Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

[Adrian Frearson]

Up until this weekend, when I visited the Annecy Film Festival, I was very cynical of the motives for 3d and really believed that it was a fad that would pass. However, I was lucky enough to go to the screening and discussion of Pixars new short Day & Night. Apart from being a brilliant little film, as always, it completely changed my opinion on how 3D can be used as a valid part of the creative process and in this case, move the story forward.

Director Teddy Newton gave an interesting talk on the processes and changes in thinking that they had to go through to make the film. But also, Pixars Bob Whitehill, gave a very enlightening talk on 3D playing a small but important role within the pipeline, along with animation, lighting etc. Rather than it being a process that is tagged on the end. A large focus of this, was to try and steer away from the old idea of going for the obvious 3D tricks and keep depth perception in 3D space to a minimum.

The film revolves around 2 traditional hand drawn characters, Day & Night, who both see the differences in the 3D worlds within themselves. It will open this weekend with Toy Story 3. IMO it works and is very different than I've seen 3D before. I found myself wanting to reach down into the frame, rather than the elements of the frame reaching out to me and it was a far more comfortable experience.

[Brian Drysdale]

The question may be if the current 3D process works better with animation than live action drama?

[Adrian Frearson]

I think currently it's probably tilted in favour of animation. I might be reading too much into this, but my take on this film, was that Pixar are showing it's possible to make a 3D film, which doesn't suffer from a lot of the motion judder normally associated with 3D. Because the action takes place within the frame of each character, there are very few shots where there is frame judder, which is a very real problem for 3D action.
So perhaps they're making a statement, with a concept, about the viability of 24fps 3D production, against the push for a 48fps projection rate. Obviously this has major consequences for animation, whether it's increased render time or more work in hand drawn or stop motion.

[R Geoff Baker]

3D 'works better' with animation because the reality of the 3D effect is that it is modest to negligible for most shots ... but animation allows for the use of 'invented' points of view and the use of a fake but impressive 3D effect.

Walk around with one eye covered -- that is life in 2D, and it looks remarkably like the world with both eyes in use ... 3D is a fad, one that has been hauled out to 'save' Hollywood before, and one that is no closer to becoming mainstream than the last time. It is quite simply not that significant an effect, and worth nothing like the cost to consumer or the effort to producers required to make this something other than a minor niche.

I suspect that the gaming community will encourage this effect as they live in a world of animation (and un-reality) -- but for film and television production .... don't bet the farm.

Cheers,
GB

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

History agrees. Where there's a big enough market, there are corporations willing to take that market's money. The assumption you are making is that the market for 2D TV will cease to exist or at least shrink to insignificance. I think that's an unwarranted assumption considering that 15% of the population has actual physical problems (headaches, nausea, etc.) with 3D. And the even larger percent who favor 2D from an aesthetic standpoint.

So yeah, I'm assuming there will be alternatives.

Bruce, I'm not trying to tell you you have to watch 3D! All I'm saying is that all the TVs will be 3DTV, you can still watch 2D on them, just like you can watch B&W and silent films. the 3DTV supports both markets happily. Pricewise, 3DTV is a slight premium over a high end 2D TV, but in a couple years there is no reason for them not to be priced evenly. At that point, why would manufacturers keep making 2DTV? Everyone should be able to be happy. Especially the 200,000,000 fanboys, err.... people who want to buy Avatar 3D.

An interesting prediction. But wrong as explained above. I won't be buying any technology that gives me headaches. Not going to happen. Why would you think it would? You probably think that I'm buying cable/satellite access too, and you'd be wrong about that also. I'm an OTA and Netflix guy. Because there are always alternatives, even to cable and satellite companies.

I don't know why you'd think I'd be interested in your cable choices, but Netflix is awesome, glad to hear you use them.

I'm not a "hater" and I resent your accusing me of such. I'm merely asserting my preference for 2D technology and refuting your assertion that I'll be forced to buy something I don't want. Your reaction to my preference makes me think that you feel threatened by my position. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but it won't change my mind.

I'm just using the term "hater" in context of it seems that you hate 3D. Nothing else is implied if there are other meanings where you live. I'm not threatened by your position... unless your brother/sister/father/mother happens to run the anti-3D mafia, in which case I'll be in hiding soon.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by R Geoff Baker

3D 'works better' with animation because the reality of the 3D effect is that it is modest to negligible for most shots ... but animation allows for the use of 'invented' points of view and the use of a fake but impressive 3D effect.

Walk around with one eye covered -- that is life in 2D, and it looks remarkably like the world with both eyes in use ... 3D is a fad, one that has been hauled out to 'save' Hollywood before, and one that is no closer to becoming mainstream than the last time. It is quite simply not that significant an effect, and worth nothing like the cost to consumer or the effort to producers required to make this something other than a minor niche.

Well, except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?

I do agree it isn't worth the production cost (except in rare cases) in terms of story. Of course we're still fairly early into "modern" 3D production. Once Sony and Panny are both in the 3D video camera game in the $10-$20k range, 3D production will explode. Once it becomes standard, there will be little difference in cost.

Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)

But once it trickles down to parents being able to shoot 3D video of their kids, it's here to stay. That's probably the easiest sales pitch ever.

[R Geoff Baker]

<Well, except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?>

When Hollywood plays the 3D card in the theatre -- from the fifties to today -- they charge the same price for 3D, no premium ... which makes it mainstream. Doesn't make it dominant, or ubiquitous -- but it is affordable in theatres anyway. Everytime.

<I do agree it isn't worth the production cost (except in rare cases) in terms of story. Of course we're still fairly early into "modern" 3D production. Once Sony and Panny are both in the 3D video camera game in the $10-$20k range, 3D production will explode. Once it becomes standard, there will be little difference in cost.>

You are only talking about shooting here, there is an entire post & distribution end that will have costs. But what I meant to refer to was the increased effort required, at all levels of production -- even the big films like Avatar are only, IMHO, marginally good at mastering the editing of 3D. There are jumps and awkward cuts that would be completely unacceptable in 2D ... but the poor editor of the 3D version is stuck with trying to master transitions that are happening in 3 dimensions -- frame boundaries in all directions, what a pain!

<Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :) >

You said it brother.

<But once it trickles down to parents being able to shoot 3D video of their kids, it's here to stay. That's probably the easiest sales pitch ever.>

There have been any number of useful and inexpensive developments that failed, even in the video world. VHS HiFi stereo was immensely better than VHS mono, and significantly better than VHS linear stereo ... and yet it didn't catch on. Consumers continued to buy mono, and manufacturers shrunk their line-up to meet consumer demand. Same with S-VHS, and VHS HQ -- though the benefits were less apparent than HiFi stereo, consumers didn't bite.

And that is my real point -- frankly, 3D is not all that thrilling for most stuff. It is barely thrilling for grandiose Hollywood product designed around it ... more people will watch Avatar in 2D on a television than will ever see it in 3D in the theatre.

3D will die, again, because it is more hype than happening in most situations. And it isn't going to be worth the expense to all concerned, from consumer to producer, to pursue it. So enjoy the little flurry in the theatre, especially for those productions that actually benefit (Toy Story 3D maybe..?), don't spend the college fund on a 3D television for the rec room, and watch the 3D channels whither on the vine.

JMHO

GB

[Dylan Couper]

When Hollywood plays the 3D card in the theatre -- from the fifties to today -- they charge the same price for 3D, no premium ... which makes it mainstream. Doesn't make it dominant, or ubiquitous -- but it is affordable in theatres anyway. Everytime.

Wait, what? There's absolutely a premium charge on 3D films (at least where I am). Cineplex is charging $12ish for a regular ticket,$15ish for 3D.

Anyway, I'm still not sure why you think we aren't closer to 3D now, what with 3DTVs, 3D video cameras, 3D still cameras, 3D laptops, 3D video games and actually half decent 3D production capabilities at a reasonable price. Consider the only people who had legit 3D capabilities were major studios, you have to admit we are at least a LITTLE closer to mainstream 3D than 50 ago?

As for 3D post production, I shot a short film in 3D 3 months ago and (granted it was short) the post production wasn't that difficult, and was no additional cost (besides the editor's time).

[R Geoff Baker]

The theatre complex near me charges the same for 3D as they do for IMAX, which is to say the four big screens cost a buck or two more than the twelve lesser screens ... but it is a modest difference, not a deal breaker for anyone.

But you are correct and I would be churlish if I didn't agree that the prices are lower to the consumer than anytime in the past, and technologies accessible in a way that was never available before.

In the end though ... it just isn't engaging enough to be more than a fad is my point.

Cheers,
GB

[Dylan Couper]

I feel ripped off... we pay the same for 3D whatever screen it's on...
I'll make it back by selling clients on 3D production services (while I can if everyone is right and I'm wrong). :)

[Dave Blackhurst]

Probability that "3D" will be the "big hype" in technology for a few more months, at least through Christmas 2010 - 100%

Probability that most of us, myself included, will spend at least SOME $$$ on "3D something or another" somewhere along the way - 100% (my kids like the 3D bonus "Bob's Big Break" bonus from Monsters v Aliens, I think it looks horrid)

Probablity that "this time it's different" - how many zeros after that decimal point?

Probablity that "joe sixpack" will be shooting the kids in 3D, making granny ill when showing the footage - somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%... leading to:

Probability that "joe" will be shooting more 3D - pretty small...


The news is already covering the petri dish of noxious organisms on those goofy glasses (even the ones in the wrappers supposedly sanitized), the reports of actual physical adverse effects from 3D viewing are popping up quite a lot, and "terrible" content can't be a long term "bonus".

To make 3D work:
1) Get rid of the glasses (Fuji has something in this department)
2) Figure out how to make it 100% accessible
3) Make the content compelling (I'm intrigued by what Pixar might be up to, but I like animation anyway)

Any of those 3 falls short... and another "fad" bites the dust, I don't care HOW much marketing $$$$ gets thrown at it. PT Barnum had it about right.

I like toys and new tech, but I've seen plenty come and go (and people make money in the process) - I don't see the "staying power" behind a technology that causes physical discomfort for some viewers, and makes you use goofy glasses... sorry, not convinced.

[Adrian Frearson]

"Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)"

This is probably the bottom line. Especially for home use, I still think that 3D is marketing hype and while the kit might be available, I don't want to sit at home and watch the likes of badly shot reality tv in 3D or home movies. This bad viewing experience is what could kill the format in it's early days.

When it comes to film production though, I do think Pixar are leading the way again here. As most big budget action films contain a large amount of CG elements, I'm now sure it's possible to make even more engaging content in this medium, with the appropriate production design, lighting, cinematography etc.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'd imagine the 3D capable TVs will operate the same way HD capable televisions do with many, perhaps even most, people just watching SD programmes on them.

PAL looks pretty good on a HD set, assuming you don't go for too large a screen size for the viewing distance.

These TVs could, in the end, be mostly used for the new generation of 3D games in the living room environment. These are intended to be more communal that the up the the bedroom games

[Vito DeFilippo]

Originally Posted by Adrian Frearson

"Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)"

I think that was me. It reminds me of the digital revolution . Suddenly anyone with a still or video camera could be a "pro" and the bottom dropped out of the market. It takes years for people to realize that cheap but capable equipment is no replacement for the ability to use it.

I think 3D doesn't have a chance until it's easier to digest. No consumer is going to shoot 3D until he can point a camera at his subject, and a 3D DVD craps out the back end. I already do not know one person (who isn't a pro) who edits his home shot material. And that's 2D.

And I still think the timing is wrong because everyone just upgraded to HD sets. How many people, myself included, are going to upgrade again so quickly? Not that many. Think about how long you had your last CRT set. They lasted forever, and I don't have any reason to change my plasma, which is a beautiful unit, for years.

Yes, I agree that there will be a slow adoption of 3D sets if there is no price premium, and they enter the home as people upgrade normally, etc. But that doesn't mean they will be used for 3D. My plasma has a very capable and customizable PIP ability, but I've not used it even once. I'm not interested.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

The news is already covering the petri dish of noxious organisms on those goofy glasses (even the ones in the wrappers supposedly sanitized), the reports of actual physical adverse effects from 3D viewing are popping up quite a lot, and "terrible" content can't be a long term "bonus".

Dave:

The only 3D film I have seen in the past year was Avatar. I paid my money, watched the film and the very next morning, I woke up with the worst case of Conjunctivitis my doctor or I had ever seen. My mom was a nurse and I know what causes Conjunctivitis and I have never had it in my four decades. We both figured it was from the 3D glasses. The glasses for Dolby 3D are kind of thick and chunky and when pressed to your face, portions of the glasses sit amazingly close to your tear ducts in the corner of your eyes.

Last 3D experience I will ever have without alcohol swabbing to disinfect the glasses myself.

It was horrible and lasted about five days. Beware that most theaters don't do anything with the glasses than collect them and hand them out again to the next show's audience.

Dan