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?

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