Positives

The best 3D shots were the aerial views of the city. Good timed cuts, helped keep the illusion going, without giving time for miniaturization to set in and get noticed.

Negatives

Completely un-motivated use of depth of field in many shots, especially narrative scenes. The semi blur background imagery in the opening scenes of the young peter parker looking around the house, can cause headaches.

Rating
Our Rating
User Rating
Rate Here
Usability
Fun Factor
Quality
Bottom Line

The Amazing Spiderman does not, and again...in my opinion...have any Amazing 3D. Even in Imax.

Our Rating
User Rating
You have rated this

Stereomatography: What is it?

It could be defined as the art of recording the spatial depth of a scene in motion pictures.Why is it relevant to the latest 3D movie now out in Cinemas; The Amazing Spider-man?

We all know what Cinematography is. In a nutshell, it is the art (and science) of shooting and producing moving pictures. The Cinematographer or Director of Photography is in-charge of this department of a film being shot. Everything has been going smooth thus far, and then Stereoscopic 3D re-surfaces in all it’s Digital glory this decade, and suddenly roles of crew and definitions of techniques in film get changed.

Enter the Stereographer. His/Her role is not new, and stereography as an artform has been around since before photography itself, although many stereographers initially started out as photographers with a skill for capturing the 3rd dimension on 2D film.

With motion pictures going 3D, there is a dire need for Stereographers or Cinematographers who understand the nuances (and complexities) of capturing the 3rd Dimension. Getting a Stereographer who’s background is only still photography may not work. For instance, Stereographers were used to dealing in still shots, so their taste in 3D tends to run deep. Now in a still image this is not so bad, but in moving images…a.k.a a movie projected on a big screen, it can cause physical hurt to audiences if the 3D is not done right.

Any number of things can cause eye-strain and headaches:

Bad 3D jump cuts, spatial dis-continuity, eye-time-out, excessive positive parallax (divergence), Stereo window violations causing retinal rivalry, un-motivated rack focus, pacing and panning of the camera… and more. I’ve not explained the previous few terms here on purpose. The reason being is that some of the terms are related to techniques that are used with 2D cinematography and DPs and Directors will be familiar with them, and the other terminology is familiar with Stereographers. But each of these professions and their practitioners not necessarily has grasped enough of the other’s craft or mindset, the result being less than spectacular use of Stereoscopic 3D as a new visual language of storytelling.

The non philosophical meaning: Audiences soon enough, won’t care whether a movie is in 2D or 3D. They wont pay extra or wear glasses when there is no obvious difference! Bear with me, the 3D review of The Amazing Spider-Man is coming along shortly…

The Stereo-ma-tographer, or DoS (Director of Stereography).

I propose that a new professional be part of the film making Hierarchy. This professional will sit with the Cinematographer and the Director, and his/her word will hold equal if not more weight-age, in the shot composition and emotion engineering aspect of a Stereoscopic 3D movie.

Oh yes, a scene presented in Stereoscopic 3D can engineer emotions in audiences on a grander scale than in just 2D. After all it’s a powerful optical illusion that activates our primary survival instincts (we duck when something flies out even though we know its not real).

The reason I suggest the title of Stereomatographer, and it’s no more a mouthful than Cinematographer, is in part due to participating in a recent discussion on forums where professionals who were part of the Spider-man crew suggested that their hands were in effect, tied to the decisions and wishes of those higher up in the hierarchy. With an established title and job responsibility, the buck will indeed now stop with the Stereomatographer.

Dial 3D for Murder:

Today’s breed of Stereographer unfortunately do not want to take a risk of dialing up the 3D on scenes. They feel it will murder the audiences eyeballs. Now I will be the first to say that excessive 3D on a 2 hour or indeed even a 1 hour film will tax an audiences eyes.

The art and craft of good stereo 3D is in creative use of the Z axis on a scene by scene basis.

Another myth is that you can’t have things invading audience space because that’s a gimmick. This is true, but again, Stereographers or un-informed Directors and Cinematographers who have attended recent 3d 101 workshops seem to be taking this to heart, or even as an excuse not to plan, camera block and shoot tests for ascertaining the effect that good 3D can have when done properly.

*Motivation* is key to a stereo 3D moment. If it makes sense and fits in with that particular scene, use the available stereo real-estate. Because Stereographers and DPs want to play it safe, today’s 3D movies have 3D cameras with interaxial (interocular) distance of an ant, which in turn gives flat 3D. Have any movies broken this mold? I can name two: HUGO and PROMETHEUS.

and so… on to the critique: The Amazing Spiderman does not, and again…in my opinion…have any Amazing 3D. Even in Imax.

The Amazing Spider-man a 3D review:

In 3D, bigger is better*. That’s why I chose to watch the movie at an IMax Cinema. What may look a little flattish on a smaller screen will fill out substantially on an Imax screen, and more so, sitting dead center and at the second last row in the cinema. **

Did it work? Again, No!

In points here’s what I noticed about TASM (The Amazing Spiderman)

  • Completely un-motivated use of depth of field in many shots, especially narrative scenes. The semi blur background imagery in the opening scenes of the young peter parker looking around the house, can cause headaches. I am all for Shallow depth of field as a story telling tool  in 3D, but there needs to be NO ambiguity (no semi out of focus regions) when you wield and unleash this weapon on un-suspecting audiences.
  • Cardboarding…glorious cardboarding… in almost all the narrative/dialog scenes. This can be a combination of using long lenses and/or really minuscule interaxial separation on the 3D rig. Where does the buck stop on this one? The DP or the Stereographer?
  • Opinion again – Compare this movie’s stereography which was native for the most part (both live action and CGI) to something like Avengers, and I’ll admit Avengers has more rounded 3D on their converted dialog scenes! In TASM, there were many shots that looked like Peter Parker has a quirk of pressing his head into his neck. I do suspect that these flat faces phenomena may also be the result of a few converted shots if any stereo errors were found during principal photography. (but I’m speculating on that).
  • Stereo real estate: and lack of use thereof. Yes I realize this movie is (also?) aimed at kids who have a smaller interocular than adults, but this is supposed to be a spectacle/action film, and stereo real-estate is both behind and in-front of the stereo window. USE it.
  • To be fair, one saving grace was the very good use of the stereo budget in the finale. I recall at least two moments where Spidey did cross-over to our side, even if briefly. There was another couple of moments when debris flew into audience space. All motivated shots, I’m happy to point out.
  • A particularly good use of 3D was the back of a helicopter with the city below.
  • The best 3D shots were the aerial views of the city. Good timed cuts, helped keep the illusion going, without giving time for miniaturization to set in and get noticed.
  • Toward the end, bad use of rack focus on peter parker with his aunt.
  • In Imax 3D, one scene using unmotivated rack focus almost didn’t work. In the Lab when Peter Parker notices the Professors neck. Why did it not work? It did not work because in Imax 3D, the edge of the screen is almost at an audiences peripheral field of view. Even though I was seated in the second last row with no obstruction in front, the “Framing” had the Professor at the extreme edge of the screen. What’s a motivated Rack focus in 3D? It’s now part of a chapter in the book “Think in 3D

Additional Thoughts:

  1. Slow motion shots of Spidey invading audience space (a la The Matrix) would have been nice. Why? So that I could “feel” the texture of that Spidey suit. Why spend so much attention to detail and not give credit to Wardrobe and Art Dept, when in a 3D movie, the audience can reach out and touch that costume?
  2. Should the Stereographer explain these intricacies and capabilities of the medium to the Director? or should he/she just be subservient? Would a title of Stereomatographer or DoS be able to pull this off?
  3. A stereographer, today it seems, is a cog in the wheel, someone who is at the mercy of the Director and DP. A Stereomatographer could be someone who can Direct the Stereoscopy in the film and enlighten the Director on something like point (1) above.
The Client is King:

I’ll end this review with some food for thought:

In the on-going exchange of opinions and thoughts on TASM, some professionals who worked on the Spider Man movie mentioned that they would rather fit in with the film crew, and that the client (in this case the Director / DP / Studio) is king. They mentioned that they would love to have a free hand in the setting the 3D, but were complying with a collective decision taken by others.

I do have a perspective on this: The actual “client” is the Audience. They pay the salaries of the film crew and in a 3D movie, the salary of the Stereographer.
If we keep delivering flatties, catering to the un-informed whims of others (either superiors or counteparts) then soon enough one day the audience is going to wake up, say “Hey!” what’s the difference between the 2D and 3D version of this film? Why are we paying the difference in price and wearing glasses to boot?

Who loses their job in this case when 3D dies out yet again?
The Director? – no
The DP? – not even
Stereographer – Ahhh!

If there is any doubt that the Audience is the client, and that it DOES matter to them and that they DO notice what a good or bad 3d film is, then look no further than 3D aficionado sites such as AVS who are currently discussing this very film

Or, sites such as Cinema Blend when doing their famous Glasses ON/OFF test, for the 3D-worthiness of a film. Websites such as these, and Social media will influence the future of 3D films.

I firmly believe that it is the job of the Stereographer to advise and control the depth budget. While there is nothing wrong in being flexible and a team player, let not the Stereographer be thought of as the water-boy. It is the duty of a Stereographer to educate film-makers in the art and craft of using the 3rd Dimension as visual language for storytelling.

After all, with great power…come great responsibility: Of keeping Stereo 3D alive.

 In 3D, bigger is better– I clarify here, that I don’t mean bigger interaxial! This is in response again to an email referenced below. Here’s an example I gave: Take a scene from TASM for instance. Say the overhead aerial shot of the city with spidey on the tower. On a home cinema projection of 2 meters or a 3DTV of 50 inches, would ‘that’ look believable or toy like? now the same scene in a Cinema or Imax, doesn’t it feel more immersive?

** Another email — from someone who worked on the film– advised me to not sit in the second row of a cinema. To be clear, as mentioned, I sat in the second last row. In Dubai the working week starts Sunday, so you get the luxury of an empty Imax cinema for a Sunday morning show. Any people sitting in the front rows of a 3D cinema will see much flatter 3D that what I experienced.

  • Matt Faw

    Hi Clyde.

    Thanks for this and other reviews here. I also read the (fiery) conversation on the yahoo group, and was interested in the various takes on the subject.

    As a working professional in L.A., I am as familiar as the next person with the tension between “pleasing your client” and “being true to your craft”. I’ve shot several (2D) feature films, and have produced many promos and segments for TV, and I’ve found, sadly, that the tension never goes away. I hope that the tension can provide the fodder for truly interesting collaborations, but I’ve also found that the projects in which I had to do the least compromising, were also the ones that won the most awards and accolades. I think that this is because the best work is often the most pure and fearless, and committee decisions almost always default to safe mode.

    Specific to TASM, I was pretty disappointed by the depth in the movie. I do think it is worth going deeper in criticism than the choices of interaxial and lens length, however, which is as far as the DVinfo discussion went, before it slipped into discussions of personal integrity vs. professional client-pleasing skills. In particular, TASM missed so many opportunities to exploit the depth, not just in separation of subject from background, but in the other possibilities that stereo provides. For example: detail. Frames that are crowded with staggered detail on various depth planes don’t necessarily work well in 2D, but they look phenomenal in 3D. A great example of this was the first interior (of the spaceship) shot in Avatar, the cryo-chamber, as all the capsules began to open. An even better example is from the owl movie “Legend of the Guardians”, in which ever feather was lovingly rendered in 3D space. This is one of the profoundly beautiful possibilities in stereo films that has been ignored in every online discussion I’ve seen.

    Back to TASM: so much of the movie took place inside the Parker house, with seemingly no interest in taking advantage of the depth available. Singles are shot in front of flat walls, or are shot dirty, with the over-the-shoulder back-of-the-head bokeh’d and plum in the foreground. There is almost no moving camera in these scenes, even though nothing shows off depth like dolly and crane moves. I remember one shot in the house that takes advantage of the stereo: namely, the one at the dinner table with the door frame and chandelier, center-screen. When that shot arrived, a small light went on, like: “oh, the filmmakers do realize they’re shooting stereo”. But of course, even that shot used too limited an IA (and boring set dressing), and didn’t make up for all the other flat staging.

    In my opinion, the set dressing and costumery are every bit as important considerations in (natively shot) 3D, as the IA. A great example of this is the recent “3 Musketeers”, which looked interesting only when it showed off the baroque facades and set decoration of the castle they shot at. I think the art and costume departments were the only ones who received the memo on that movie, that it was supposed to be stereo. Unfortunately, there wasn’t even that going for TASM. If it weren’t for a couple of the aerial shots that you pointed out (and the ticket price I paid for 3D), I would have forgotten that I was even watching a movie in stereo. Now, I do understand that filmmakers want to balance the needs of the (melo)drama with those of spectacle, but I was much more distracted by the lack of depth in a supposedly spectacle movie, then I would have been, by its over-use. TASM had a nice story, but it suffered from lack of visual interest on many levels, which seems like the kiss of death for a big-budget comic book film. Actually, I’ve never seen a movie that I thought was “too deep”, so I don’t know what all the fear is about.

    Once again, thanks for the reviews, and I look forward to more.

    best,
    matt faw
    stereo filmmaker

    • clydeD

      >> For example: detail. Frames that are crowded with staggered detail on various depth planes don’t necessarily work well in 2D, but they look phenomenal in 3D.

      Very true. There is a case to be made for shallow DoF when it’s used judiciously, but Staggered depth a.k.a Deep Staging, in 3D holds it’s own altogether. I blame stereographers for not explaining this to un-initiated Directors and DPs for not fully understanding and exploiting this aspect of 3D.

      After all a good stereographer understands the medium and while no scene in stereo is the same for any two S3d “artists”, using short cuts and bland “framing” as you gave as examples above is what is making for sub par 3D.

  • muchrockness

    Great analysis Clyde and Matt. I fear that no matter how good 3D gets people will soon tire of the crapshoot. It certainly doesn’t help that the high-profile films are lackluster postconversions while the real game-changers are box office duds (Hugo, Tintin). I had been hopeful that this year would be different due to the influx of Red Epics going out to high-profile filmmakers, but we will probably have to wait yet a couple more years for them to develop a consistency.

    • clydeD

      Thank you muchrockness

  • clydeD

    Oh what the hell… I’m tired of the buck being passed on.
    I copy below, bits of an email, and a response I gave to the email I got from a professional directly involved in Spider-Man. I will not post his/her name as a courtesy and keeping integrity of the argument

    >> I really get the feeling that some people who complain about everythingbeing flat are the stereoscopic equivalent of partially-deaf people
    complaining the sound volume is too low on their TV and want to watch
    everything with the volume cranked. you may want to devise a
    test to check and see if subtle 3D is lost on you.

    Me: No, I know what subtle 3D is. again trust me on that. By you
    suggesting that I re-evaluate my experience in the medium… well, I just
    wont get into that argument.
    I know the difference between subtle and full blown. I humbly request you to
    read a few chapters in the book Think in 3D to fully grasp where I’m coming
    from in using the 3D budget on a scene by scene basis, and how even
    deflating and inflating depth in a movie can be used in a story.
    so rest assured I know what I’m speaking of when I say the
    movie was flat in many/most of the narrative scenes.

    >> Remember that as the interaxial distance increases, the problems arising
    from retinal rivalries of occluded objects in the backgrounds also increase.

    Me: I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but I think you mean positive
    parallax increases. Yes, this I understand, that’s why on any given screen
    size Imax included we don’t want a physical separation of more than human
    interocular distance, to prevent audiences going wall eyed…. and yes it is
    not as black and white as that… because depending on distance to screen,
    and the slight angle that human eyes can diverge comfortably, the cone of
    vision/field of accomodation would allow for greater than human interocular
    separation…. See I get all this and very informed on it.

    Where retinal rivalry is of a bigger concern is in Negative Space i.e foreground occulsions (window violations et al) not so much background
    occulusion. (when you know how to take care of excessive positive parallax, without flattening the 3D by a catch all safe interaxial)

    >> The audiences have spoken. Everyone loved the 3D in Spiderman, except for a few small online bloggers who are the exception rather than the rule. I can argue all day about what makes bad 3D, but in the end, you’re right, the audience is the client, and they loved it.

    Me: I understand. And that’s why I mentioned two consumer/hobbyist forums and sites that are catching on to what good and bad 3D is.
    So it’s not just a few online bloggers. the audience is getting educated and
    soon enough Joe Public will understand the difference.

    Just my thoughts.
    Best Regards
    Clyde

    • clydeD

      What really gets to me is that “blogs” are being brushed aside as a rant platform, in an effort at escapism from professionals if something is not reviewed in a positive light.

      Just as you tube has trashy videos, it’s also the platform that has exposed otherwise un-noticed talent that would not get a foot in the door if left to traditional channels.

      As for this “blog”, I believe it speaks for itself?

    • It sounds as if this “professional” actualy thinks that some scenes should barely be in 3D at all and I just don’t buy that frankly.
      Use narrow depth of field to focus attention on characters in dialogue scenes when necessary by all means. Just make sure the actors appearing on screen are still in 3D! Shifting the 3D to a point at which it is so subtle you cannot see any roundness in characters faces instead, which he seems to be advocating, just isn’t an approach that works in my opinion.

      • clydeD

        couldnt have said it any better. Thank you for your stand on this Alan

  • Clyde:
    Thank you for your critique & analysis. Some things which were not mentioned in the Yahoo barrage are important to consider.
    Most reviews, especially the favorable ones, note an uneven tone to SPIDER-MAN and reference the fact that the director (having directed only one, low-budget independent feature) was assisted by two other directors who were assigned the action scenes and the FX scenes. As you will note, these scenes were also the ones with the most dynamic (at least, relatively) stereoscopy.
    While the email responses from the stereoscopic supervisors involved with TASM implied the look and choices were made at the behest of the director (whose main qualification, the surname Webb, was not even exploited in the press). Actually, what they said was Webb decided the 3D would distract from the dramatic scenes and 3D should be only keyed to the action scenes. Which is pretty much like saying, let me make my movie in 2D and leave the headache of working with 3D to the other two guys.
    Of course, the Yahoo flame war all started in response to the 2nd Unit Stereographers being completely omitted from any screen credits, and the rest of the 3D crew buried at the bottom of a long end crawl.
    From your review, it is pretty obvious Webb decided to shoot his scenes as a low-budget independent, the way he knows how. Static shots, talking heads, everyone sitting around a dinner table talking AT each other, not WITH. I suspect, the real distraction of 3D in these scenes, would be the director’s facility with editting in stereospace. If everyone is cardboard, it is easier to cut from close-up to close-up without regard to jump-cuts. 3D exposes lazy edits.
    Of course, when I have an intimate conversation with a woman like Emma Stone, the closer I get the rounder she looks. Hell, you wouldn’t need to narrow the interaxial, because from Peter’s POV everything good about her would naturally expand out of real-world proportions. I have seen Emma, up close and in person. Ditto, Andrew Garfield. I know what they would look like in a real world of dramatic tension. Cardboard ain’t gonna’ gut it, feller! Talk about distraction, and waste of a gorgeous opportunity. The only thing worse would be to shoot Emma in B&W.
    Sorry, too long a rant. But here’s another point that should be made. The TASM people you quote claim the public voted with their dollars, that they liked SPIDER-MAN 3D. Okay, they voted. Less than 46% of the audience paid the extra money for a 3D ticket (granted, some of the 2D “accidentally” walked into the 3D theatre, next door). Compare that to the 65% that went for the fake 3D of CLASH OF THE TITANS. What does that say about TASM’s Stereoview?
    Peter Parker has nothing on the “spider-sense” of the viewing audience. They sense trouble way before the movie comes out. They feel that “tingle” long before the bloggers start complaining.
    And what the bean-counters do not take into account: If the 3D is not worth seeing, the audience can wait a couple of months to see it on home video rather than pay twice the price of a DVD to watch it once in a 2D theatre. Who knows how many families decided it was cheaper to wait for the $15 disc than buy a half-dozen tickets for the kids? We do know, the B.O. is way below the previous trilogy.
    Lastly, do we know the optical capability of any of the filmmakers? Do they have vision problems? Do they see the world the same way I do?
    At filmmaker Q&A’s, I always raise the issue of 3D (well, lately, there is always someone in the crowd who beats me to the punch). There is a lot of reluctance among filmmakers, who treat 3D like the obligatory nude the producer insists will sell more popcorn. On closer examination, it turns out they have vision problems. Julie Delpy responded that she has a stigmatism that obscures one eye. I knew one filmmaker who didn’t like 3D, until he had to have an eye operation. It was discovered he was nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other. Post-surgery, he now enjoys 3D.

    One of the 3D shorts in last year’s 3D Film Festival was an experimental piece that kept intercutting a girl on an overhead swing against a black background. A natural shot for extreme negative parallax, it was instead kept completely behind the screen. The editor informed me, the director has vision problems that made it painful negative parallax shots painful for her. So the audience has to sacrifice to accommodate the comfort zone of the director.
    Imagine what HOUSE OF WAX or STRANGER WORE A GUN would look like if Andre de Toth, their one-eyed director, kept everything in his “comfort zone”?
    So, maybe Webb has a problem seeing 3D? Maybe, he just doesn’t like it? Maybe the stereographers on TASM would not have been hired, if they pushed for full stereo? Maybe, the only reason they keep getting hired is because they will acquiesce to whatever the “artiste” demands when their more-experienced competitors would not?
    And that brings me to the final, most important point of my rant, kind of overlooked in the Yahoo group. There are a lot of enormously talented and richly-experienced Stereoscopic artists who are out of work and losing their homes. There are directors & D.P.’s & editors & actors & writers who want to do 3D and know how to do 3D and not getting the work. How come, the 3D jobs keep going to people who hate 3D?

    If you don’t like the medium, don’t take the job. Why fight with the equipment, when you can let someone who enjoys the work do the job? Is money the only all-powerful motivator? If so, then that is what the Yahoo group meant when they kept using the term “selling out” instead of “selling the story”.
    Meanwhile, the musicians and sound engineers are laughing at us. They went through all this 60 years ago, with stereo and quadrophonic. They heard the same “pontifications” about restraint, that the surround channels had nothing to do with the music, that everything should center down front, the purity of monaural sound. That it should be in front of you not around you. Every sound person knows the power & emotional impact of sound & music in the atmosphere around the listener. Maybe, it is time to turn the reins over to them, for awhile.
    2 Crazy 4 3-D — JRC

    • clydeD

      >>
      Which is pretty much like saying, let me make my movie in 2D and leave the headache of working with 3D to the other two guys.

      Well put JRC. This also leads me to believe that this was not a 3D film that was thought through. If they had varied “depth” to show moods of Spidey, his aunt etc..deep for happy, shallow for sad.. I’d still have understood that there were stereographers and a Director who understood the medium. Instead, no..just long drawn out static narrative shots with dismal depth with convergence on the talents faces and made worse by the DP (semi)blurring out the background. So no spatial cues whatsoever for the audience to appreciate being at a 3D movie.

      >> Maybe, the only reason they keep getting hired is because they will acquiesce to whatever the “artiste” demands when their more-experienced competitors would not?

      Seems like a plausible explanation.

      >>If so, then that is what the Yahoo group meant when they kept using the term “selling out” instead of “selling the story”.

      I think I was the one who mentioned “selling out” there, and that’s what put a few on the defensive.

      I was later almost a victim of an (maybe un-intentional) attempted Jedi Mind Trick, with one of the professionals chastising me on not knowing what 3D was, and of writing more, when I should instead be shooting more 3D, and that i needed to re-evaluate and re-calibrate my senses to appreciate and understand 3D.
      I almost succumbed to this for a brief moment, but then I guess my Spidey senses kicked in 😉

      >>They heard the same “pontifications” about restraint, that the surround channels had nothing to do with the music, that everything should center down front, the purity of monaural sound.

      I’m going to quote and attribute this piece of valuable information to you, during upcoming seminars I’m doing on the Art of storytelling in 3D.

      Thanks for weighing in JRC.

    • “And that brings me to the final, most important point of my rant, kind
      of overlooked in the Yahoo group. There are a lot of enormously talented
      and richly-experienced Stereoscopic artists who are out of work and
      losing their homes. There are directors & D.P.’s & editors &
      actors & writers who want to do 3D and know how to do 3D and not
      getting the work. How come, the 3D jobs keep going to people who hate
      3D?

      If you don’t like the medium, don’t take the job. Why fight
      with the equipment, when you can let someone who enjoys the work do the
      job? Is money the only all-powerful motivator? If so, then that is what
      the Yahoo group meant when they kept using the term “selling out”
      instead of “selling the story”.”

      AMEN Brother!

      I am with YOU on this one! :-)

      Cesar Rubio

      D&A Rubio Stereo 3-D

      Guadalajara,Mexico & Wisconsin.

      http://www.dna-rubio-s3d.com/

      http://dream-genesis.org/

  • Gerard Cain

    Everyone had great expectations about SPIDER-MAN’s 3D.
    It has been a huge disappointment to see how the guys from RED or 3ality claimed that TASM 3D would be amazing, while it was not different than a converted movie.

    Conclusion: Forget TASM quickly and wait for the next Prometheus.

  • Cesar Rubio

    Hi Clyde:

    Nice to hear an HONEST review from a Professional and good Stereographer like YOU are, that is not solely interested in making “friends” in the medium, but be FRIEND of the medium itself, that we love so much: Stereo 3-D.

    Congratulations, and keep up the good work my friend!

    Cesar Rubio

    D&A Rubio Stereo 3-D

    Guadalajara,Mexico &Wisconsin.

    http://www.dna-rubio-s3d.com/

    http://dream-genesis.org/

  • Sean Fairburn

    Clyde, Very Good perspective Greatly Appreciated.
    I agree with your points and perspectives. Sometimes Technology and art advance one Funeral at a time. I dont think 3D can survive wasted opportunities like this much more.

    Again Amazing Job Greatly Appreciated
    Much of my work with MIO 3D is making it easier to have options in Post when the Committee dont really know what they want or the experience to decide on set what to do.

    Your term Stereomatographer I think can be shortened to Stereotographer the MA can be cut out as it was the last part of Cinema to Go.
    The other option is to have the title Director of Stereo be uplifted.
    Unfortunatly No one qualifies Directors or Dp’s so its hard to qualify those working and giving themselvs the title when truly qualified people sit in silence.

    Stay Amazing Brother
    Great Job.

    B. Sean Fairburn
    CEO MIO 3D
    Director of Stereo

    • clydeD

      Thank you Sean!