3D can still be the saviour of cinema | Little White Lies

3D can still be the sav­iour of cinema

08 Apr 2016

Words by Phil W Bayles

Two people wearing sunglasses and holding film reels, seated in a dark setting.
Two people wearing sunglasses and holding film reels, seated in a dark setting.
Audi­ences have start­ed los­ing inter­est, but the tech­nol­o­gy still has the poten­tial to reshape the art­form as we know it.

When James Cameron released Avatar in 2009, effec­tive­ly sig­nalling a brave new dawn for cin­e­ma, he hailed 3D as a fun­da­men­tal shift equal to the advent of Tech­ni­col­or. Sev­en years lat­er, we’re still wait­ing for the rev­o­lu­tion to arrive. So what happened?

There are now more 3D-ready cin­e­mas than ever. As of June 2015, RealD – the com­pa­ny that dom­i­nates the 3D mar­ket – had their tech installed in around 26,500 the­atres world­wide, a fifth of which were locat­ed in Chi­na. But the num­ber of films being released in the for­mat is going down, and few­er peo­ple are putting on the glass­es. In 2011, 39 films were released in 3D, with 3D screen­ings mak­ing up around 54 per cent of their total box office haul. But by 2014 there were only 28 3D films released, and the gross per­cent­age has fall­en to 39

These fig­ures sug­gest that audi­ences are grow­ing tired of 3D as a con­cept. Which is a shame, because the likes of Avatar, Life of PiGrav­i­ty and even Gas­par Noé’s Love have proven that, in the right hands, the tech­nol­o­gy can be a pow­er­ful sto­ry­telling tool. So what should film­mak­ers, and the indus­try as a whole, be doing to help realise its awe­some poten­tial? The answer is more straight­for­ward than you might think.

There are cur­rent­ly around 80 3D films sched­uled for release between now and 2020, but a cur­so­ry glance at RealD’s slate reveals the same hand­ful of stu­dios pop­ping up time and again. Super­heroes and ani­mat­ed movies account for close to half of the films on the list, and while there’s a world of dif­fer­ence between, say, Bat­man Vs Super­man and Guardians of the Galaxy, the fact remains that these films belong in the same camp.

Clear­ly, greater vari­ety is need­ed. Of course, 3D is no longer sole­ly the domain of Hollywood’s elite vision­ar­ies, as it was when Avatar was released. In recent years the tech­nol­o­gy has trans­formed films like Life of Pi and Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gats­by into visu­al feasts wor­thy of the ornate prose of their respec­tive sources. Less showy lit­er­ary adap­ta­tions could also stand to ben­e­fit (pic­ture the bleak beau­ty of Wuther­ing Heights’ in 3D – the crag­gy Eng­lish coun­try­side jut­ting out of the frame). For now the tech­nol­o­gy is still large­ly deter­mined by genre and scale, but Hol­ly­wood is only doing itself a dis­ser­vice by reduc­ing 3D to a cacoph­o­nous, homogenised spectacle.

The era of gee-whiz 3D is over. Today, it’s all about immer­sion. The best 3D is that which we bare­ly even notice: the way that Dr Ryan Stone is dwarfed by a dis­tant Earth in Grav­i­ty – so close yet so far – or the inti­ma­cy of Pi Patel’s lifeboat in con­trast with the vast­ness of the Pacif­ic Ocean. In prac­tice, how­ev­er, the tech­nol­o­gy often acts as a bar­ri­er between the audi­ence and the sto­ry. Even with­out the pain of pay­ing for a new pair upon each view­ing, the glass­es can become uncom­fort­able to wear after a while. Then there’s the issue of reduced bright­ness, which is to be expect­ed when wear­ing what is essen­tial­ly a fan­cy pair of sun­glass­es in a dark room.

Even before you get to screen a film, shoot­ing in 3D is a cost­ly process. It involves cre­at­ing two copies of each ele­ment to go with each dif­fer­ent image: not only does this mean twice the work for a VFX depart­ment, but the two images have to be pre­cise­ly lined up or the illu­sion will be ruined. Post-con­ver­sion is usu­al­ly cheap­er and more effi­cient (you sim­ply cre­ate two copies of each frame and sep­a­rate the fore­ground from the back­ground), but still runs the risk of a low­er-qual­i­ty image.

There are solu­tions: laser pro­jec­tors, which are being unveiled in IMAX the­atres every­where, flood the screen with light to reduce dim­ming. But it’s not a cheap fix. The lat­est dig­i­tal xenon pro­jec­tors can cost any­where between $30,000 and $50,000, while laser pro­jec­tors can be up to 10 times that amount. It will be many years – maybe even decades – before such equip­ment is cheap enough that small­er cin­e­ma chains and inde­pen­dents will be able to take advan­tage of it. There’s even a start­up in Vien­na that’s devel­op­ing 3D screens which would remove the need for glass­es entire­ly, although the cur­rent pro­to­type is only 3×5 pix­els: hard­ly the best screen on which to watch a new release.

This democ­ra­ti­sa­tion is going to be vital at the oth­er end of the cre­ative process. James Cameron prac­ti­cal­ly had to invent the 3D cam­era sys­tem used to film Avatar, but he already had the rest of Hol­ly­wood on his side. Soon less estab­lished yet equal­ly tal­ent­ed film­mak­ers will be able to get their hands on a sim­i­lar grade of kit.

Why do we love movies? It’s a ques­tion we’ve asked peo­ple for over a decade, one that fre­quent­ly throws up the same answers: we love to lose our­selves in great sto­ries, and escape to new and excit­ing worlds. 3D cin­e­ma is evolv­ing and will con­tin­ue to do so, but while there will inevitably be more teething prob­lems fur­ther ahead, there’s no ques­tion the tech­nol­o­gy still has the poten­tial to reshape the way we tell sto­ries on the big screen.

You might like