3D Stereoscopic film and television for children's eyes: safety first

At this year’s MIPtv ‘3DTV State of the market’ conference presentation, the International 3D Society of America’s Jim Chabin did a keynote speech about the state of 3DTV.  As is really very usual with these talks, the focus of the talk was all context of 3DTV, not at all the content.  3-D industry boffins love talking about numbers of 3DTVs sold and projected 3DTV sales, but very rarely do talks actually go into the content side of the subject, being the technical and creative requirements of 3-D production - let alone GOOD 3-D production.  This is something I myself do whenever I get given the chance at talks, panels and workshops and I always get very positive feedback on the fact that I am one of the rare few people talking details and not just course outlines.  Either way, Jim managed to make a bold statement I have to comment on because it goes to the core of a subject very close to my heart and professional knowledge.  

 I won’t go into the much repeated number of 40+ 3DTV channels as mentioned again by Jim, omitting the fact that 30 of these channels are adult entertainment channels – which is fine, but inconvenient for a medium presenting itself as the ultimate family viewing experience.  And I won’t go into the part about Youtube and NVidia offering 3-D channels since they are not paying for the 3-D content on their channels, which makes mentioning them as a platform somewhat of a moot point (there are well paying 3-D channels in boradcast and IPTV out there, mind you).  What I would like to discuss is Jim’s statement that research from the American Optometric Association says that 3-D is not harmful to young eyes - period.

It is true that the AOA has published a Q&A on 3-D and child viewer issues, but they have done so in collaboration with the 3D@Home Consortium, and the statement reads as follows:

(Question) At what age can my child view 3D safely?

(Answer) Vision, including binocular vision, develops from birth. No detrimental effects of viewing 3D have been reported at any age. Parents should note that from 6-12 months of age, basic binocularity is established. By the age of 3 years most children will have binocular vision well enough established to enjoy viewing 3D television, movies or games.

With this answer, 3D@Home and the AOA are certainly not lying, but they are omitting a vital piece of information.  They are telling only half the story - and quoting this statement does not do the job of addressing the issue of 3-D kids content safety.   

The point is that it matters just as much whether children CAN see 3-D content at all as what the quality of this content actually is.  Not a popular subject in America, I know, but a very popular subject in Europe, especially when it comes to public TV broadcasters and children's content distributors.  3-D content in itself is not the problem; it is the parameters of the content that poses a risk to children's enjoyment and eye health.  Just as a flashing light is not a problem in itself, repeated flashes and patterns can cause an epileptic fit with epilepsy sufferers and are thus outlawed in film and television to prevent seizures with the audience (the Harding Flash and Pattern Analyser is used to check all broadcast television for this).  The same goes for 3-D content and how the 3-D camera, composition and editing have been employed, yet the quality and suitability of 3-D has not yet been regulated by EBU, SMPTE, FCC or likewise.  Your fallback position is a stereoscopic expert to give you real guarantees based on the latest research and industry experience.

An organization like the AOA should be taking a positive lead in the matter, but they choose the route of omission of information to remove doubt, which is something I am sure their 36,000 optometrist members don't agree with if they knew about it. What I am talking about here is producers potentially trying to take responsibility for the products offered to their child audience, but being guided by incomplete statements from leading optometry and stereoscopy organizations.

The core problem is that 3-D offers a completely unnatural viewing situation, regardless of production methods employed.  While the actual 3-D imagery is projected or presented on the cinema or TV screen, the brain thinks the imagery is located in the space in front or behind the screen.  This can force the eyes to work extremely hard, per the choice of parallax, volume, depth budget, depth placement, layout, points of interest, camera movement, focus and editing.  As such, for many people, especially children, 3-D can cause eye strain, headaches and dizziness.  Children’s eyesight, then, is developing rapidly in the early years, usually reaching its full potential by the age of around five or six, although new research shows that the children’s eyesight can remain flexible into their teens.

Besides needing a calm, educated 3-D layout, children need a clear, sharp image in each eye in order for their vision to develop properly. If anything upsets that balance (natural or artificial) it could affect the visual development resulting in 'amblyopia' (lazy eye) or a squint.  3-D film imagery for children needs to be tailored to the peculiarities of children's eyes - and this is completely possible by adjusting 3-D production methods and protocols.  3-D Revolution Productions is a specialist in the field and can help your production produce these safe, enjoyable 3-D results –for children and of course also for adults.

A recent and rather poignant example of 3-D film imagery that is not just painful to watch but cruel eye torture for children under the age of 8, can be found in the family film 'Hugo Cabret (Hugo 3D)'.  Tell me, 3D@Home & AOA, that this imagery is watchable by 3-8 year olds without causing them discomfort, eyestrain and potentially damage to the eye muscles and nerves.

 

These shots already use 2 to 3 times more parallax than is comfortable and enjoyable to adult eyes, so for 3-5 year olds the parallax values exceed comfortable levels by 4.5 to 6.5 times. These shots really do create decoupling and divergence and I would personally request a rework (post fixing) of these shots to present them to children happily and safely, had I been asked to do 3-D QC on this production.

It is either a massive oversight or who knows, there may be a conflict of interest at play here.  If that is so, there will probably never be an admission to the existence of problems by the big players of the 3-D film industry.  What is 3D@Home promoting and who are their subsidiaries? 3-D content viewing at home and its 3DTV screens.  What is the AOA selling? 36,000 American optometrists and their check-up services.  And what am I selling here then?  3-D Quality Consultation and Certification from the perspective of end user enjoyment. 

3D ROI comes from positive viewer enjoyment and word of mouth, not from talking straight a crooked product at TV conferences.  At the end of the day it really is not necessary to present your audience with problematic 3-D imagery - just a matter of proper planning and keeping your true audience in mind at all times.

As a 3-D children's content producer, now or in the future, the issue of 3-D enjoyment for children is yours to work with.  It is a massive issue and one that doesn't just go away with time and technological advancement because it is an optical issue.  There are production methods that can ensure child enjoyment and child safety, applicable during production or in post-production.  Allow me to consult you on those methods and guide you to a successful and safe 3-D end result.  You can either take a massive gamble or take serious responsibility for your product and its consumer enjoyment.  And I will happily sign that statement.

Signed,

Alexander Lentjes
Stereoscopic Consultant
Specialized in Children's Media

www.the3drevolution.com

3D Stereoscopic film and television for children's eyes: safety first

Top three 3-D movies of all time

Just a quick top three after a recent visit to Box Office Mojo:

The top three 3-D movies of all time
Numbes reflect total International Gross
Corrected for inflation (ticket price)

1. Spy Kids 3-D (2003)
35mm Anaglyph projection
$230,504,018

2. Jaws 3-D (1983)
35mm Polarized projection
$197,970,873

3. Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D (2008)
Digital 3-D projection
$96,387,658

So not only is the highest grossing 3-D movie of all time a very 'simple' anaglyph 35mm projection, its budget is definitely also the lowest of the three.

It is good to see a polarized 35mm projection on the number two spot, and then, finally, a digitally projected 3-D film. James Cameron must be hissing and huffing and puffing. Well, with his upcoming 3-D movie Avatar having a $195,000,000 budget and a niche Sci-fi market to play the movie to, he will certainly continue to do so...

And so which film of the top three is the most recognizable and memorable of them all? Exactly, Jaws 3-D. That film from 1983 that today’s journalists can’t bash enough – whenever they aren’t generally bashing anaglyph as a release format, that is. Too bad then it’s not them, but Robert Rodriguez who is laughing all the way to the bank with a hefty $186,000,000 cheque in his pocket for the anaglyph Spy Kids 3-D. People, wake up to the reality of what works in 3-D and why.

Top three 3-D movies of all time

Imax vs. DLP vs. Anaglyph

IMAX has provided for a guaranteed way to keep 3-D movies playing for a long period of time, creating more money and more word-of-mouth advertisement for these films and their directors. By creating the process of DMR, films shot of 35MM and HD can be blown up to IMAX size. So this means that a producer looking to generate more money from his film will happily go IMAX and ideally go 3-D. People like James Cameron and George Lucas who can take financial risks are willing to try out this different distribution model and film their next project in 3-D. Indeed, had ‘Aliens of the Deep’ for example not been in 3-D IMAX, it would not have had a very warm welcome in regular cinemas. The upcoming conversion of Star Wars to 3-D will most likely go the IMAX 3-D route, with a detour in the few 3-D enabled DLP cinemas in America. Strangely, the existing and perfectly working 3-D systems of the 1983 craze are not even considered for these releases. If it is the 3-D that counts, Lucas & co should be suggesting these much cheaper and readily available systems to theatres and distributors and not use the films as an excuse to make cinemas purchase or rent 3-D DLP projectors. Or release anaglyphically.



The frantic search for a technical breakthrough in 3-D display, which has been going on for more than 100 years now, is fuelled by the promise of an evolutionary step in visual entertainment. But most of the current audio-visual industry perceives 3-D as a means to re-sell old product in a new shell and moreover, being able to charge more for the same product but with the added 3rd dimension. This statement can be backed up by the observation that there are no real plans to develop a new visual language once the 3-D revolution happens – nobody is being educated or trained in 3-D filming, there is no literature on 3-D cinematography other than technical manuals and even those are mostly unread by the handful of present day 3-D filmmakers.



Recent examples of this failure to do research on the technicalities of 3-D are Robert Rodriguez’ films ‘Spy Kids 3-D’ and ‘The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl in 3-D’. The wish to display all colours whilst still using anaglyphic glasses is an obvious mistake because reds and blues should not be visible through both lenses. It is very basic knowledge but simply ignored, consciously or unconsciously. There are simple ways to show colours through anaglyphic glasses whilst not destroying the 3-D encoding – not just by omitting reds and blues but by simulating them in the end result as seen through the glasses - but these technologies are sadly ignored and the visually painful experience is used as ammunition for the argument of 3-D DLP projection even though these are two separate issues. And strangely, Rodriguez is in the DLP promoting club, whilst releasing his 3-D films using anaglyphics.

Imax vs. DLP vs. Anaglyph

Public opinion of 3-D movies

Consider this when thinking about producing a 3-D feature, short, commerical or special: current public opinion of 3-D film is quite negative. On the public boards of the Internet Movie Database, the following opinions on stereoscopic film can be found:

"Since it is 3-D, then the plot is ussually like a dirt-land because the 'producers' have to spend time *perfecting* the 3-D anmimations. Take a look at 'Spy Kids 3-D': it sucked."

Fdf-10 [1]

"In a normal film in general and a horror film in general much of the background is utilised. With a 3-D movie the opposite is put into force where much of the action takes place in the foreground."

Theo Robertson [2]

"The new Night of the Living Dead 3-D isn't suppossed to be that bad from what I've heard because they don't go over the top trying to contstantly throw stuff at the screen and stuff, but actually focus on the movie."

Stevenhigney [3]

These remarks touch briefly upon what could and should make a 3-D movie great and what currently makes 3-D movies not great at all. This is discussed in depth in 3-D Revolution Productions' 3-D Movie Theory section and it shouts out at stereoscopic movie producers, directors, writers, storyboarders and cameramen to approach 3-D in a serious, unique and complete way.

Public opinion of 3-D movies