Research document conclusions

Stereoscopic3D has a number of factors that must be addressed differently compared to 2D productions. This can lead to higher production costs and create unpleasant viewing experiences for audiences. However, when done correctly, the vast majority of society is embracing the new 3D revolution with open arms and are thoroughly excited as to where the technology is potentially heading. Production companies are aware of this. Therefore, the increased budget and potential limitations of 3D have become justifiable through the success stereoscopic3D has received such as box office revenue. That’s certainly not to say 2D production is going to be dead and buried anytime soon though. Even if 3D technology is improving rapidly, there is still a long way for it to go. Miller (2012) supports this stating not only does a film’s content have to be produced correctly but “Hollywood must also correct the technological aspects of 3D as well”.

Different types of 3D. Anaglyph, passive (Cinema 3D), active (shutter glasses), glasses free, head mounted 
screen parallax

camera movement
3D rig set-ups
Camera set up
higher production costs

convergence

divergence

edge violation

3D sound for film

Binaural sound design

5

A telephone interview was undertaken with a Sky F1 editor. His rob role is to edit any crash scenes in time for replay to the audience. After conducting research on post-converted 3D, it got me thinking as to obviously being unable to do this in time for live coverage, what aspects must be altered for live 3D.

Between 28th February and 3rd March 2013, Sky filmed and broadcasted live the Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona test in 3D. They used 12 3D cameras strategically placed around the race course. Jamie described an enormous limitation for shooting live 3D is the inability to review what you have shot before broadcast. When on a film set, directors can playback their shots to make sure it all looks ok i.e. no lens glare, colour balance difference etc. however, shooting live goes straight to the audience before this can be checked. He described this problem in terms of the on board cameras located on the F1 cars. Because of the cars moving so fast paced as well as hitting bumps in the road etc, it would be very diffcult for the cameras to stay aligned, as well as F1 health and safety regulations not being met.

Shots have to be re thought. F1 coverage generally has a lot of high angled arial shots. This has to be removed for 3D as the long distance cause the 3D to lose perspective and flattens.

When asked about if live coverage of 3D will take off, he stated he believes it will but only if glasses free 3D becomes more technically advanced as well as consumer affordable. 

Research shows that if 3D is to grow in this current era then glasses free is certainly going to be the way. Toshiba have designed a glasses free TV available in retail stores such as John Lewis. However, priced at just under £4000, consumers are unlikely to be buying them in bulk anytime soon. In two years to come though, when prices have dropped it's going to be a very popular television for the home.

4b

01:08

This artefact was to test the reliability and effectiveness of post 3D conversion opposed to filming for a 3D film.

Footage was used from one of the cameras used to create the fixed side by side set up. Using a post 3D conversion editor, it was converted into a 3D anaglyph film. Focus groups were then asked to view the two clips and to discuss their opinions.

3 small  groups (each including four people, 2 girls and 2 boys) were used

 group 1 watched only the side by side rig setup.

 group 2 watched only the converging set up.

 group 3 watched both clips.

This group set up was to test if by watching one clip could affect the persons judgement of the other.

http://youtu.be/Rd4mh4PI8zw?t=4s 

Production was simple in terms of manipulating the images in a post converter. However, the 3D result was by no means as effective as the clips filmed for 3D. Participants commented how the depth of 3D was extremely minimal. This was a result I expected, made during the conversion. In order to create a substantial amount screen depth, ghosting becomes almost unbearable.

Group 3 expressed their preference for non-converted Anaglyph due to the reasons stated above. 

Artefact 4

Two short anaglyph films were made to test and compare how the convergence (toeing in) of cameras can directly manipulate the screen parralax

3 small  groups (each including four people, 2 girls and 2 boys) were used

1 group watched only the side by side rig setup.

1 group watched only the converging set up.

1 group watched both clips.

This group set up was to test if by watching one clip could affect the persons judgement of the other.

http://youtu.be/srNuwo3mxvY?t=3s

The first 3D clip was shot using a fixed side by side rig. The cameras were set at 2.5 inches apart to mimic the human eye distance.

The second clip was shot using a side by side rig setup, however this time the cameras were converged inwards (similar to how our eyes converge inwards when focusing on an object near by)

Throughout the production stage I had problems with 'ghosting' the entire time (the inability to allow the brain to fuse together the two images by wearing the glasses) This would prove even more difficult when filming the converging set up.

Participants found a slight greater negative screen parallax in the converging set-up, however many expressed strong eyestrain through this. Another problem viewers reported was even when they were able to fuse the images close to the camera, creating a negative parallax, myself in the background (creating a positive parralax) was ghosting to the vast majority of participants. 

Artefact 2 - Exhastive list

Analysis of 56 3D films released in 2012.

New released animation films were all shot in 3D except for stop motion film Frankenweenie which was filmed in 2D using Canon 5D and then post converted to 3D.(could have used 1 camera in 2 positions, why didn't? why I think they didn't?) Following the successful re-release of The Lion King in 3D, a number of older animation films followed this process in 2012. They were generally re-rendered in 3D using the original raw footage instead of post converted. e.g. Finding Nemo and Monsters inc. = both re-rendered in 3D (original 3D geometry re-edited with second virtual camera)  re-released animated films that used computer animated production systems, I.e. beauty and the beast and little mermaid can't have a second virtual camera integrated for real 3D. Due to inability to add extra cameras to previously true footage shot, non-animated re-released 3D films have to be post-converted, e.g. Titanic.

There was a huge genre bias towards action/adventure/sci-fi and animation 3D films. A vast majority of released films were given these genre categories. A noticeable lack of comedy genre was present in in the list and this was usually when sub categorised with comedy-horror. Only 1 film released was an outright comedy.

Could this genre bias be a result from previous research findings that Males are more likely to watch 3D productions than females?

A brief survey was used to establish gender preference with action/adventure/fantasy films. 

60% of males said they enjoy this genre
40% of meals said they enjoy this genre

These results support the theory that the high amount of action/adventure/films released are due to high demand of male 3D viewers. As well as this, the most successful films in terms of profit and revenue have generally been of the action/adventure/fantasy genre.
I believe the reason 3D films including animation and/or CGI have commonly been so successful because A viewer enjoys seeing 3D objects that are not present/scientifically possible in real life. For example, part of the reason I personally enjoyed Avatar so much was being able to view all the computed generated animals and wildfire. It was a world people had never seen before, let alone felt as they were among it.

artefact 3

Artefact 3 involved showing participants two separate 3d films. A comedy and an action/adventure.

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) - Action/Adventure
A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011) - Comedy

For fair non bias results two movies were used that had been released approximately the same period and were both filmed for 3D instead of a 2D post conversion.

Results:

Journey 2 -
3D visual effects really contribute to Storyline
Able to explore scenery
Better than films they'd seen that were post converted. i.e. Titanic

Harold  and Kumar-
Works well because 3D not just used to add depth but also to fly objects out of the screen
More for novelty effect. i.e. Pingpong ball etc coming out of screen

These results made me realise how there are more aspects to 3D than I first thought. Earlier in my own childhood, around 15 years ago, I remember watching a 3D Disney film in America that was purely used as a novelty effect, ‘shooting’ objects out the screen at the audience and this was how the production was branded and marketed (people were always saying how they’d been to see this 3D movie etc, one where the person said it felt as though spiders were sitting on her shoulder). However, this latest ‘wave’ of stereoscopic 3D  has primarily been used to enhance scenery and atmosphere. Although the success of A Very Merry Harold and Kumar has proven there still is a place for productions that use 3D as a form of shock/novelty factor.

            I do feel though, this is by no means the future of 3D. The majority of participants prefer the 3D visual effect for enhancing the scenery instead of novelty.

            Potential areas I’m taking forward are how an audiences engagement into a the storyline is manipulated through 3D, whether post-converted 3D can compare to ‘real 3D’ in terms of productivity and end quality and finally, how complicated it is to converge cameras while filming anaglyph 3D in order to manipulate the on screen parallax.