Cinematography : Stereoscopy future by Tony Slacik

hm, i'm not sure. 3d will surely stay as one possibility to "do" films, but not with glasses or other technical device to wear. its an appearance like in the 60s 70s 80s and 00s. now the tech is much better and will now stay as a standard for action and nature films. but not with stereoscopy. i want to watch without an idiotic thing on my nose...

ah 3d film, the gimmick of the era.

that's right Mark, still stay as a possibility, but it's really gimmick Ali and Matt, that's why I composed this question. It's weird how many people judge the movie, and even worse decide, on whether it is in 3d or not. But knowing the technique, there are so many things you can mess up and it might be even worse than that poor simple movie... Wanted to find someone with simillar attitude and found...thanks guys! Besides, "real world" is in 3D, isn't it? When I go to cinema, i don't want to be pulled into "real world", from which i actually came :)

From the industry POV, 3D is just an old device revived and improved to fight piracy. There's not even one aesthetic issue or any new proposal involved in Stereoscopy.

fighting piracy, there's another gimmick. as everybody knows piracy is clearly responsible for corruption, a lack of talent and general incompetence in a company.

Yes, Matt, or it is even the whole company itself (as a non-taxes and non-copyright line of marketing).

in some ways the current industry resembles the industry in the 1970s. lots, props, costumes, sets and studios are being sold off or filing for bankruptcy by the dozen. piracy was being made an issue and copyright laws were revised. The solution then was to let that industry die, and bring in new filmmakers who didn't need the same resources, relied on their talents, and had a completely different attitude, to have success. I've been thinking for a while that a similarly drastic approach is called for now.

I agree, and the "success" concept must be revised as well.

That's interesting point, about the laziness and passivity of the audience. Overall understandability (hope this word exist) is pressed down in order to fit larger audience. On the other hand, more difficult movies began to be more like fashion item and necessity for inteligent image of one. And that upgrades in cinematography, I think Alfred Hitchcock tried to apply electric shocks into seats, water and other effects if i remmember, but not sure. That might be interesting experience

3D will fade away again, for certain. It will always have a place for some applications as it always has, but the whole thing of it is that it is basically at least doubling your production costs if you're doing it live, and if you're doing a post conversion later on, you're just adding more money onto that budget. Producers, if one thing can be said of them, aren't generally too keen to spend money unless there is a return on that. As such, with ticket sales for 3D films (most 3d films) going down, you'll start seeing less and less 3D. You can almost see the opposite effect of this happening with "Imax," inasmuch as Inception and the Dark Knight movies really reinvigorated that aspect of the industry right now and we're starting to see a lot more movies incorporating IMAX footage because the small outlay at the beginning for production costs is translating nicely into more IMAX tickets being sold, for a substantial markup. As for 3D itself, I am not a fan personally. That said, I would love to shoot a 3D film simply for the learning and the challenge, much as I would like to shoot a musical. And, I think, used properly and with artistic intent it can be quite amazing (such as in Cave of Forgotten Dreams where the 3d was designed to immerse you in a real environment you couldn't really visit).

I would be inclined to agree, Ali; but people do it-- though not normally successfully which is why I haven't read of any post-3d films of late.

great comments on the wall, all somehow right. tony, you get the point: i dont want to be put into reality when i'm watching and enjoying a movie. that's not the intention, i suppose. a movie should take you away in ANOTHER reality. not the real world reality... by means of creativity. of course it may be impressive, for documentaries of nature for example, because it supposes depicting our real world and reality (it doesnt, of course, like every documentary, but that's another discussion ;) ). but for a movie, it's absolutely NOT necessary. that something is possible doesnt afford that it have to be done.

The thing is cinema has always been about creating 3D space in a 2d medium. But normally that's done through your lighting in depth, and your camera motions through a space (think of the wonderful dolly and steadycam shots out of certain films... the Lexiton hotel sequence from Road to Perdition comes right to mind). So in a certain sense, there never really was a point for most filmmaking for this new 3d in your face element.

I think Pablo is is dead on. The whole 3D thing is more about stopping piracy than adding any sort of entertainment value to the film itself. I can't stand 3D movies. I had to watch half of Avatar with the glasses off, it gave me a headache. I tried again when Alice in Wonderland came out. Same problem, haven't done it since. Beyond that, it's usually poorly implemented (with obvious attempts at adding the effect FORCED into the storyline), and does nothing but pull the audience out of the storyline. When I go see a film, I want a story so engrossing that I forget about reality for the length of the movie. I am transported to another world where the movie takes place. With real talent, no extra gimmicks are needed to do this. 3D does quite the opposite. Rather than pulling me into the story and world of the film - it simply reminds me I'm only watching a movie.

That's it, that moment when technology is more important than actual story and force to enter or modify some scenes. It doesn't necessarily have to change the movie. But you know that "that giant will surelly fall right into the screen" etc... First there must be an idea of the movie, then the budget. And thanks a lot for your opinions, I apreciate that really nice discussion!