HD For Indies

Once again, my raw notes from an NAB Digital Cinema Summit 2006: Day Two panel, this a round table on 3D Digital Cinema. On the panel:

Geoff Burdick, James Cameron, Joshua Greer, Vince Pace, moderator Jon Jandau are on this panel.

There's some GREAT info to be gleaned in here, note the bolded section where Jim Cameron himself weighs in on the whole 422 vs 444, compressed vs. uncompressed thing. See my comments at end about it.

Raw notes below, as I took'em, typos and all:

---------------------

Round Table Panel

John Landau is the producer working with Jim at Lightstorm

Real D guy is here

Christie and QuVis helped do this today.

50 years ago, if there was a TV, it might have been color

Now, in cinema, there have been no serious advancements in the visual presentation of movies. 50 years, no serious advancements. Something to distinguish the home vs. theatrical experience.

Tech has enabled 3 things to come together -
1.) The capture technology - no longer encumbered with huge heavy cameras - T2 3D had to have stunt players go half speed because that was as fast as they could have been moved. Now can do steadicam

2.) Post technology is better - can do post convergence

3.) Digital cinema experience - 3D at a higher quality than has ever been seen

Let's start with Vince Pace of Pace Technologies developing 3D camera stuff -

what we've developed is a motion controller that introduces dynamic convergence and interocular control. No longer a mathematical guess of what it should look like, is a creative interpretation of what's desired. Very complicated gear makes it easy to do good 3D. The gap from capture to what'll look like in a theater is getting very short

-can go up to 20 miles, can do motion control remotely, cmaera system is comprised of optical block, lenses, dynamic control at the point of capture that let's em steadicam, remote crane, go 3 miles under the ocean, through fiber optics, allows'em to go to whatever - disk, HDCAM SR, record with no degradation, but keep POINT of capture very simple and film-like. Exciting to see all those functions come togehter.

"3D opens the door for filmmakers to mine completely new territoriies" - some filmmakers may be leery of new stuff to learn and won't be able to do the things they know. Everyone will do it diffferently and see different opportunities - Jim doesn't like to do the "poke you in the eye" 3d, likes to create a reality beyod the screen, remove the screento make a window into the world the movie creates. None of the core stuff of character and what not that don't change, a few things to learn to do good stereo, can do normal camera movement, all the normal tools are there, lighting is lighting, there are few little mines to avoid, doesn't take logn to pick this stuff up, you have live viewing and feedback, can see on a normal HD monitor on set, have a small 3d viewing station in video village or engineering station, and also have chosen to have 2K projection near the set to see 50 feet away and watch EXACTLY what it'll look like in a movie theaters. No dailies, no photochemistry, etc. The projection way is the BEST way to evaluate the footage.

In order to have fun with the new medium, lots of new areas to paly with

(Geoff Burdick, James Cameron, Joshua Greer, Vince Pace, moderator Jon Jandau are on this panel)

sound has become important over the years to make the experience more immersive. 3D when done well makes it more immersive yet again.

Editorially, how does it work? Do you edit in 2d or 3d? Current plan is to cut in 2D on an Avid as you would any other, do an ongoing conform with the other eye so you can check the 3d at any point. Is there a difference with 2D and 3D screening? They did a year of testing to learn the language. Adapting a Terminator film for 3D, they are rapidly cut action movies - can you cut that fast? YES, you have to control the flow of the audience's perception of the stereo, most is done at acquisition to prepare the audience. The basic principles of cutting don't change. The blizzard, super fast, action cuts might want to detune the 3D that doesn't rely on the stereo space. Shots work so well in 3D you tend to want to linger the way you might linger on a gorgeous master shot, as with Titanic

Cutting speed of Titanitc was about half of other stuff - Terminator 2 had some # of cuts at about half the length

VFX and a lot of great production value/design, wnat to linger on those shots and enjoy that world, don't hang so long that it'll get too slow in the 2D version.

When he (Jim) talked to Peter Jackson, he'll do it completely differently than Cameron will.

There haven't been new tools in a long time - it's exciting (cameron)

Vince Pace - is shooting 3D different? when shooting 3D, embracing all the layers of something forgotten in 2D experience - a good shot is a good shot at the end of the day, the 3D shot can be a more entertaining shot since there is so much more - as a DP, you use lighting to create layers, in 3D it is a big difference since that work is done for you. At end of day, don't leave any of the tools at home - you gotta bring all those to the table, but you need'em to make a compelling story.

Josh Greer - nobodies looked at as much 3D as him lately - RealD comes in after the hard work is already done. They come in and fill in the RealD hat - wanted to make sure the presentation was high quality as possible - make sure eyes are in sync, they come in and talk about what happens with the pipeline for 3D, how to color time for 3D, big issue with light to take that into it as well, not trying to get out of mastering, but want it to be a "do no harm" kind of a thing to keep the integrity of the artist's vision and keep consistency from room to room.

Jim - how does 3D play into creating VFX - two parts of that - don't have to make a $150M movie to justify 3d, in first few years the 3d will be driven by tentpole movies. The cost of shooting 3D isn't that big a bump, but doing FX is a bigger bump - compositing FX in 3D is more complex, adds a layer of complexity to the project - it has to work in Z space as well as X & Y - it isn't a showstopper, (it isn't twice as hard or expensive, it's gonna go up by some factor depending on FX you're doing) - there's a bell curve of expense. BAse cost plus the kick to go into 3D - that kicker for 3D falls on a bell curve. If you have a pure live action film it is realtively inexpensive. If pure CG relatively inexpensive to just render all shots twice. When mixing CG and digital FX and live action is the middle of the bell curve. Most of your big FX movies are going to fall into that category. John and Jim's movies next few years are in the next few years....but fortunately could be biggeest earners. If a $400M in 2d, but $450 or $500M in 3d, you've covered the costs in spades. And of course, as with all tech, as more peoople do it, economies of scale and costs come down. All VFX companies except for a few are doing their first 3D, and it is harder. Once they know how to do it, it is easier and less costly. First time takes longer and costs more.

Above the line - set, props, wardrobe, etc. aren't affected. Cameras, VFX, post are the only areas affected. On a big picture, post budget is not affected that much. FX budget will go up somewhat. Lots of greenscreen of them inside subs. Were doing those comps for $1500 or $2000/shot. good, high quality 3D composites in greenscreen efficiently. On set, can see composite in realtime, and can see the composite in 3D by end of day before you strike or leave the set.

portability of gear - on the acquisition end, lots of improvements - SR deck that handles two data streams that are locked together (SRW-1) - any dailies that they need to see immediately are easy - just take tape stock and rewind it and paly it back instantaneously for production - they are try8ing to save time- making cmaeras more expensive up front, but as far as efficiency on set, has gone way up. hasn't been tracked, but the point of having all the creatives on set together and show'em on set day of shoot is big - the savings later on is better. More and more decision making on set rather than in post. After the cut is made, is filmmaker still involved?

Josh Greer - at end of day about filmmaker involvement - hope is they build trust and will trust it'll be consistent screen to screen - a lot of variation and a lot of systems out there - it has to be a premium experience. If anaglyph were gonna work, it would have by now. If the experience isn't great to your eyeballs, best case it is uncomfortable, worst it is painful. Most work is done for us with servers and projectors which are incredible. First epiphany was seeing it in Cameron's screening room, and realizing Ti was going to roll out zillions of these. "My career turned on a dime at that moment."

In 2003 were 29 films over $100M. In 2004 went down to 24, in '05 went down to 19. We need to start presenting things that people can't get at home. For those skeptical folks, now is the time to embrace all that.

audience question - when we get into "normal" films for 3d, how is that going to go if it isn't family friendly fare? "It's gonna scare the crap out of 'em" - (Cameron)

Whatever you're trying to do, it's more in 3D. The clock rate in your brain goes up, you're more engaged and involved, committing more of yourslef to the audience with 3D, you're gonna be more there. People will get more out of 3D, be more scared.

Once the infrastructure is there, and after the initial "ride film" types happen, after the tent pole stuff, people will start to experiment. You're not going to shoot My Dinner with Andre, but think about Titanic minus the boat sinking - it would have been beautiful in 3D.

What did color do - it brought your more into the experience - this is the next logical thing. (greer)

Q: in film school - in 50s film industry had problems with an invasive home tech - TV. 50 years ago 3D was said to save the day, but it didn't do it. A: Cameron - 3D didn't work in 50s. What are we supposed to do, shrug and walk away? No, we can fight back and use this 3d, all the pieces are in place to do it.

3d doesn't represent what he tries to do on set - recreate human vision - people feel like they are more THERE (Pace)

Q: Vince - Sony F950 dual stream stuff - playing backin realtime on set - is dual stream 4;2:2 or 4:4:4? One or two decks? Syncing decks?
-not trying to make a statement about what to do
-is popular to do 4:4:4 for L&R, can master on 4:2:2, piggybacking decks, all are possible. The neat thing is that depending on your needs, we can accomodate that very easily on set. Can do SRW-1 4;2:2 synchronous on one tape, and do two decks with 4:4:4, also can do digital disk ddrives - as for compression, up to the budget and the needs of the shoot (post heavy needs less compressed).

Cameron on 422 vs 444 - you can do anything, can support wahtever you want, filmmakers and VFX folks can do whatever they want - uncompressed is an awful lot of data (even HE says that!). Comparing HDCAM, SR, SR 422 vs SR444 in tough composites in greesncreen, like water flowing in front of green, blowing smoke etc. Old 7:1 HDCAM format - not good (but Cameron used that for all hisstuff to date), SR format does MUCH better, almost no difference between 422 and 444 for composite purposes...James is going to do 422 to do dual stream to SR deck and play it back immediately. Unless a very very specific reason to do 444 for a very picky plate, will do 422 for his stuff.

another panelist - they go through the decks and go to QuVis to record to get into an NLE environment as quickly as possible

-in 3D, couldn't refocus his eyes for stuff that is out of focus in 3D. In the stereo experience in theater, have to decide where the audience should be looking, at the bottle or the crowd. If the audience is not looking where I want them to look - they'll be looking at the non-fused, the unconverged spot. Have to direct the eye to the depth of field AND the convergence. The part of the shot that is out of focus is the Pips - focused over here is Gladys Night. Gonna use shadow, gonna use focus and convergence to draw their eye where you want it. Depth of field, lighting, stereo experience all work together. That's the neat thing when doing cinematography for 3D.

Q: 15 years ago saw IMAX 3D - haven't talked about audio to make audio more complementary to the 3D - what future stuff for that? What'll happen to IMAX 3D for all those theaters if all that is ture? (Don't want to touch that second part says Josh Greer) - the challenge for 10.2 audio and other stuff like that, it is EXPENSIVE. Who's gonna pay for this stuff? Greer is very supportive of pushing for too much at once, only so much the exhibitors can pay. Exhibitors lost their shirts going through a major conversion to stadium seating. CAMERON: 5.1 is the standard and it is enough for now. You're more aware of the spatial aspects of the sound when you're watching 3D, it's a psycho-acoustic thing when you're watching 3D stuff move around, you're more aware of it. Right now sound is more ahead of picture, you need to make "At a certain poiont you're mixing for dogs" - as for IMAX, there's only feature length movie to show in 3D, and 45 min docs, and that's a stable market for the last 20 years, but they've only every played one feature that worked well. If filmmakers don't want to make a movie for 50 or 60 theaters, would rather do 3D for thousands of 3D theaters and tens of thousands of 2D theaters. IMAX will still be a premium experience, but there will be more choices out there. Digtial cinema will make 3D ubiquitous, so hopefully a rising tide will raise all boats. There's enormous startup torque - the more contentious things are in 3d subset, it'll stall out and hinder the process. What's good for 3d is good for me and good for other filmmakers. He helps other filmmakers learn about the stuff.

------------------

End raw notes

----------------

Mike's commentary - wow, there's so much I could say. I'll just start with a coupla thoughts:

-when Jim talking about 422 vs 444 vs compressed, I also find it interesting to note that in some circumstances, uncompressed can be CHEAPER than compressed tape formats, but you pay a substantial penalty in size, weight, power requirements etc. But if you're on a big enough shoot to require a video village, becomes moot.

-3d can't be bootlegged in theater, can't be distributed as 3d, can't be shown in homes. Helps the piracy thing - can't be easily replicated at home any time soon, like 10 years or more, if ever.

-mike