The two dimensions of 3-D

in A&E Featured Stories Features by Jay Brissenden — April 27, 2010 at 11:17 pm | 0 comments

Na’Vi princess Neytiri zooms past awe struck Jake Sully with speed and grace. Flying high on her majestic and swift Mountain Banshee, she circles one of the countless towering trees in the vast and luminescent Pandora forest. Below her are cascading waterfalls and above her float colossal mountains, engulfed in luscious green vegetation.

That is just a small written description of the world James Cameron created in “Avatar.” While these words can evoke powerful imagery in ones imagination, the added realism of viewing this world in cinematic 3-D provides an extraordinarily engaging experience. For many, according to a story CNN posted this past January, their 3-D journey in Pandora was as real as experiences get; so much so, that many felt depressed when the movie ended and they realized that it was in fact, only a movie.

Putting aside those viewer’s loose grip on reality, this is one example of how far visual storytelling has come and what modern 3-D technology has added to the theater going experience.

With 12 out of the past 17 weekends at the box office being topped by a movie shown in 3-D, it appears consumers can’t get enough of that extra dimension. With another 19 movies scheduled to be released in 3-D over the rest of 2010, major studios are meeting movie-goers demand with plenty of supply.

Will these future 3-D releases prove to be as, or even more, realistic than “Avatar” or were we spoiled with a once-in-a-lifetime experience? The answer lies primarily in the way 3-D is created.

In the world of filmmaking, there are two ways in which filmmakers can create a 3-D picture. The first is to use a special camera system that automatically captures images in 3-D. The second approach, which is becoming more and more common, is to shoot a movie in 2-D, then digitally convert the picture into 3-D during post production.

Straight from the source

“People have a tough time getting over the fact that the real strength of this new medium is not the dimension, it is the enhancement of the product,” PACE CEO and co-creator of Fusion 3D camera, Vince Pace says.

Created with “Avatar” director James Cameron 10 years ago, Pace’s high definition, Fusion 3D digital camera system has been the leading technology used by filmmakers to shoot movies in 3-D. “Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over,” “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and most recently, “Avatar,” are all examples of Fusion 3D shot films.

Fusion 3D’s technology is based upon the workings of human eyes. Two high-definition, digital cameras, a left and right eye, are placed side by side to capture the same image, but from slightly different perspectives. Able to maneuver on their base, the cameras move separate of each other to focus on a subject depending on how close or far away it is from the camera.

When filming “Avatar,” Cameron could see the shot he had just filmed in 3-D instantaneously – with the proper ocular attire that is.

“Where Fusion separates its position in the market is the fact that this is a filmmaker’s tool and not simply a manufacturer’s sold product,” Pace says.

Box office analyst and creator of boxofficemojo.com, a box office tracking website, Brandon Gray says the amazingly 3-D realistic world Cameron was able to create using the Fusion 3D camera system has really opened people’s eyes to the technology.

“‘Avatar’ has inspired the industry to turn every movie into 3-D,” says Gray. “It was most audience’s first experience with modern 3-D and for the most part, people were satisfied.”

Click on the picture below for a larger look at a timeline detailing some of the most influential and popular 3-D movies of all time.

Post production 3-D

Though the technology has been around for the past decade, very few directors choose to film in 3-D. This is in part due to large cost of filming with the Fusion 3D technology and the simple fact that many directors, including Quentin Tarantino and “The Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan, prefer to shoot on traditional 35mm film. Whether or not filmmakers shoot a movie in 3-D, studios may still want their tent pole blockbusters to be seen in 3-D in order to capitalize on the $3 to $5 ticket surcharge.

This is where Rob Hummel and his team of 3-D artists at Prime Focus step in. Using their special View-D™ technology created only last summer, Prime Focus is able to convert 2-D pictures into 3-D using special digital image altering software.

“3-D is not really 3-D,” Hummel, CEO of Prime Focus, says. “It’s a stereoscopic illusion… We create that illusion in a different manner.”

The traditional means of 3-D conversion is through rotoscoping, a process that involves tracing over images and moving the copy slightly up and off to the side to create the 3-D effect. Rotoscoping leaves holes in between the original and shifted image, which artists have to “painstakingly paint in,” says Hummel. This can take up to 10 months, but with Prime Focus’s artist driven software, whole films can be converted in a matter of weeks.

With the release of “Clash of the Titans,” Prime Focus became the first conversion company to digitally convert a full-length motion picture by itself, whereas it has taken multiple companies to do it in the past. Originally intended as a 2-D picture, Warner Brothers decided it would play best in 3-D. Ten weeks later, Prime Focus’s digital artists and “Clash’s” creative team had converted a movie into 3-D in record time.

Conversion backlash

With either format a viable option for filmmakers, the question now becomes whether or not the quality of 3-D conversions match that of films originally intended and filmed in 3-D. Shortly after the release of “Clash of the Titans,” critics and movie-goers alike lit up the internet with complaints of the film’s “shoddy” looking 3-D.

“Seen in 3-D, the film’s action scenes are an incomprehensible blur of poorly defined visual logic…,” Boston Globe film critic Ty Burr says in his review. “The shoddy workmanship on display in ‘Clash’ calls into question the wisdom of converting 2-D movies in the first place, and newly-raised ticket prices for 3-D screens only add insult to injury.”

Even casual film goers from the University of Nevada, Reno say there is a noticeable difference between the 3-D in “Avatar” and “Clash of the Titans,” or even “Alice in Wonderland,” which was also converted.

“Avatar was high quality, in your face 3-D,” says UNR student Callie Coe. ”It transported you into that world. Clash of Titans was much poorer quality. It was still 3-D, but it wasn’t the same.”

Thirty eight year-old Criminal Justice major Denise Saucedo Costa, who admits to not being a big fan of the technology, but always gets dragged to 3-D movies by her family, says even she noticed quality differences.

“I am afraid of heights and during flying sequences in ‘Avatar,’ I had to take off my glasses because of how real it looked,” Costa said. “‘Alice in Wonderland’s’ [3-D] seemed cartoonish and not like reality.”

Hummel of course stands by his product and says the projection of the movie, not the conversion itself, may be at fault.

“Presenting a 3-D movie is not an easy thing,” Hummel said. “There are so many variables when you show the movies that can alter the quality.”

Such things as the projector not set to the right brightness or an uneven field of illumination on the screen itself can distort the picture, Hummel explains.

Inferior quality or not, “Clash of the Titans” has still made nearly $150 million from the U.S. alone, with more than half of that coming from 3-D according to Gray.

“If people don’t like the 3-D, it doesn’t seem to be reflected in how much it has dropped off,” Gray says. “It hasn’t held up well, but it hasn’t fallen off beyond any genre norm.”

A place for both technologies

For most, the jury is still out on whether or not 3-D conversion can live up to actual 3-D filming.

Proving that it might in fact be possible is “Avatar,” in which 40 shots were actually Prime Focus 3-D conversions of what originally had to be shot in 2-D, according to Hummel.

“No one noticed because they fit in seamlessly,” Hummel says.

Though a firm believer that his technology is the real future of 3-D filmmaking, Pace says to not rule out the process of conversion.

“Given the right attention from the artist and the right amount of time to do it right, I believe the resulting product will certainly validate the process,” Pace says.

Backing that sentiment is Cameron, who recently told USA Today, in a Q&A sit down, that he is not against the conversion process if done properly. In that same Q&A, Cameron mentioned how he plans to convert “Titanic” into 3-D, but is giving himself two years for the task by aiming for a spring 2012 re-release date.

Whether the recent frenzy for 3-D movies fades, as it has in the past, or permanently cements itself into the entertainment industry, Pace feels that modern 3-D technology is a key ingredient to Hollywood’s success.

“I often feel like if we compared entertainment to cooking, the ingredient I believe Cameron and I have brought to the recipe is salt,” Pace says. “When used properly, it enhances the flavor in such a way it is hardly noticeable as an ingredient. When used improperly, no matter how good the main ingredient is: filet mignon, lobster, etc., the customer walks away with a bad experience.”

Tags: 3-D Alice in Wonderland Avatar Clash of the Titans conversion Fusion 3D movies Prime Focus