Article author: Eden Ashley Umble
All images courtesy of Sony Pictures Imagesworks unless otherwise stated
 | ||
 Left eye camera render |  Combined left & right eye camera render |  Right eye camera render |
|
| Films using a variety of 3D technologies - from 3D animation to stereoscopic Real-D and IMAX 3D presentation - have grown in popularity with both audiences and filmmakers in recent years. For audiences, the 3D experience can provide thrills that are visceral as well as visual, while filmmakers are using this technology to tell their stories in a way that is more immediate, more detailed, more real than ever before, allowing them to push the boundaries of filmmaking to the limits of their imaginations. |  Red & cyan filtered glasses |
LCD shutter glasses |
Robert Zemeckis' theatrical 2D film "The Polar Express" for IMAX 3D, which
was the first feature-length all-CG project to be created in stereoscopic 3D
(and at 96 minutes, the longest IMAX 3D film ever made). A separate team
of 60 artists and support staff worked for 6 months to create the IMAX 3D
version, all while the 2D film was still being finished. The IMAX 3D version
of "The Polar Express" opened on November 10, 2005, the same day as the
theatrical feature, winning critical acclaim and setting box office records for
an IMAX attraction, grossing $35 million domestically on just 60 IMAX screens.
Bredow was a Digital Effects Supervisor on the theatrical release of the film and was
instrumental in the early phases of testing the viability of the IMAX 3D project.
 Rob Engle | Engle is presently supervising the IMAX 3D version of "Monster House", which will be released using the Real-D stereoscopic projection system. The second film to employ the Imagemotion(TM) performance capture innovation developed by Sony Pictures Imageworks, "Monster House", directed by Gil Kenan, will be released July 21, 2006. CG animated feature "Surf's Up", the second film being produced by Sony Pictures Animation. "Surf's Up" is directed by Ash Brannon ("Toy Story 2") and Chris Buck ("Tarzan") and will be released in June 2007. |  Rob Bredow |
| The demand for stereoscopic 3D films is growing. What 3D projects are currently in production at Sony Pictures Imageworks? Rob Engle: We have "Monster House" in REAL-D [set for release July 21st, 2006] and "Open Season", set for release Sept. 29, 2006] as an IMAX 3D film. Rob Bredow: Basically, I don't think there's a project in house where 3D isn't discussed. There are thoughts about just about every one of our shows because of the renewed interest in 3D across the board. I think this is certainly in part because of the success of the IMAX 3D "The Polar Express" . It's becoming something that's on everybody's mind for every one of our projects, particularly our CG features; it looks like every one of our CG features could possibly have a 3D version. I think it's interesting to look at the different marketing angles that have yet to be explored, in terms of having a 3D version of your movie in combination with your 2D version, and how you release those. Day and date is how we've been delivering so far and that's cool because you get great word of mouth on the 3D version since it's a phenomenal experience, and then the nice thing is, if the IMAX theater is sold out, they can still go see it in the 2D theater. In the case of "The Polar Express", by all accounts the 3D version added significantly to revenues. How are Stereoscopic 3D films perceived by our eyes? Engle: There are really 2 phenomena that the eyes use to perceive depth. One is where they focus, meaning specifically at what depth our individual eyes are adjusted to see, just like a camera lens focuses. The other aspect is called convergence, which is basically the phenomena where your eyes cross or uncross in order to bring two similar features in an image together. You are constantly adjusting your convergence and your focus to tell you the relative depth of objects. That's how we see things in the real world. In stereoscopic films, where they're projected flat on a screen, your brain is being asked to separate those two phenomena. It's being asked to focus on a fixed point, which is usually 20 to 30 feet away, and then converge independently. | ||
How does stereoscopic film projection differ from conventional
film presentation?
Engle: Normally, we would render a single camera point of view and
project that and that's how you see a CG film in a theater. To create a
stereoscopic movie we render two viewpoints and project both of those
viewpoints
simultaneously.What's important is that the projection system is capable of delivering
an indepen
dent image to the left eye from the right eye. There are a wide variety of
technologies
out there for achieving this, and almost all of them use glasses in one form
or another.
In active systems the viewer wears a set of glasses that have electronically
triggered
filters over each eye. The filters switch between opaque and transparent
in synch with
a projector that is alternating between the left eye and the right eye. In passive
systems
the viewer wears glasses with fixed filters, which have some unique property per-eye
that selects the image to pass. For example, with the anaglyph system a red
filter allows
only one color light to one eye while a cyan filter allows the rest of the light to
the other eye.
The more sophisticated IMAX and Real-D systems use color-neutral polarizing
filters to select
the left and right eye images. There are also some systems out there that are called
autostereoscopic
displays where you don't have to wear the glasses at all.
Do stereoscopic 3D projection systems use one or two projectors?
Engle: It depends on the system you're talking about, but it can be either way.
For an active system (shutter glasses) there is almost always only one projector which
is alternating between the left and right eye images. The Real-D system uses a single
projector but places an active filter, which can switch between two different types of
polarization, in front of the projection lens. This allows the viewer to wear much simpler
and more lightweight passive glasses. The IMAX system uses a two projector system
where each lens has a fixed polarizing filter over it. They integrate the two film transports
and lenses with one lamp house which makes it look like one GIANT
projector. Older 35mm projection single-projector systems used a split lens which
would polarize the top half of the frame one way and the bottom half another and
then superimpose the two halves on the screen. The primary issues that help decide
which system to use are synchronization of the left and right eyes, the amount of
light that needs to reach the screen, and cost. Synchronization has become
less of an issue now that we have digital cinema but was a real problem for
two-projector 35mm systems. The reason light output is an issue is that the
extra filters added to the system can cause a significant reduction in light
level. A two projector system will cost more but produce more light.
One advantage of the Real-D system is that it allows theater owners to
upgrade for stereo presentation without buying another projector.
| How do the experiences of viewing IMAX and Real-D differ? Engle: I think the biggest difference is that when you're in an IMAX theater, you're usually immersed in the screen without even looking at any content. Once you sit down, it takes a good turn of the head to look from one end of the screen to the other. The result of that is that you generally feel like you're in the image on an IMAX screen, more so than you are in a conventional theatre screen. The Real-D system currently is targeted at multiplex type theaters with 40 to 50 feet wide screens where you can see the edges. What that means in terms of the experience for the audience and for the way in which you create the content is that an IMAX theater can be much more immersive, and of course, that's why they call it "the IMAX 3D experience". Contrast that with a multiplex theater, where it's literally as if you were looking through a window and experiencing a deep world. We're capable of pushing things out of the screen but that effect really depends on how things are composed. Fundamentally, IMAX will feel like you're more in the world, and multiplex Real-D will feel like you're watching the world. Both IMAX and Real-D offer compelling 3D experiences for their audiences. As co-creators, Imageworks is always trying to find the best way to match the director's vision to the best use of stereoscopic presentation. Sometimes that will mean IMAX and sometimes it will mean Real-D. |  Cross section view of a typical IMAX theater |
|
|
Express"?
Engle: For the 2D theatrical release of the movie, [the main Imageworks
filmmaking team] would produce the content in the first place, and they
did that though a process which was basically a combination of
Imagemotion, performance capture and hand animation to produce
the final shot. The 3D team would pick it up from there. We would
start by looking at their final animation files and we would produce a
stereo camera that matched their camera as much as possible.
We were trying to preserve their movie without changing the
composition of their shots if we didn't have to. We wanted to be
as faithful to the original as possible.
We were unsure if people could sit through an hour and a half of
stereoscopic material without getting headaches, so we were
very careful about trying to produce something that would be
comfortable. Once we approved the camera, we had a team of
people whose job was basically to resurrect how the original
shot was produced, and reproduce it, but for two eyes. And it
wasn't simply a matter of taking the original movie and using
that say, as the left eye, because one of the other things that
was very important to give a better 3D experience was doing
things like dialing back the use of depth of field in shots.
Bredow: On "The Polar Express", which was the first all-CG feature
created at Imageworks, we had our hands full figuring out how to
do the 2D version of the movie. When the 3D version came along,
initially it was extremely daunting because we were just up to our
eyeballs in work. And one of the things we discovered was, in fact,
we could do it, based on setting up two teams, and relying on some
of the core pipeline technology that Imageworks has built over a
long period of time: the way the data for a shot gets recorded, so
another team could come along and re-create the shots. It was
technically possible. That was one kind of exciting thing we learned.
At the same time, we walked away learning that if you know in advance
you're going to do a stereo version of your film, you can set it up a whole
lot better in advance. That's one of the things, going forward, we're looking
at all of our movies, saying, 'Are we set up to do this in 3D in an efficient way,
if the client requests going day and date with both versions?'
What sort of challenges does stereoscopic 3D presentation pose to
faithfully re-creating a filmmaker's vision?
Engle: Most filmmakers will use depth of field to try to direct the viewer to
look at a specific object, but if the viewer wants to have a true 3D experience,
then depth of field is actually your enemy in that respect. On [the IMAX 3D
version of] "The Polar Express", we would go in and dial back those kinds of
effects, we would adjust things like transparency that can be confusing when
looking at a stereo image, we would adjust things here and there, but basically
produce something that was faithful to the original and was just stereo.
[One particular asset of] a Zemeckis movie, is on average, he likes to use very
long shots. The average length of a shot on "The Polar Express" was something
like 7 seconds, which in this kind of MTV, commercial world is almost
unheard of. Usually shots are on the order of 3 seconds, and it turns out
that that a longer shot really works to your advantage in a 3D film, because
it allows people's eyes to grow accustomed to whatever's in the shot before
you yank it out from underneath them and switch to a different shot.
When Imageworks adapts a film for stereoscopic presentation, we very
carefully work so that each shot (and thus, the movie as a whole) is the
best 3D it can be. We cut very few corners... In most cases we re-render
every element to ensure that the shot has the most detail possible.
The result is a stereoscopic experience that is very rich and (hopefully)
gives the audience what they came to see... A motion picture experience
unlike anything they have seen before.
rience unlike anything they have seen before.
"Polar Express" - Sony Pictures Imageworks (combo image)
Can you talk about working with a filmmaker as creative as Robert Zemeckis?
Bredow: It's interesting to get to work with somebody who's obviously experimental
and innovative in filmmaking. Basically, when you get to work with someone like Robert
Zemeckis, his focus is to be able to tell stories with whatever means are available to him.
When he sees an actor like Tom Hanks, and wants him to play a six year-old kid, you start
to realize the extremes that he's interested in going, to be able to tell his stories, which
makes it a lot of fun. That starts with things like acting and characters and who's playing
his main characters, and goes all the way to technical innovations in terms of how to make
the audience experience his movie firsthand in 3D. That was my experience on "The Pola
r Express".
Are there any striking differences between the pipelines created at Imageworks
to process IMAX and Real-D?
Engle: The primary difference between the Real-D and IMAX pipelines are in the ways the
cameras are created. With a Real-D presentation you need to be more aware of how
the edge of the screen can interfere with the 3D effect. You need to adjust the overall depth
of the scene into the screen plane.
Can you talk about the look and production of "Monster House" in Real-D?
 |
is very much like a Claymation miniature, and there's a lot of use of global illumination, bounce
lighting and very intricate shadow detail that wasn't used as much on "The Polar Express". It's a
very different look. In the Real-D world, in a multiplex, it's more of a window environment, and
we're trying to direct that much more carefully on "Monster House" than we did on "Polar". We'e
using a different renderer and a different lighting package on this show, so behind the scenes
there's a lot going on to make sure we can do this show, but the basic concepts are the same as
"The Polar Express".
Should all films be in stereoscopic 3D, or do some films possess characteristics
that specifically call for a 3D viewing experience?
Engle: I think that CG features have a special quality which lend themselves to stereoscopic
presentation I look forward to seeing a few live action blockbusters in stereo but do we really
want to see every film in 3D? Maybe I'm too old, but I saw a clip of a classic movie musical not
too long ago which had been converted to 3D and I thought to myself, yeah that's neat, but
there's something to be said for leaving those historical gems alone. Maybe it comes back to
the whole question of colorizing a film, for example, do you do it or not? If you did a version
of "Casablanca" that was in color and 3D, it would just be a different movie; I mean, why bother?
I'm generally against it. I would much rather leave it alone and let people enjoy it for what it was.
I suppose there's the other argument that says if you make it 3D or in color, then it reaches a new
audience that wasn't there before, but I like to think that people are cleverer than that.
Bredow: I think "The Polar Express" was an example of a movie that was particularly well
suited for 3D. It was "stereo friendly" for a lot of reasons. Robert Zemeckis loves to move the
camera, he loves to use really wide camera angles, long shots, and all those things are great for
a 3D movie. I think that's one of the reasons it was such a good showcase piece for this kind of film.
Not all films are going to be as well suited as "The Polar Express". Interestingly, I think CG features
generally have a better shot than your average live action movie, just because of the way that they
tend to be cut; they tend to not move at the same sort of pace of some of the more fast-cutting live
action movies. On [the IMAX 3D version of] "The Polar Express", what was so successful for me
personally when I went to the movie theater and watched it, was that it was so immersive. By the
time the movie had come out I had seen the 2D version a lot of times, but seeing the 3D version
was honestly like seeing another movie. There's something so immersive about that, especially
when you've got the opportunity to do stereo and a huge screen. When you can fill the audience's
peripheral vision, it really does do something different in terms of putting them inside the movie,
which is fun.
How do you see 3D technology being applied to everyday communication and other consumer
applications in the future?
Engle: I certainly think the technology is moving forward to the point where we will have
autostereoscopic displays in the consumer's hands. Right now, they're very expensive, but it
will happen. The most interesting question in my mind is whether or not we can make use of
the third dimension to make computer user interfaces more accessible. Imagine if the desktop
on your computer was actually dimensional. Would it be much more cluttered, or would it be
better organized? I don't know, but I certainly think if people haven't experimented with it, they
should be. As far as how it's going to change communication, I wouldn't be surprised if someday
maybe everybody will have a stereo camera phone and you can have a stereo telephone
conferencing. I don't know, but I certainly think that 3D will get better and cheaper, and as a
result, it'll be everywhere.
Bredow: I think what everybody thinks of when they think of 3D, of course, is the glasses and
the hassle that they can be. Anytime you have to put glasses on to carry on a conference call or
something like that, I think that that's something that people are not going to choose to do very
often. There were a lot of different things in SIGGRAPH this year, various monitors that did some
sort of 3D experience, like a single monitor without glasses, and actually all of them had the
disadvantage of they weren't very sharp or very detailed, but it was interesting to see various
prototypes. Most of them were showing short little test animations, or things that had been
acquired in 3D, or still images. When you can perfect the idea of not having to put on glasses,
I think you're going to see more broad application. In terms of integrating it into other areas
of people's lives, it's a good question. And the simple matter is, it costs at least twice as much
as your standard projection setup, just because you're going to have two projectors instead
of one, in most setups.
Can you imagine, for example, people buying Real D glasses in the same way
they purchase their reading glasses now?
| Engle: It's funny that you mention that, because I'm always joking with our digital production manager that I want to get polarized contact lenses, so I don't have to take my glasses off. On the future of 3D as a growing visual effects process, can you see Real-D technology being used in a classroom application soon? Engle: Absolutely. I think not necessarily specifically Real-D, as much as the more it becomes commonplace, I can certainly see it being used in the classroom. What I find interesting is the use of the technology to produce compelling content, for example, imagine National Geographic specials shot in stereo where you feel like you're actually in the lion's den, as opposed to just seeing it. I personally think that would be amazing. Of course, if you've seen any 3D IMAX films, you know that you feel like you're there. |  |
| Bredow: It's not impossible, but just generating the content for stereo rather than 2D is easily twice the work so when you're talking about a Power Point presentation or something like that, there has to be a really specific reason that you'd need to present it in stereo just to get your point across. It may not be worth the time. Just having, for instance, fonts floating over a background probably wouldn't be worth the effort, whereas if you're trying to describe something that's inherently 3D, then that could have some payoff, for sure. Real-D specifically is a very high-end theater based system. The projector's the size of a normal film projector and the cost of course is up there too. But the basic concepts behind the technology which are similar between many of the different 3D options, with polarized lenses, 2 projectors with different sort of polarization and a special screen -- there's nothing keeping anybody from setting that up with a few thousand dollars' worth of hardware in a classroom setting and very cheap polarized glasses. It's technically feasible. How practical is it in terms of generating the content, that's probably the biggest question. Do you think stereoscopic 3D technology will soon be a viable addition to current curriculum for digital art and animation students? Bredow:With the trend of a lot more movies going into 3D, there are good opportunities from the education side. It would be great to have more education about the way stereo works, the way our eyes perceive 3D, and the way you can trick the eye with various techniques, [such as] whether you aim their cameras toward a focal point, how you handle depth of field, etc. There's lots of different ways of thinking about these kinds of things, and there's some good research out there, but I don't think there are lots of people covering that currently in schools because the recent popularity of the medium is a relatively new thing. 3D in general is an interesting topic for people to explore. Another | |
| interesting opportunity from the educational perspective, and for people just getting into the industry, is that often the 2D movie is done by a team of people and then the 3D team comes along and picks up the assets and makes the stereo version. The first time that happened to us, it was simply by necessity of the schedule. We had our hands full making the 2D version of "The Polar Express" and late in the schedule, they decided to make the 3D version, so we started a whole other team to do it. It turned out that that was actually a pretty efficient way to work. One of the good opportunities for people from an educational standpoint is there's a higher number of positions that require less experience across the entire board, who can work on some of these shows. [A stereoscopic 3D film] can be one of the first shows that people might get to work on who don't have the traditional 5 years' experience in feature film. So, one nice thing about these shows is they do create some entry level positions. Engle: Absolutely. In general, with the introduction of any new technology there is the need to train people on the best way to use it. Creating films for stereoscopic presentation is not a new field but, with the wider availability of 3D venues, there will be a stronger demand for good 3D content. |  |
| About the author: Eden Ashley Umble is a writer based in Northern California, where she lives with her husband and two kids. She worked in film production and publicity for fifteen years on films such as "Edward Scissorhands", "The Long Kiss Goodnight" and "Fat Man and Little Boy." | |
No comments:
Post a Comment