James Cameron on 3-D
Variety has a terrific interview with James Cameron about current state (and possible futures of) 3-D filmmaking. A couple of things that stood out for me:
Godard got it exactly backwards. Cinema is not truth 24 times a second, it is lies 24 times a second. Actors are pretending to be people they’re not, in situations and settings which are completely illusory. Day for night, dry for wet, Vancouver for New York, potato shavings for snow. The building is a thin-walled set, the sunlight is a xenon, and the traffic noise is supplied by the sound designers. It’s all illusion, but the prize goes to those who make the fantasy the most real, the most visceral, the most involving. This sensation of truthfulness is vastly enhanced by the stereoscopic illusion…<br/><br/>When you see a scene in 3-D, that sense of reality is supercharged. The visual cortex is being cued, at a subliminal but pervasive level, that what is being seen is real.
Seeing U2:3D last month, I agree: the best thing about 3-D is not that it makes things look cool. It’s that it makes things look more real. My favorite shots in the movie are when the cameras look out over the crowd, because you really feel each individual person. Not only are you there, you have permission to stare.
On “Avatar,” I have not consciously composed my shots differently for 3-D. I am just using the same style I always do. In fact, after the first couple of weeks, I stopped looking at the shots in 3-D while I was working, even though the digital cameras allow real-time stereo viewing.
Of course, most directors aren’t James Cameron, who helped invent the technology and can trust his instinct on all of this. But we should trust someone’s instincts, because the result is paralysis. One of pitfalls of adding new technology to film production is that the director moves further and further from the action (and the actors) to a Den of Experts, often in a dark tent, who make decisions around monitors. In most cases, you’re better served by having a d.p. you trust.
We all see the world in 3-D. The difference between really being witness to an event vs. seeing it as a stereo image is that when you’re really there, your eye can adjust its convergence as it roves over subjects at different distances…In a filmed image, the convergence was baked in at the moment of photography, so you can’t adjust it. <br/><br/>In order to cut naturally and rapidly from one subject to another, it’s necessary for the filmmaker (actually his/her camera team) to put the convergence at the place in the shot where the audience is most likely to look. This sounds complicated but in fact we do it all the time, in every shot, and have since the beginning of cinema. It’s called focus. We focus where we think people are most likely to look.
Cameron is slaving convergence to focus, even pulling it as necessary throughout a scene. This makes sense, but I’d never heard it explained so clearly.
The new cameras allow complete control over the stereospace. You should think of interocular like volume. You can turn the 3-D up or down, and do it smoothly on the fly during a shot. So if you know you’re in a scene which will require very fast cuts, you turn the stereo down (reduce the interocular distance) and you can cut fast and smoothly. The point here is that just because you’re making a stereo movie doesn’t mean that stereo is the most important thing in every shot or sequence. If you choose to do rapid cutting, then the motion of the subject from shot to shot to shot is more important than the perception of stereospace at that moment in the film. So sacrifice the stereospace and enjoy the fast cutting.
In front of U2:3D, there was a 3-D trailer for Journey to the Center of The Earth 3D, which I’m sad to say looked like ass. Actually, it kind of looked like nothing, because it was blurry in a way I can’t describe, like my eyes didn’t know how to process it.
I think this is exactly what Cameron is talking about. The 3-D shots in the Journey 3D trailer were probably composed for the movie, where they play much longer. But cut into a conventional trailer, it just didn’t work. (link )
You don’t need to be in 3-D at every step of the way. And as long as your work will be viewed in 2-D as well as 3-D, whether in a hybrid theatrical release or later on DVD, it is probably healthy to do a lot of the work in 2-D along the way. I cut on a normal Avid, and only when the scene is fine-cut do we output left and right eye video tracks to the server in the screening room and check the cut for stereo. Nine times out of 10 we don’t change anything for 3-D.
I spoke with a writer-director during the strike who had the opposite experience. To get the cutting to work right in 3-D, he and his editor were constantly checking the “deep version.” And that’s a not newbie predilection — for Zodiac, David Fincher cut in HD with a giant screen.
No matter how advanced the technology gets, while you’re in the editing room, you’re still working with a rough approximation of what the final film will look and sound like. Just as with color timing, music and FX, anticipating the depth effect is something you’ll need to remember and forget while cutting.
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it’s like you’re standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It’s like you never saw it before, when in fact it’s been hiding in plain sight the whole time.
[P]eople have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second … with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won’t. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don’t solve them at all.
An example of why James Cameron is the Steve Jobs of filmmakers: he understands that what matters is the user experience, not the hard numbers. He also sees how important it is to control the entire process, from shooting through exhibition. The best camera technology is worthless if you can’t get the results you want in a theater.
The good news is that the next generation of moviegoers seems ready to forget that 24fps is how movies are “supposed to” look. And changes within a digital delivery system should be much less painful than the switchover from our current, analog system.
I know it seems like I’ve quoted a lot here, but the interview is long, and there’s a lot more in it about other aspects of the technology which will be interesting to anyone geeky enough to click through.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
3D stereo reminds me of the advent of color or widescreen - not that I was there. A technology that allows for realism and enhanced expression is mostly used by filmmakers to show the audience what neat things they can do. Cameron is asking filmmakers to keep the toolbox when making a film. He’s careful not to speak ill of anything that’s used modern 3D technologies, because he’s an evangelist, and rightly so, but he’s also trying to put certain seeds in the minds of filmmakers about the “right” way to use this tech.
As for technical whizzbangery, I think he’s mostly on the money here. I’ve got a (limited) background in technology and visual perception, and slaving convergence and the interocular to focus is pretty clever - it’s pretty much what our eyes do anyway, and the artistic uses are related.
And he’s also pretty much spot on about resolution versus framerates. I hear people talk about how HDTV doesn’t seem that spectacular, but then I hear sports fans who love it. But it’s not the resolution their excited about, it’s the framerate - seeing athletes moving smoothly, really being able to track the action. Bruce Lee had to slow down in order to be captured on film - wouldn’t full speed Bruce Lee be awesome? In 3D?
But beyond the technical wizardry, I’m just excited by the artistic possibilities that this format offers. As someone who favors long lenses and shallow focus, I get giddy about 3D. Why should wide angle action get all the fun? The West Wing shot in 3D would have been amazing, those lovely walk and talks, or Martin Sheen poised stationary in the oval office. I can just see those images in my head - dramatic, emotionally resonant images, and enhanced by 3D.
Alright, this post is already long enough - it’s your blog John. Thanks for letting me geek out a bit.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Iron Jim is God. Plain and simple. Aliens is still to this day the most superior movie ever made. And the ultimate proof that YES, in the future air ducts are large enough for people to use as passage! End of story.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I think this is a bit bigger than widescreen, IF it succeeds. It could potentially open up a whole new layer of creative thinking when it comes to making a film.
It’s too bad its mostly been used as a toy so far, but leave it to cameron to legitimize a new technology.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I just keep waiting for the first 3D movie that doesn’t keep slapping the audience saying “look! I’m in 3D!”. For example Beowulf. The director was all excited about showing the 3D and so there is the shot where the camera is staring down a spear from some character’s point of view. I don’t like POV shots in general but these ones really make it hard to suspend disbelief.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Umm. Hmm. Something bothers me about this. It reminds me of the avdent of widescreen back in the fifties. A cheap trick to drag audiences back into the big dark room, only fit for filming snakes (now who said that?). But now it’s a de facto way to shoot. Maybe one day everything will be 3D. I just hope we still put the story above everything else. ‘Once’ shows us that you can still tell an engaging story with very little.
Jim certainly knows his techie stuff. That much is obvious. It’s not much of a revelation that film is lying 24 frames a second. I learnt that a long time ago and have had many an argument with neophyte directors in search of the ‘real’ and ‘truth’ in cinema and TV. The minute you turn a camera on, you’re lying by way of where you point it and more importantly, where you don’t point it.
The 48 frames thing is interesting. I seem to remember a company a few years back trying to market a 48fps film system. I do think everything should be shot at 48fps to eliminate the crappy artefacts we get with panning/strobing. Those ‘Bourne’ movies would look even more mental! 48fps 4k HD? Mmm. Someone call Mr Panavision/Sony.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Documentarian John Flaherty said, “You must lie to tell the truth” so perhaps moviemaking is split down the middle: truth may be found as the sum total of many lies.
Changing the frame rate of film has been experimented with on a number of occasions in the past. Douglas Trumbull (f/x master of ‘Close Encounters’,’ 2001′,’ Blade Runner’) introduced ‘ShowScan’ - a 70mm presentation at 60 frames per second. Trumbull’s company used to sell his process by proclaiming, ‘when the wind blows the curtains at the window - you can feel the breeze.’
Before this, there was TODD-A-O - a 70mm 30 frames per second presentation used for the release of ‘Oklahoma!’ and ‘Around The World In 80 Days’. I used to be a projectionist and ran ‘Oklahoma!’ in revival at 30 fps. That small difference between 24 and 30 was staggering. The only reason the film industry adopted 24 was because that was simply the threshold of a non-strobing image to the viewer thereby using the least amount of film. It was economical decision not an artistic one.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Making movies at a higher frame rate is certainly an interesting possibility. There will definitely be people who reject the idea because the 24fps judder/look/whatever-you-call-it has become part of what could be considered the “film-look” (which many low budget DV filmmakers have tried to recreate). Maybe choosing the frame rate will become an artistic choice, the same way you choose your film stock.
Regarding Cameron’s idea to shoot at 48fps and then skip-printed at 24fps for international distribution: If you shoot at 24fps, moving objects have more motion blur than when you shoot at 48fps. So in skip-printing (printing every other frame) you would actually exacerbate the strobing effect when projecting at 24fps because there would be less motion blur to fill in the gaps in the motion.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I wonder when just telling a damn good story stopped being enough.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ivan -
When they put it on film.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Which begs the question: Should you write things for 3D only?
I mean… Like action movies, the best ones are those that you watch and don’t feel like the action was incorporated into the movie, it feels like it’s an integral part of the movie. The same applies for 3D? Or you can convert any film into 3D regardless?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
@Rafael (#10):
I don’t think there’s any meaningful way to “write for 3-D.” Just as there wasn’t any difference when it came to writing for color, or widescreen, or digital. (Writing for sound, that’s a meaningful difference.)
But what I think you’re getting at is, “Should all movies of a certain scale be 3-D?” J.C. would say yes. There’s an action movie I’m thinking of directing, and I’ve spent the last week considering whether it would make sense to do in 3-D.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The 48fps system from years ago was MaxiVision48 - Ebert raved about it, but it was never rolled out commercially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxivision
April 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I don’t think you can write for 3-D.
That’s one huge advantage of being a screenwriter, we don’t have to keep up with technology as much. It doesn’t hurt, but when you get down to it, writing is writing.
My only concern would be the people will use 3-D to compensate for having a weak story. Sure, it doesn’t make sense, but look! It’s PRETTY!
3-D should be a tool to help the director tell the story, it shouldn’t be used just because it can be.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“…the prize goes to those who make the fantasy the most real, the most visceral, the most involving.”
This is funny, since IMHO Cameron tends to cut corners on fantasy by doing it for real. Want to make a movie about Titanic? Rent a submarine and go there! And then build a replica in Mexico. Movie set in an underwater habitat? Build one! (Or at least, one module of it.) Characters menaced by an Austrian-accented cyborg from the future? Hire one! (Well…)
Wasn’t there a rumor that Cameron wanted to make a movie about Mars by actually going to Mars? I have no reason to doubt it.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
This is all so bogus. I think the “critique” of Godard just reveals that Cameron doesn’t understand what Godard meant. Cameron’s films are all bluster and visual panache–he hasn’t made one great film (in my opinion). Influential? Sure. Fun? Definitely. But I’ll take Days of Heaven or Clockwork Orange over Cameron’s dreck any time. And “everyone” sees in 3D? What about all those people with one eye? What will Peter Falk do if 3D becomes the norm? Urghhh! Anyway, Titanic is risible on so many levels, I can’t even begin. Its camp appeal is the only reason I enjoyed it. Cameron’s best work was his role on Entourage. And John, it’s so ironic that you post all this crap about Cameron and 3D theaters, blah blah, but you didn’t even mention when Santa Monica shut down the (profitable) NuWilshire Theater where your own film played, to make room for a discount jeans outlet! 3D is just another gimmick for a tired medium. When they bring back Smell-O-Vision, then I’ll get excited.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I’m actually concerned about the day when we go to more 3-D, as part of the portion of the population that can’t actually see 3-D effects. Essentially, I’ve got no depth perception, so the world is kind of flat for me. (Yes, I have taken a few softballs, hockey pucks, etc. to the head due to this, which is probably why I’m a writer. My monitor doesn’t bounce off my forehead at speed, often.) Every time I try to watch something that’s allegedly 3-D, I either get a screaming headache or I see nothing much out of the ordinary. It’s obviously the right direction to go with regards to developing new technology for visual effects, but I personally, and I’d imagine a fair number of other folks out there, would probably find themselves missing out.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Thanks Richard-from-Los-Angeles for making mention of Trumbull’s research, TODD-A-O, etc.; there’s nothing new under the sun.
Thanks Alex for mentioning the silliness/insanity of James Cameron calling out Godard, whose films remain challenging and relevant nearly a half-century after the fact. And for the record, Godard said “truth,” not “facts.” Cameron is obsessed with the facts of optometry (and economics), not the truth of art.
I for one am skeptical of this single-minded push toward realism or, more precisely, the accurate representation of reality. There is a substantial school of thought, a’la Rudolph Arnheim, which states that it is in fact film’s very shortcomings that give it the potential for artistic intent and interpretation.
There is yet another notion (and I think it was from the French New Wave, though I can’t attribute it precisely) that cinema will only become art when the means of cinema are as ubiquitous as pencils and paper.
Aren’t many of us screenwriters because we couldn’t afford to rent cameras and mics?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Awesome commentary, John. On the subject of Godard, I’ll just say that it’s clear Mr. Cameron doesn’t come from the theatre.
As far as editing 3d in 2d, is it about the processing power, or a matter of preference? I loved Beowulf, but the 3D looked like a pop-up book to me. It makes me wonder how much of this is zeitgeist.
I love many of Cameron’s movies, and his passion is infectious. Where’s my great 3D experience? I may check out U2, based on what you said. Concert films aren’t something I usually go for, but I really want to be blown away by all this.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Cameron’s initials are J.C., ha! How appropriate on multiple levels.
I read J.C.’s technical analyses and the first thing I always think is “Wasn’t this guy a truck driver back in the day?” Didn’t he start out in film by driving trucks and hooking up squibs and exploding heads on b-movies? Man, this guy’s incredibly intelligent.
Not that you can’t be an incredibly intelligent truck driver, it’s just a great reminder that in this industry there’s no rules, education means absolutely nothing, drive means everything and there’s always someone smarter or more talented lurking in a corner somewhere, so you better watch your ass and always bring your “A” game. Gnome sane?