I (with respect) make an observation:
This can be a valid opinion. To me it did *not* stop being 3D in the second half. I could put forth the argument that the audience got immersed in the story and the setting that they (you?) might not have found 3D a distraction anymore i,e 3D was not sticking out like a sore thumb, nor was it flattened like a pancake, at least not the actors faces.

what "could" be happening was that the 3D was more subtle. and there in is the difference.
clue: it's been said that the depth on Prometheus was sculpted for scenes where they could use "multirigging" (rounded 3D on actors while shooting green screen, and reducing parallax on background plates to bring the stage closer). i,e 3D Volume Sculpting.

Subtle 3D...while maintaining some semblance of roundness on characters faces while reducing the depth of the overall "stage" is what I'd call artistic use of 3D.

This may have been the intention and instruction of the Director, DP etc.
How it was executed is where the flaw is. The 3D was flattened. No roundness on actors faces. Now fingerpointing, and buck passing can go on, it's anyones call, but the 3D was flat at the hands of the stereographer in the narrative shots.

and that is what the argument is about. I do hope this clarifies (maybe) what artistic intent with the 3D Depth budget is, and what flattened 3D by a combination of bad lensing, bad interaxial choices and the fact that this was NOT recognized by watching dailies on a larger screen. If the days rushes were viewed in 3D on a large screen, and YET nothing was done, the blame lies in the creators of that kind of 3D who were not able to identify flat cardboard 3D from good rounded (and again, rounded does not have to be in-your-face) 3d.

Kind Regards,
and respect.

I'll end this explanation now, as there are so many iterations of this argument that it keeps going in circles.

The 3D was enjoyable on the whole but the dialog in the homes was a distraction.

Defend that as artistic, but it's no excuse for what looked like flannelgraphs on a backboard. The telephoto lenses compressed the actors and individual objects into two dimensional layers, and looks completely unrealistic and reminiscent of bad conversion.

These moments in the YouTube trailer:
http://heartcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ss3.jpg
http://heartcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ss2.jpg
=
http://www.angelahagebusch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/flannelgraph.jpg

A lot of people praised the 3D, sure! But does that mean it wasn't flawed? No.
Edited by cakefoo - 7/14/12 at 9:15am

I agree with this statement and your readers' general sentiment. I think the point where we disagree is that I see Spidey's dialogue 3D as a technical botch job made by filmmakers who either think with 2D conventions or dislike rounded 3D, and you view it as intentional artistry. If we're honest, the look of Spidey's dialogue 3D is probably the result of a little bit of both.

Believe me, I was not immersed in the story. I was so bored and stupefied by the movie's awfulness that I made a concerted effort to pay attention to the 3D, or lack thereof.

Well, in the IMAX 3D screening I saw, the 3D was so subtle in the second half that it wasn't there at all.

It could be that this was a fault with the IMAX projection and/or its implementation of linear polarized glasses. (The crosstalk was terrible if I tilted my head in the slightest.) But I guess that's just another reason that it's dangerous to make absolutist statements about 3D quality when the standards for 3D projection seem to be so all over the map. Maybe you just caught a bad screening of Spider-Man?

I'd make the same argument for Prometheus. Too much of the movie was staged in wide shots where there was little apparent depth between the characters and the background, both of which were in the distance of the shots with nothing in the foreground to offer depth cues.

I understand what you're saying about Spider-Man, but I still think that the purposefulness of the visual distinction between the two kind of scenes puts it ahead of Prometheus, where there's no rhyme or reason to why the movie stops being 3D.

1. As long as the interaxial and convergence are relatively true to lifelike scale in consideration of the size of the screen and the viewer distance, then I'm fine with the occasional weaker on-screen parallax shot, because it's reasonably lifelike. You could criticize for not getting closer to the subjects, but that would completely defeat the purpose of the wide shots used to establish a sense of the pretty epic surroundings.
2. The other difference is, these more subtle shots (which I was not offended by in Prometheus due to the reason above) were evenly distributed throughout the film and paced well. In ASM, whole scenes are completely flat. 3D is like oxygen, I can't go too long without it, and if I do it better be for a good reason.

As for ASM, I see no reason why the 3D should go to 5-10% strength when talking to people! I DO see, like in Hugo, a reason why an intimidating police chief should appear to be invading my comfort zone more and more as the tension builds. THAT is art, but dialing down the interaxial to almost zero is tricky.

I personally believe that varying the intensity can be a valid artistic tool, but it needs to be used in the correct amounts. I don't think reducing people to cardboard cutouts is good for the movie or for 3D in general, because it makes 3D seem like it's only appropriate as an action movie tool.

I've heard several complaints that Spiderman's dialog scenes caused people to question the 3D and they took their glasses off.

If only a certain percentage of your movie is in "good" 3D then people are less likely to remember the good and will only recommend the 2D version to friends. As a stereographer it should concern you how much money the movie will make in 3D, and I think the other crew will agree that that's a good thing overall as long as it doesn't compromise the intent. In the case of ASM's dialog shots, a wider, more realistic interaxial would have immersed me more into whatever is happening; and when I'm immersed more I feel more inclined to react as if I'm actually there, therefore the emotions, whether positive or negative, will swell up in me much more. And that is why I lean towards realistic interaxials versus minimal 3D.
Edited by cakefoo - 7/14/12 at 4:09pm

Just tuning back in and reading through the posts, I am glad to see such a lively and well-rounded discussion!

I think all of the points have been covered, and I seem to have escaped the ad hominem attacks here that Clyde posted on another group, so all-in-all, it was a great read.

Keep up the 3D creation and 3D fan base; TASM wasn't what us 3D geeks wanted to see at times, but certain folks here nailed exactly why the plan was laid out the way it was, and others here have the exact same opinion as I do as to whether that plan was appropriate or effective.

C'est la vie. As professional stereographers, all we can do is try to align ourselves with a production that has similar ideals... however, even with 20/20 hindsight, I still don't believe that I would do as someone suggested on another list, and turn down a blockbuster production that wanted to do things differently than I did. I don't think anyone with that opinion has a solid grasp of reality.

In the end, there will always be compromises. It's the nature of filmmaking. And as I said before elsewhere, if feature film 3D dies again, it's not going to be from us 3D geeks not seeing the movie in 3D. It's from everyone else not wanting to pay the significant premium for 3D, even for strategically maximized 3D like our friends at Dreamworks create:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/led-by-families-interest-in-3d-is-plummeting-among-u-s-consumers/

-Eric

I'm 3D is shrinking in popularity, but if you break the movies up into 2 parts- summer and everything else- you can see the ebb and flow.

See Pirates thru Spy Kids in 2011:


And Avengers thru Ice Age now:

Thanks for the updated graph. Theater 3D definitely looks like it has some seasonal trends. Maybe people go to the theater more often in the summer and are therefore more reluctant to buy the premium tickets.

As much as I'm tired of dragging a flogged and dead horse around, I'm compelled to state in points, because of the twisting of the argument time and again.

1) Lets say in TASM, the Director, DP and others called for "subtle 3D" . In that case what was delivered by the Stereographer was FLAT 3D (again, referring to the narrative scenes) THIS is my point of the argument.

2) Let's say the TASM Directors etc did not care about 3D at all or wanted to have 3D done "their way": In that case why would they bother with hiring a professional Stereographer (They would have gone the Tron Legacy way and the DP would have taken over)

So we would then have to infer from the way this Stereographer is buck passing --- that the Directors. DP etc wanted a "scape-goat" to pin the blame on, in case they did an abysmal job on those scenes, and so they hired a stereographer (and didnt listen to him when he told them the 3D was too subtle)
Highly unlikely.

So for the last time, my point is the Stereographer and his work on the narrative scenes was a botch job, confusing subtle 3D with FLAT 3D. Agreed, added to this problem was the terrible cinematography (as far as 3D was concerned) on these narrative scenes.
Everyone is learning 3D, I'm the first to admit it in all my articles and the book. YET I expect people to own up and say they will do better next time. That's what integrity is. Buck passing, twisting an argument and other tactics is for the sneaky and the "middle lane" drivers.

As for AD Hominem...
Spouting Latin does not make one any more intelligent, or win an argument in an effort to deflect from the points of the argument proper. As for "attacks", your confusing it with defending.
The difference is, my so called "attacks" were responses to your sarcasm, and typed under quoted lines from your previous posts. Your attacks were in private emails and craftily tailored sarcasm on the yahoo forums. If only you could develop a depth script the way you create one for scarcasm, the ebb and flow of 3D in the dialog scenes in TASM would be like 3D poetry and actually contribute to the narrative of the film, instead of the flat 3D your cleverly trying to pass the buck off as "subtle 3D"

FYI: You might think that I'm too far away from Hollywood to know what the truth is on TASM? Well emails that I get/got, say other wise.

Here's one bit that might help: I know for a fact that the powers that be in TASM were unhappy with the 3D in narrative scenes and were exploring the option of "inflating the depth" with conversion, but budget constraints prevented it... so... 'nuff said?
And no I won't humor you with actual names or how I got that info, Just as you won't quote or state any professional stereographer who says that the 3D in the narrative scenes from TASM are subtle, instead of plain FLAT.

3D is in danger of dying out due to audiences being forced to pay high premiums for no returns and sloppy 3D, and sloppy stereoscopy will only accelerate 3D's demise. First there was bad 2D to 3D conversions. now Native 3D is on a race to the bottom (see even i know an obligatory clever phrase to deflect from the argument) by stereographers who are selling out, and on top of that cannot admit that they shot bad flat 3D (not subtle 3D as is being claimed)

This is my last contribution to the art of Ad hominem.

Regards.