The Reality of 3-D Television

One of the biggest financial elements for any film production is the promise of DVD and broadcasting sales. Some productions even go so far as to part or gap-finance productions with DVD pre-orders; a practise possible with well-established properties enjoying a big fan base. But what of Stereoscopic 3-D productions?




As written before, films playing in Real-D and Dolby 3-D theatres are simply not released in 3-D on any type of DVD or broadcast on television. There may be the odd distributor taking the step of active or passive 3-D plasma screen format versioning, but such a hardware market is not a real consumer fact yet and work on small screen reversioning is currently still close to working from a belief in the existence of a home theatre 3-D market rather than a basing these costs on a commercial reality. Anaglyph 3-D is still the most accessible and cost-effective 3-D release format for the small screen, yet it is quickly acquiring a bad name in the industry.


How not to watch analgpyh 3-D...

For some reason (most likely a financial one), Disney has distributed only 1 million anaglyph glasses and then asks of home viewers to construct their own anaglyph 3-D glasses using felt pens, clear film and cardboard for the Hannah Montana 3-D broadcast and DVD release. No surprise then that the girls doing this will walk away with a justified hate of very poor quality 3-D, but sadly also a distrust of anaglyph 3-D as a whole. Proper filtering using the red and blue of anaglyph is certainly possible and the results can be on par with a polarized projection solution, minus the hardware headaches and investments that polarized projection bring with it. But of course the think-tank at Real-D will advice Disney to distribute Hannah Montanna’s 3-D concert in this DIY way: it will be yet another nail in the coffin of consumer trust in anaglyph 3-D. Journalists are certainly doing a great job helping them with this, bashing anything other than polarized, digital projection on a daily basis – often without ever even having witnessed a proper anaglyph presentation themselves. But that’s the way these cookies crumble.



Practically speaking, what would a saturated, well functioning 3-D television market look like? The daily news in 3-D (rising interest rates – now in 3-D), the weather report in 3-D (tomorrow: more stereoscopic rain), sports broadcasts in 3-D (poor refereeing in and extra time in 3 Dimensions), cooking programs in 3-D (carrots flying left and right out of the screen), talkshows in 3-D (talking to the hand that’s comin’ at ya, coz the 3-D face ain’t listening), soaps in 3-D (pregnant with her husband’s best friend – in stereo, so probably with twins)…



In such a future, 3-D is the standard and 3-D cameras will be simple to operate, locked down to an EBU standard interocular, with SMPTE limited convergence control and, finally, an industry standard handbook on how to work it all. 57 3-D channels and still nothing on! Maybe 3-D TV should stay limited to a 3-D film and special event channel. Hannah Montana 3D, U23D, the NBA and World Cup rugby final in 3-D, followed by a late showing of Hondo (in all of its restored 3-D glory), House of Wax, Chicken Little, Beowulf and a 3-D converted Wizard of Oz. That will work and it will keep 3-D special. Because everyday 3-D will become as dull as 2-D in our present experience.


3-D Converted still from the 2-D version of Hondo -
just to complicate things even further

The Reality of 3-D Television

Bratz the Movie is better than Citizen Kane

Lately, a lot of journalists and PR-material-copying bloggers (and everything in between) have been writing nasty things about 3-D film releases from before 2007. Blanket statements that would make even Stalin envious of their propagandistic bluntness - and impact - as everybody now appears to agree on the content of these statements.
Just three statements from different articles on modern day 3-D film production to illustrate my point here:

"The presentation of films in 3D is as old as the movie business itself, but clumsy technology and unrealistic effects have so far kept it out of the mainstream."
From C21 Media online

"Stereoscopic 3D, minus the red/green paper glasses, sea-sickness and headaches previously experienced in viewing this dimension."
From 4RFV News Article
"This is not our parent’s 3-D experience, a date night novelty."
From Animation Magazine online

When you look at the facts and actually compare 3-D movies from 1953-54 and 1983-84 (and everything in between) with the most recent 3-D releases, the statements that the latest stuff is always better simply fall apart. ‘House of Wax’ versus ‘Beowulf’? ‘Dial M for Murder’ versus ‘Spy Kids 3-D’? ‘Jaws 3-D’ versus ‘Chicken Little’? I know which movies understood the 3-D better and used the 3-D better - and the better 3-D - as a result. DLP projection of a movie with childish qualities does not outdo 35MM projection of a 3-D work of cinematic intelligence. It’s a story, silly, and a story you tell with the words, not with the book’s cover.

If it were up to these modern journalists, no movie from before the year 2003 is worth another look ever again – especially Stereoscopic 3-D films. As not many people have seen the old 3-D films (even when they write about them), let’s use as an example two well known regular 2D movies. When you follow this ‘newer is better’ line of thought through, you easily come to the following statement:

‘Bratz the Movie’ is better than ‘Citizen Kane’.

Crazy? Not true? Well, let’s look at the facts from the viewpoint of digital journalists.

Bratz was shot with modern day 35MM cameras in Super35 (its only shortcoming), in crisp, clear, modern colour. Edited through a Digital Intermediate on a Digital editing system it is digitally distributed and projected with the best possible, steady, stable, unparalleled digital image in Digital DLP-enabled theatres. Presented in state-of-the art cinemas in Dolby Digital Surround Sound in 2.35:1 widescreen, it engages with all senses and leaves no stone unturned in terms of audio-visual impact. Booming, rich, crisp clear sound and an image so bright and sharp you can cut a rock in two with it.


Bratz (2007)

The editing of the picture is completely of the 21st Century: fast, modern, totally this generation, ready to be beamed onto Cellphone, PSP & iPods with superfast Bluetooth & WiFi. The story is up-to-date and wastes no time with out-dated exposition, boring character-arcs and irrelevant narrative distractions like plot or direction. It is aimed clearly and purely at its target audience, unambiguous and totally clear on its one goal: entertainment.


Citizen Kane (1941)

Using the latest, best special effects, animation and post-production available, it does not fail its audience in any shape or form. There is nothing old, analogue, unstable, stuffy, mono, black & white or boring about it. Therefore, it is a million times better than anything that came before it, and that includes Citizen Kane. Because it simply is everything that Citizen Kane isn’t...

Looking forward to the release of ‘Journey 3-D’, though. Nothing wrong with a bit of innocent fun. Is that a mineshaft P.O.V. 3-D sequence coming up, by the way?


Journey to the Centre of the Earth 3-D

Bratz the Movie is better than Citizen Kane

Red-Blue bad?

Lucas, Zemeckis, Rodriguez & Cameron

Recently, as you probably well know, James Cameron has been doing the rounds promoting polarized DLP projection and twin-camera HD 3-D shooting as the way forward for the 3-D film industry. It is a very valid point that the polarized Real-D projection solution is a massive step forward for 3-D film and its chances of survival (for longer than two years). Because of the standardisation of Real-D within the DLP architecture, combined with the fact that Real-D projection can’t be screwed up by projectionists, 3-D cinema has now got a fighting chance to not hurt the audience’s eyes and thus stick around for longer – as long as the quality of 3-D films stays above abysmal quality levels.
But Cameron takes the argument a step further by making the attending audience shout: “Red-blue, bad!” But why? There is nothing wrong with anaglyph 3-D. It’s been around as long as stereoscopic film itself has and has never gone away because of its versatility, ease of use and cheapness. In fact, Sony Pictures Imageworks (SPI) still uses it for their 3-D monitor previewing.


Anaglyph 3D image of 'The Incredible Invasion...'

A big point that people make nowadays about anaglyph 3-D is that they think it causes discomfort and headaches. True, it is not an ideal format in terms of colour and separation, and your brain will attempt to compensate for the colour filters by turning your vision blue and red, inversely to the glasses. But it is misuse of 3-D, not the presentation format, that causes real headaches.

It’s tempting to think that the progress of technology has solved all problems with 3-D film production and screening. It hasn’t because it can’t. The biggest problems with 3-D filming stem from the physical limitations of what the eye and brain can do and subsequently how far 3-D cameras can be separated (the interocular distance), rotated inward (convergence) and how close they can be to the subject. No technology can solve breaches of human physical ability and a painful 3-D experience must almost always be blamed on poorly thought out and executed 3-D direction and camera work.


The cast of Jaws 3-D argues over which 3-D lens adapter to use

The biggest issue is of course the proven fact that one bad 3-D presentation can ruin it for the rest. People will happily equate the pleasure of 3-D with that of the last presentation they have seen and if that presentation was a poor one, that audience will label 3-D bad overall. It’s not fair, but that’s the way 3-D has been treated in 3-D film’s rise and decline of 1953-54 and 1983-84. So it’s time to stop pointing fingers and start shooting good 3-D, with a proper story that is enhanced through the stereoscopic visuals!

Red-Blue bad?