|
|
IMAX 3D
Some Notes
Has the 3D bug bit you too? It isn't really a bug. It's a sort of a natural outgrowth of the enjoyment of theater and an understanding of the optical illusions responsible for modern 3D.
At one time, I thought it would be extremely delightful to do a sort of Jiri Trnka HR Tolkien splice, sort of Quay Brothers with a real budget, in 3D. And why not? I had seen puppeteers at UCLA construct twenty foot tall sets with four foot tall puppets. That would be the look on a screen, but more vividly with a moving camera and action freed of static controls.
Computer animation is coincidentally able to produce 3D effects that would be fairly expensive to produce cinematically. Not just special effects, but subtle camera techniques like changing the distance between left and right eye views, and changing the angles of the cameras. Think how expensive a 3D motion picture camera would turn out being to have all of those controls! As much of a blessing as INSPIRE is for computer animation, it is a quadruple blessing for 3D!
The closest thing to a "documentary" camera package for 3D has been a video camera that has half the resolution of conventional Mega digital cameras, and 3D seems to like as much resolution as it can get. With INSPIRE, the maximum is available, gratis. Cineon.
So, special settings? Special programming? Aesthetic tips?
Yes, I suppose, some. The art of setting a reasonable second camera position is largely by what appears to be a comparable position to what the two eyes would see if the object were a person at arm's length, whether the focus is a pencil point or a submarine. The problems of "ghosting" are pretty much handled with IMAX 3D, so one does not have to scrutinize every composition for dark elements and image contrast, as in the earlier days of polarized and red/blue 3D. Basically, if it looks good on the monitor, it will probably look good on the big screen. (There are some cute subtleties, like pasting a 3D photograph of a theater to the front of the monitor and changing its height...)
But that has as much to do with your eyes looking at the faces and not at the elbow joints, as it does to do with aesthetics. In daily vision, we ignore things like fenceposts and our own fingers all the time, because they fairly ruin the "composition" of what we are doing with widely disparate image elements that are not fun to scrutinize. Somehow, we enjoy ourselves. Thank you, God. If someone is looking at the elbows of a character, the character or the story is boring. On the other hand, when a reviewer attacks the sense of weight or lip synch of a stereoscopic computer animated film, partly this may be the fault of the medium. Early 70mm movies showed every flaw in paint or prop, so crews adapted by switching to real locations and dropping stagecraft techniques.
You can correct the composition by moving objects so that they do not "fight" frame edges or other objects (this is done by live action crews "on location" all the time), changing palletes to reduce contrast, reducing vertical lines, increasing curves and perspective lines, shallower ranges of depth with more complicated action, spotlighting, corner vignetting and atmospheric effects like fog or rain, more camera motion, more thoughtful composition akin to floral arranging, having a minimum of three "visual interest" elements in every "shot;" it is popular to have strong depth of field without blur, but blur does not ruin the shot. The majority of 2D aesthetic techniques apply to 3D as well.
Many great films would also be great in 3D, because powerful ideas go with a rich state of mind. What else would one have such a heightened sense of awareness for? "Truman," episodes of "West Wing" or "Star Trek," and documentaries.
A little brass tacks trivia: black and white 3D looks different from color 3D like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" looks different from "Help;" and the following tip only applies to black-and-white 3D. If you like it, do it. (Friends and I have pondered the ineffables of black-and-white vs color "Gilligans," etc. I like the theory that black-and-white is more innocent and harmless and campfire tale-like. ) A better red/blue filter glasses is probably deep yellow/violet -- it looks better, is compatible with TV, and modern xenon theater projectors.
One other item I should mention for INSPIRE or LIGHTWAVE 3D animation. I will probably soon start adding some kind of object or Null to every Scene file to keep track of camera position, since steady triangulation can get messed up working "by eye" sometimes. Apparently, the default camera settings for INSPIRE's stereoscopic rendering feature in Camera will work with a "Null" as camera "target," and the displacement can be adjusted in the Camera panel. This will create "toe-in." (courtesy "~teddytan".) For animated lens displacement, a second Scene file and perhaps a ruler object and camera Nulls.