Tuesday was the first day of the Insight Media/USDC 3D Biz-Ex in Burlingame, CA. Art Berman and I, authors of the 2007 Insight Media 3D report, were here, in part, to learn more about 3D so we can update the report next year. We haven’t been disappointed, as the talks on digital signage, 3D gaming and 3D cinema have given us a lot to think about and when the time comes, to write about. The exhibits looked very good, with exhibitors from the component, system, software and content creation aspects of the 3D business in attendance. For today’s Display Daily, I would like to focus on two presentations on 3D feature film creation from Aaron Parry at Paramount/Mainstreet Pictures and Jim Mainard at Dreamworks Animation.

Matt Brennesholtz
Insight Media Analyst

I have heard a lot of talks about electronic cinema and 3D cinema, but most of them have been from the technology end. Parry and Mainard discussed 3D cinema from the production end of things - from the studio’s point of view.

First, I never realized how hard it is to make a movie, never mind 3D. I guess I knew it was hard: if it was easy it wouldn’t cost $100M or more (or much more) to make a feature film. Everything you need for a 2D film you need to do for a 3D film, and then more. For example, everyone knows you need a script. Did you know that for a 3D movie, you need a depth script? You need to plan exactly where everything will be in the third dimension for each scene. This is something the set designers need to do even in a 2D movie, but it takes on added importance in a 3D movie. Every movie needs a storyboard, too. For a 3D movie, does this storyboard need to be in 3D? Both speakers emphasized that they didn’t have all the answers - at this point, nobody does.

Perry discussed various paths to a 3D movie, including:

• - Conversion of film from the archive
• - Live action shot in 3D with VFX (Visual Effects)
• - 2D feature with 3D day & date release
• - CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery, i.e. animation)
• - Documentaries
• - Stop Motion (not tried yet, but just you wait…)

A project of each type will have its own schedule. For conversion of a 90-minute archived film, the schedule will cover about 10 months, according to Perry. A 90-minute CGI movie will take about 24 months, with all the other types somewhere between these limits. Up to 4 months of this time is specific 3D time for "post-post-production" items not required for the equivalent 2D film, although some of this 3D time can overlap the end of the regular post-production process. And, of course, we all know that no one in Hollywood ever goes over budget or takes longer than scheduled.

Casting a 3D movie can be a problem, and I don’t mean the stars. You need a director, a 3D producer, a stereogropher/3D cinematographer, production designer and a VFX/CGI supervisor, preferably all experienced 3D workers. Unfortunately, if you want all experienced 3D people, you may have a long wait. Supposedly, the top 3D cinematographer is booked up 5 years in advance, so you better plan on developing your own talent. Hollywood can learn fast, if it needs to. Perry pointed out that if you look at a 1927 or 1928 sound movie, it looks and sounds like an experiment. By 1930, the movies look and sound like a modern movie.

Listening to Mainard talk about CGI, you could almost forget everything he said was virtual. Scouting. Set design. Sets that don’t work and need to be rebuilt. Camera angles. Lightning. Lensing: wide vs long focal length. Depth of field. Almost the only thing he said that sounded like animation to my ear was his discussion of rendering, and the extra 30% rendering time needed for 3D. A supercomputer farm to render for 2D and an extra supercomputer for 3D.

One good thing about 3D, from the studio’s point of view. It is almost impossible to pirate a 3D movie with a smuggled in-theater camera. According to Parry, Hollywood is "thrilled" about that.

For a complete review of all 6 speakers in the 3D Biz-Ex Cinema session, plus all the other sessions and the exhibition, see the October issue of Projection Monthly.

Reply to the author