Recreating a mood in 3D movies:

What does the image above evoke in a person? Chances are it would create a mood, or ignite a familiar memory and cause an emotional reaction, however subtle, in a viewers mind. Yet the image itself is a flat 2D representation of the real world.

We all know that 3D movies are about immersing the viewer in a more accurate representation of the world. The “depth channel” is unlocked in a 3D movie, albeit just an optical illusion. Depth can also be called the spatial relation between the different objects or subjects in a scene. Giving the brain access to this Spatial Information was previously impossible in 2D movies, and the closest attempts to do so were lateral movement of the camera to record parallax, or the use of depth of field and “deep staging” in movie scenes to recreate that “3D” look.

Why… in every 2D movie, the most frequent reference made is how to give a scene that 3D look. Now that we have the technology and the tools to do so, are we using it effectively? This article aims to ask as many questions as it does to answer them and provoke thought on the effective use of 3D

Depth Script – The true reason for it 3D movies:

It’s very fashionable to use terminology such as depth budget and a Depth script in 3D movie making. These are new terms being coined as stereoscopic 3D movie-making is being rediscovered. What exactly is the need for a depth script? That can run into a few pages of theory and practical examples, but let’s try to condense it a bit

• A feature film is approx 90 to 100 minutes long or should be, in the first phase of 3D movie making, so as to acclimatize audiences to 3D viewing. A depth script ideally shows the ebb and flow in a linear fashion, the depth or shallowness of the 3D effect as the movie progresses. There can be a master depth script outlining the overall strength of the 3d effect (both in and out of the screen) at different points in the movie, or a per character depth script for narrative feature films.

• Depth scripts are also said to be used to craft the “mood” of the 3D film… Examples being that in a sad scene in the movie, depth should be flattened, in happy scenes …depth should be..well deeper.

• Suggestions are also made that “inflating” a subject such as the Protagonist or Antagonist in a movie, will lend more “power” to that character… and many such theories.

We aim not to debunk any of these creative methods or theories, but rather to pose questions on the effectiveness or non effectiveness of them.

*Sidenote: If the window in the scene above is painted green, it lends well to a technique called multi-rigging for rounded 3D depth.

Should Sad scenes in 3D be flat?

To me, this is a mixed bag answer… worthy of serious investigation using many scenarios before coming to a conclusion. For example, in real life if we are depressed and lying in bed on a gloomy cloudy day looking out the window, would the world be compressed down like the layers of a popup get-well-soon card and be flattened down to the depth level of the windowpane?

Or would we still see a 3D world, that extends beyond the window, but with muted color?.

Another question that comes to mind, would it take us away from the immersion of the film, if subconsciously the brain is pre-occupied with a growing thought that something is not right with this 3D world?

This could be counter productive for the Director if the audiences’ snap out of the unfolding story on seeing an abnormal use of depth in the scene.

• Does a room go flat if you feel sad? The answer is a no…BUT we have to ask the question; When we  are lost in thought, due to sadness or some such emotion, and we stare blankly out the window, or at an object at the far end of a room, are we really conscious of all the roundness of the world around us? In most probability our eyes are glazed, not really focusing on anything in particular, and indeed it could be said that the world gets “flat”

Can the Director actually Engineer this emotion in audiences via a 3D film? Should he/she attempt to?

The Good Story versus Technical Critique Experiment:

The easiest test of a well directed movie is when you go into the movie, from a point of view of evaluating it technically, but get lost half way into the movie absorbed in the story, or at the very least, getting distracted from your original task by the skilled acting and direction in the movie.

A good story when coupled with good story telling ability will draw the audiences into the film, whether it’s a 3d movie or not. We all know that a movie should not be made for 3D, and that 3D should be in the background, building the mood for the story.

Good camera work, acting, lighting and directing does. However it can be argued that the very powerful optical illusion that is 3D…when used right, can supersede any of these other instruments of visual story telling. After all even without good camera work, acting or directing, it’s a real world (in the audiences view) to roam around in.

Therein lies the clue to the Director of whether he/she should or should not attempt to engineer emotions in the audiences by playing with the depth of a scene.

When to Engineer Emotions with Creative use of 3D:

As mentioned, the Director can never be sure or over confident of his story telling ability. Despite his best efforts, the outcome may not be as expected especially in a 3D movie. In 2D movies the audiences will rarely stray to examine the rest of the scene if the dialog is not gripping enough. In a 3D movie you can be ASSURED they will. Even an insignificant lamp or chair or bookshelf in a scene will be more interesting and invite visual curiosity when the audience has lost interest in a scene.

• Giving the Audience “eye time-out” In a 100 minute feature film in 3D, we have to make sure that audiences are not immersed in “deep 3D” from start to finish. This could be visually exhausting. Hence the Depth Script.

When engineering emotions or creating a mood with the use of 3D, we CAN flatten the depth and use a more conservative depth budget,  but a suggestion would be to do that in combination with creative scene framing to be absolutely sure of not disrupting the suspension of disbelief.

Starting off with a conventional rounded depth budget for an interiors scene for a few seconds to not conflict the brain, and moving in closer to on-screen talent is one way of executing a subtle depth change. This will relax the eyes.

• Switching from Graphics Processing, to logic processing: Borrowing from computer terminology… we can relax the audiences GPU (graphics processing unit..a.k.a the eyes) to allow their brains to process the plot unfolding by knowing when to creatively switch between deep 3D and a more subtle depth.

To give another example: When a good DJ is performing at a nighclub, watch his or her routine. At some point they will gradually build up the tempo to near frenzy that will have almost the whole club on the dancefloor. Very talented DJs can hold the audiences till they are in danger of burning out, by seamlessly mixing one hit track after the other. However, a burnt out nightclub is no good and the night would end in a few hours from exhaustion. They thus know the right time when to ebb the tempo and turn it back on again. One wrong move and the clubbers walk out of the floor.

Making the switch is an art-form and takes talent to execute well in a 3D movie. Suddenly deciding to “flatten” the depth of a scene simply because it’s a sad scene, may “pull” the audiences out of the story. Timing it well, will make for a rewarding 3D movie experience.

Inflating & Deflating Depth…2D to 3D conversion?:

Proponents of 2D to 3D conversions will say that for the ultimate control of “depth” in a 3D movie, there is nothing like shooting it in 2D and converting the scenes in post. This brings up a whole set of questions:

• Theory of Inflating ‘depth’ : There is a suggestion that inflating the depth of a central character for example, will lend a more “powerful” look or persona to that actor, be it hero or villain in a scene. This brings up questions… In real life if we are accosted by a person on a street, and an argument ensues while a crowd builds up around us, do we see the crowd as flatter than the person accosting us?

This could be true… our peripheral vision would probably blur out the rest of the crowd as our full attention would go to the person accosting us. The same would be true even in a non threatening situation. In a scene in an office boardroom, where it would be suggested that inflated depth or roundness be given to the central person who may be speaking at the time. Would the rest of the boardroom members seated at the table then deflate like air balloons?

In 2D to 3D conversions, it’s possible to do this to one object or subject in the scene, but what would our brains make of this? Would it distract us?

The answer would be that in order to use this technique effectively, it all comes down to knowing when to make the Switch and using the Eye-Time-out technique as explained earlier.

• The Subtle 3D look: A favorite quote from 2D to 3D conversion-ists is to proclaim that conversions allow for a subtle and controlled 3D look. In effect one of the hidden things not mentioned, is that due to the very nature of 2D to 3D conversions, there are “holes” to be filled with missing info that needs either artists to hand fill, in the worst case scenario, or in the best case, background needs to be sourced and patched in from elsewhere or from preceding frames or background plates of the film.  The deeper the 3D, the more the hole filling needed. Thus the subtle look argument goes well.

A subtle look 3D film (with no relationship to the story or particular scene) may as well be 2D.

Creative use of depth on a per scene basis, is where the art of stereoscopic 3D storytelling is at. In the image above how realistic would conversion of raindrops sliding down a window pane be, when converted from 2D to 3D. Would it be able to recreate the mood of a gloomy winter day? at what cost?

These are also some questions that need to be asked.