Before you read what I've written below, read this article. I don't agree with everything written there (mostly the evolution language), but the science is solid. For an in depth look at various types of 3D technology, check out this Wikipedia entry. Though, I will briefly sum up some of that information here.
I've seen a total of three 3D movies: The Nightmare Before Christmas, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, and Toy Story 3. The first two were post production conversions, Toy Story 3 was actually designed and rendered in 3D. Consequently, Toy Story 3 looked the best of the three.
My experience with 3D has been mostly negative, but I blame the post production 3D on that. Most 3D is done in post. I don't understand the science behind it. What I do know is that during production, the film will be shot just like any other film: in 2D. Once all the footage is shot, the post production team will then run the digital product through a program that will convert the file from a 2D movie to a 3D movie. Because of this, motion blur and other negative effects of movement are made even more noticeable. The film looks darker, the screen looks smaller (thanks to the glasses), and the frame rate suffers (it now takes two frames to display what it used to take one frame to do).
Some films are shot in 3D. This is a given with computer animation. You just add a second camera to your digital world. Live action films that have the budget (Avatar) use a stereoscopic camera to shoot the action. This is much more natural than converting the film in post. This is why Toy Story 3 was more enjoyable for me. Movies shot in 3D still suffer form many of the shortcomings of a post production conversion, but the shortcomings aren't nearly as bad.
So, stereoscopic is better than converting, but does that make it work? In my opinion: no, it doesn't.
The reasons listed in the above linked article are the same reasons I've been preaching that 3D doesn't work for a very long time, although I didn't have the science of it down. When a film has a narrow depth of field (i.e. the character is in focus and the surrounding landscape is not), it works because even if I look to the portion of the frame that is out of focus, my eyes are still focused on the same field (or distance). In 3D, if I look around the frame of the film, my brain tells my eyes to try and focus on a field that isn't really there, the image never comes into focus, and that puts strain on my eyes. My eyes will never be able to focus on the thing I want to because the image that I can't control is not in focus.
The other thing, and this is mostly an annoyance, is the limitations of the frame. When an onscreen object is flying at me, at some point the edge of the frame is reached, and that object simply disappears. Of course, this happens in 2D films as well, but because I have a sense that the object is literally getting closer to me, when the object is no longer there, it feels and looks very odd. This can remedied over time with exposure to the medium. In the infancy of cinema, audiences did not understand that a train coming straight at the camera presented no danger to them. Over time, audiences were trained to understand these wonders. The same will happened with this strange feeling that I have with 3D objects leaving the frame.
All this to say, I do believe that 3D has a place, just not in movies.
Many people don't realize this, but if you're watching a DVD or a Bluray with a Dolby Digital Surround or a Sony Digital Theater Surround encoded audio track, you could turn off all of the speakers except the center channel and still hear what you need to hear to know what's going on. The front and rear lefts and rights and the sub woofer all contain sounds that are mostly environmental, but those sounds can still be heard from the center channel, even though they're faint. What you lose by taking those other channels away is being able to hear where the sound is coming from in relationship to the frame. Sometimes these extra channels can make things sound a little weird. For example, if a character is talking and he is on screen, his voice is coming from the center channel. But if the camera cuts away from him and now he's to the left of the camera, his voice will jump to the left speaker. This is a very odd sensation, but we've come to expect and accept it.
Then, Microsoft entered the console space with the Xbox. The Xbox was the first game console that supported Dolby Digital Surround encoding. Suddenly, you could use sound as a way to help find things. If something off camera was making a sound to attract your attention, you could use the location of the sound to help you find it. If the game was in first person, you could hear an enemy approach you from behind your character. In the past, you had to move around and listen for the sound to get louder in order to find it. Now, you could tell exactly where the noisy object was located just by listening to where the sound came from. Turning Master Chief in place causes the sound of that Elite to move around you until you can see your target and engage him. Suddenly, all of that environmental sound has a purpose other than to just create the illusion of being immersed in your media. You literally are immersed in it. (Note: the Xbox was the not first time this was possible, it's just the first time it became a norm).
Like with surround sound, 3D can aid you in your game play. Imagine being able to tell exactly how hard you need to throw that grenade because you can actually see how far away your target is. You will be able to see exactly how far away the other side of the hole or pit is without needing to guess or move the camera to a birds eye view position.
Do some of the problems still exist? Sure they do. That sensation of objects moving off the screen still exist. The frame rate still suffers. The image is still darker (if glasses are being used. this wont be a problem on the Nintendo 3DS). But the biggest problem will be, mostly, solved. If you move the camera to focus on the object that you want to look at, that object will be in focus. You control what's in focus, not the director of photographer. This, mostly, eliminates the strain on your eyes.
3D has a very long way to go, whether it's application be film, pictures, or video games. But, I believe that as the technology matures, manufacturers and film studios will see that 3D's real home is in video games through glasses-less 3D screens like the one found on the Nintendo 3DS or one of Toshiba's glasses-less televisions and a 3D enabled PlayStation or Xbox.
Your opinion might differ from mine. Maybe you love 3D. If you do, speak with your wallet. Continue to pay the premium 3D price at the cinema and buy 3D enabled Blurays. The industry will listen to you if you're buying or not buying.
No comments:
Post a Comment