![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why 3D and 2D can't work together
Jan. 6th, 2011 01:14 pmWhy 3D and 2D can't work for the same movie.
There was an interesting letter in the Financial Times this morning which claims that the current batch of 3D-enabled films are being cut in 2D editing suites by editors who learned their skills in 2D and who do not have the creative imagination to realize that editing effectively in 3D is a completely different ballgame.
Sometime in the 1960s directors went crazy in the editing suite, or indeed when they were directing live pop shows. No shot was longer than a couple of seconds. The camera zoomed and swung. The feeling was that it was vital to exploit the new technology.
Even if you watch "bad" TV today you can see the lingering hangover of this nightmare. Few shots "linger". The idea is that if the picture keeps changing you get some sense of the narrative "moving forward", even though the best way to move a narrative forward is to, well, move the narrative forward. If you need to cut to a different shot just to keep up a sense of action, then there's something wrong with your script.
As David Brown of Florida points out, when watching 3D on a flat screen, the brain and the eye are effectively "arguing" with each other. As I discovered when I read a fascinating book recently called simply "The Eye", about 90% of what we "see" is actually the brain's translation of what the eye actually sees. People who have been blind all of their lives who can suddenly "see", find that they can't see at all. It's 10% the eye and 90% the brain.
3D cinema uses this predominance of the brain in our act of seeing (so do magicians). I'd be interested to know if those defined as relatively seriously autistic can perceive 3D cinema properly.
However, if it's the brain which is overriding the eyes (which are sending very odd "raw data" messages to the brain when confronted with glasses and a weird 2D image) by saying "hmm, there must be depth here – that's what I'll tell the next part of the brain, anyway", then cutting at 2D speed forces the brain to "override" more often. It is this which causes the headaches and, in some cases, feelings of nausea.
As Mr Brown points out, Avatar got it right. The camera is much more static, because zooms and cuts and sweeping pans are basically only there in 2D to create an ersatz "this is a real world" experience. In 3D, the camera does that for you. Many of the skills learnt by 2D directors are plain unnecessary.
This isn't even new news It was covered in http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10266869-250.html back in June 2009. In this article Sandy Climan points out that
The writer of this article claims that about 7% of the population cannot process 3D images correctly. In other words, the brain can't override the eye. I suspect that many of these 7% would measure relatively high on autism measurement tests, and that many of these 7% are less likely to be fooled by magic tricks.
But the point made by Climan is important, because shooting things twice costs money. And this is not just a matter of swapping cameras – you need a complete change in attitude.
It would appear that the current crop of directors still have a 2D hangover, which, claims the letter-writer to the FT, might cause 3D to fail at the box office. Not because it is bad, but because there aren't the directors and cinematographers out there who know how to exploit it properly.
There was an interesting letter in the Financial Times this morning which claims that the current batch of 3D-enabled films are being cut in 2D editing suites by editors who learned their skills in 2D and who do not have the creative imagination to realize that editing effectively in 3D is a completely different ballgame.
Sometime in the 1960s directors went crazy in the editing suite, or indeed when they were directing live pop shows. No shot was longer than a couple of seconds. The camera zoomed and swung. The feeling was that it was vital to exploit the new technology.
Even if you watch "bad" TV today you can see the lingering hangover of this nightmare. Few shots "linger". The idea is that if the picture keeps changing you get some sense of the narrative "moving forward", even though the best way to move a narrative forward is to, well, move the narrative forward. If you need to cut to a different shot just to keep up a sense of action, then there's something wrong with your script.
As David Brown of Florida points out, when watching 3D on a flat screen, the brain and the eye are effectively "arguing" with each other. As I discovered when I read a fascinating book recently called simply "The Eye", about 90% of what we "see" is actually the brain's translation of what the eye actually sees. People who have been blind all of their lives who can suddenly "see", find that they can't see at all. It's 10% the eye and 90% the brain.
3D cinema uses this predominance of the brain in our act of seeing (so do magicians). I'd be interested to know if those defined as relatively seriously autistic can perceive 3D cinema properly.
However, if it's the brain which is overriding the eyes (which are sending very odd "raw data" messages to the brain when confronted with glasses and a weird 2D image) by saying "hmm, there must be depth here – that's what I'll tell the next part of the brain, anyway", then cutting at 2D speed forces the brain to "override" more often. It is this which causes the headaches and, in some cases, feelings of nausea.
As Mr Brown points out, Avatar got it right. The camera is much more static, because zooms and cuts and sweeping pans are basically only there in 2D to create an ersatz "this is a real world" experience. In 3D, the camera does that for you. Many of the skills learnt by 2D directors are plain unnecessary.
This isn't even new news It was covered in http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10266869-250.html back in June 2009. In this article Sandy Climan points out that
directors will have to make a choice of primary format or shoot things twice. In big sports events, Climan says, "there will be a director for 2D and a director for 3D."
The writer of this article claims that about 7% of the population cannot process 3D images correctly. In other words, the brain can't override the eye. I suspect that many of these 7% would measure relatively high on autism measurement tests, and that many of these 7% are less likely to be fooled by magic tricks.
But the point made by Climan is important, because shooting things twice costs money. And this is not just a matter of swapping cameras – you need a complete change in attitude.
It would appear that the current crop of directors still have a 2D hangover, which, claims the letter-writer to the FT, might cause 3D to fail at the box office. Not because it is bad, but because there aren't the directors and cinematographers out there who know how to exploit it properly.
