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. 

artefact 1

Artefact 1 was a survey to initially establish an audiences opinion and preferences on stereoscopic 3D.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RBF3R89

Key results -

• 33 participants. 
•  Majority age - 18-24 (Every participant had seen a form of stereoscopic 3D whether at home or at the cinema)
• 67% female
• The majority of participants would prefer to watch a film in 2D or it depends on the genre of the production.
• Old 2D movies should NOT be re-released in 3D
• Having to wear 3D glasses is a key disadvantage to 3D viewing
• Out of passive/active/anaglyph and glasses free 3D, people prefer passive and active the most and dislike Anaglyph the most.
• Prefer to watch action/adventure film in 3D (highest choice)
• Romance = watch in 2D

key notes from participants -

• 3D more of a trend to demonstrate latest technology rather than add to film experience
• Too many 2D films being re-released in 3D. Participant says converted films don't look good.
• Films 'Avatar', 'The Amazing Spiderman' and 'Hugo' = very good 3D films. Able to immerse self into film and feel like in their world.

Self reflection on results

The results helped to establish a strong basis of the general public's opinions and preferences with stereoscopic 3D.  The high amount of participants stating they’d prefer to watch a film in 2D rather than 3D was a slight surprise. To begin with, when I conducted an initial gender preference for 3D films, males scored 80% preferring with females at 53%. Therefore I expected a higher percentage than the 27% overall I received in my subsequent survey when asking 3D/2D preference. 3D movies have gained such high revenue from cinema viewers, this was expected to reflect in the results. As this new ‘wave’ of 3D production is not at the very initial beginning stage, perhaps if the survey was completed around the same time Avatar (2009) was released, there may have been a change in answers. As well as this, the results cannot be directly compared. The first survey asked purely 3D/2D or not sure. The second survey added a fourth option of 'dependent on the film genre' and 30% ticked this option. The results could pre-empt a strong genre bias between 2D and 3D films. Another result that surprised me was the vast dislike of wearing 3D glasses. I’ve personally never found it a problem of having to wear them, however, this was the most problematic feature for 3D. Could this mean glasses free 3D is the future of 3D viewing? Feedback suggested a strong opinion on what genres work with 3D and which do not. An area that went bad was that the survey was completed by 67% of females. Ideally I should have 50% of each gender to gain a non biased result. This factor could be another reason attributed to the low score of 3D film preference. (as it was proven in my first survey that males prefer 3D to females) My next artefact will research if there is a genre bias when it comes to 3D films released.

client - ext

client - ext

client - int

catalogue images

catalogue images

client - int

client - int

client - int