
The Digital Eye: Stereoscopic 3-D and the Future of Visual Storytelling
By now, every reader of this column must have heard about the resurgence of DreamWorks Animation's Jeffrey Katzenberg
has been one of the most vocal advocates, calling 3-D "the next great
frontier for filmmakers." I believe 3-D movies will flourish if
stereoscopy moves beyond a gimmicky effect and gets used as an integral
part of the storytelling toolset, developing its own grammar, and
helping tell more compelling stories that could not otherwise be told.
Reasons Behind the Push One argument that has been cited is that 3-D movies are more
difficult to pirate. This has merit, but only for the casual pirate
since, with enough motivation and resources it is not much more
difficult to pirate a 3-D movie than a 2-D one, and as home 3-D devices
get more common (the NVIDIA
glasses are a perfect example), the argument that there may not be a
way to display pirated 3-D content will eventually fade away.
Another reason for the studios to drive 3-D projects could
perhaps be to push the adoption of digital cinema projectors, which
will, in turn, introduce much more flexibility into distribution and
reduce costs for all films.
All these initiatives try to solve the dilemma between not
having enough content to justify a somewhat-costly installation of 3-D
projection systems by the theater owners and not having enough screens
to make it worthwhile to produce the content.
3-D films represent an added value to exhibitors that might
entice a larger number of them to install digital projectors even in
today's difficult economic climate. This is probably the main reason
why, even as the current downturn and associated credit crunch has
slowed down the rate of deployment, studios have reacted by boldly
stating that they're in this for the long run, and that the lower
adoption rate doesn't matter much since their push for stereoscopy is
part of a long-term strategy.
This cannot be the sole reason, however, since nowadays more
than half of the studio revenues come from home theater and syndication
rights; consequently, in my opinion, there isn't a viable business
model for media creation that can stand exclusively on either
theatrical or home entertainment releases alone.
While all of these reasons have helped the rise in stereo
filmmaking, I think the strongest motivation within the industry is in
striving to make better and more interesting movies. This is after all
part of the competitive differentiator for studios, and the biggest
factor that makes a good year vs. a bad one. It's all about achieving
greater suspension of disbelief.
There are skeptics who say that 3-D is just another fad, and of
course that is always a possibility, but I believe this will not be the
case, provided good movies get made, making good use of stereoscopy as
a storytelling tool.
Studios have been the
strongest backers of this resurgence, slating more than 30 stereo
releases in the next 18 months. Considering that there have only been
around 20 stereo releases in the previous four years, this makes a
significant statement; and despite the fact that those 30 films only
represent about 5% of the total number of movies produced, the films
coming out in 3-D are primarily tentpole and larger releases, further
reinforcing the studio commitment to the medium. Although some might
suggest that this is just a move to bring audiences back to theaters, I
tend to think that the reality is much more complex.
3-D: A Historical Perspective and Overview The basic concepts of stereoscopic 3-D projection are very
simple. Any technology wishing to display depth needs to provide a
different image to each eye; however, these two images need to be very
similar to each other, differing only because of parallax effects.
(More background information can be found at Autodesk's website.)
Any difference not due to horizontal parallax in the two images,
whether in projected light intensity, alignment, synchronization or any
image defects, will cause strain to the viewer's eyes and must be
avoided.
The advent of single projector in digital stereoscopic
exhibition has solved many of the difficulties with previous
stereoscopic projection technologies that gave 3-D movies a bad
reputation. The introduction of DLP projectors allowing fast frame
rates has enabled many separation technologies based on a single
projector to emerge. These newer technologies intrinsically solve any
time synchronization problems and most light intensity, alignment, lens
distortion and operational problems that would have been common with
the older technologies.
All of these issues contributed to the eye strain viewers
perceived and were central to the challenge of making stereo 3-D films
more popular. I am personally very sensitive to poorly-executed 3-D,
but am still optimistic for the potential of good 3-D. While I think
that past projection technologies exacerbated the problems experienced
by viewers, I do not believe that technology is the full answer.
There is no doubt in my mind that the stereoscopic technologies
of 2009 are infinitely better than those of any past iteration, but
this on its own doesn't make for better movies. I am also convinced
that the stereoscopic effect can be a very powerful storytelling tool
in the filmmaker's arsenal. There are, however, a number of obstacles
that need to be overcome before stereoscopic 3-D movies can meet their
full potential. In my opinion, some of these obstacles are
technological, some are procedural and some are semantic.
The
use of 3-D as an entertainment medium is far from new, and has been
evolving since the late 1890s. It has come in and out of popularity,
first in the 1920s, and then in the 1950s and 1970s with varying
degrees of success.

Post new comment