• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Affordable 3d Rental?

sfoster

Staff Member
Moderator
Is it feasible for an indie filmmaker to do a movie in 3D?
Hopefully digital and not film.
 
Since the technical headaches of shooting 3D can slow & limit a production, it's increasingly popular to shoot in 2D and then convert to 3D(ish) in post. So, in the context of indie film, shooting in 3D can really impact your schedule. Also, if you aren't a trained Stereographer, you might shoot hours of flawed or unusable footage, and not know it until later.
 
Since the technical headaches of shooting 3D can slow & limit a production, it's increasingly popular to shoot in 2D and then convert to 3D(ish) in post. So, in the context of indie film, shooting in 3D can really impact your schedule. Also, if you aren't a trained Stereographer, you might shoot hours of flawed or unusable footage, and not know it until later.

Didn't realize 3d was so much slower.. I think I'm already slow enough in 2d :lol:
Thanks guys
 
Since the technical headaches of shooting 3D can slow & limit a production, it's increasingly popular to shoot in 2D and then convert to 3D(ish) in post. So, in the context of indie film, shooting in 3D can really impact your schedule. Also, if you aren't a trained Stereographer, you might shoot hours of flawed or unusable footage, and not know it until later.

+1

Shooting 3D the wrong way will either cause tremendous headache to the viewer or it is completely unuseable.

And like Rik said: it is a very small market, since the 5th (?) wave of 3D didn't catch on into the livingroom.
 
probably a PITA to edit too .. i haven't even considered the post production workflow of something like that

From the sound side, it is a royal PITA! You can only really work with a 2D version but constantly have to reference a 3D version and of course, 3D visuals with stereo sound makes even less sense than stereo with HD (or 2k). Most 3D films don't even go with 5.1, preferring one of the so called 3D audio formats, such as Dolby Atmos or at least 7.1.

G
 
Interesting! I never knew this about audio.

In order to save time/money during the principal photography, a common 3D technique is to shoot in 2D and "convert" the image to 3D in post. It's a labour intensive process whereby the conversion house will roto each element in a shot and then simulate the 3D illusion. It kind of works, but not really. Transparent & reflective objects cannot be properly converted and basically look flat. Rain/fire/smoke ... forget about it.

I once worked on a show that was going to be converted to 3D, except the final 20 minutes took place a room full of translucent crystals. The result: a room full of opaque planes.
 
From the sound side, it is a royal PITA! You can only really work with a 2D version but constantly have to reference a 3D version and of course, 3D visuals with stereo sound makes even less sense than stereo with HD (or 2k). Most 3D films don't even go with 5.1, preferring one of the so called 3D audio formats, such as Dolby Atmos or at least 7.1.

G

Sound isn't recorded any differently on set, is it ?
 
Sound isn't recorded any differently on set, is it ?

Differently compared to what? Baring in mind that commercial HD content and theatrical features are virtually always done in 5.1 (or higher), then "no", there's no difference. Compared to average nano/no budget HD (or 2k/4k) content, which are often done in stereo, there can be differences. The recording of production dialogue is the same regardless, but the recording of some/many PFX (Production Sound Effects) would usually be done in 5.1 (or a format which can be converted to surround). This is generally more applicable to location filming than for "on set" filming.

G
 
Back
Top