3D films - coming at us

Even casual filmgoers must have noticed the significant increase in "3D" format films being offered today. What used to be a somewhat rare and genre-niche format (think Jaws 3-D) is now being attached to major works by established directors - such as James Cameron's forthcoming Avatar. And in recent years, several films released in 3D have done well both critically and at the box office (such as the animated features Coraline and Aliens vs. Monsters). Of course this surge in 3D has also has the genre-niche, "axe flying at you" sorts of films you would expect to find from years ago - such as My Bloody Valentine and upcoming The Final Destination.

What is driving this? Why are we suddenly seeing this new wave of 3D films?

Unfortunately I'm not any kind of connected Hollywood insider, and cannot say for certainty what is driving the new studio support- but I do have a few guesses.

1. The most obvious reason is cash. I've noticed that the tickets for 3D films typically are a couple dollars more expensive. I assume this cost is justified by the studios with some kind of argument about the greater expense associated with the production/display of a 3D film--but this argument holds little water. There are many, many more costly variables in film production, and films already have wildly different budgets and are made with varied cinema technology; yet, the $100m budget blockbuster and $5m budget indie darling both cost $12.50 at the local cineplex. Yet, we aren't charged more for films that were more expensive or harder to make. Thus, it seems that 3D is just a thin justification to charge even more.

2. There's no real "home" market yet. Because you MUST go to the theater for the gen-u-ine 3D experience, they have a monopoly on that experience. (And can charge whatever they like for it, see above.) It this way, it's like the entire film industry before home video... again. And once the 3D home system becomes common, folks like George Lucas will re-master & sell you the Star Wars trilogy again but this time in 3D (...and perhaps, now Han Solo won't shoot it all).

3. Piracy. Offering films in a format that isn't widely available to home audiences might be seen as a shrewd move to thwart piracy. After all, the 3D presentation renders traditional "hidden video camera" piracy methods useless, because the single lens will capture the blurry superimposition of both images. But as many of us already know, the claim that the public is to blame for piracy is largely false; the high-quality copies that leak to the Internet almost always come from within the industry, in places like DVD duplication houses. The crappy, wobbly home video camera pirate copies have never put a dent in Hollywood's wallet and never will. So when there's a home market for 3D films, the pirate copies will emerge just as before, from within industry; but for the time being, there's little opportunity or incentive to pirate a 3D film.

4. Not the technology. It's not like Hollywood has been waiting for the technology is mature. The blue-red "amalgam" approach to 3D has been around for decades. The more popular, modern "linear polarizer" method has also been around a long while. While the miniaturization of cameras and the advent of superior digital rendering / compositing has made production less of a hassle, but the tech hasn't been a true barrier. The capacity to make decent 3D films has been around for decades in one form or another, although somewhat relegated to specialty theaters like IMAX. The biggest improvements in film process in modern times - high-def digital cameras and non-linear digital editors - didn't inherently enable 3D more than it enables the standard 2D.

However, CG is a relatively new form of animation, and it's particularly well-suited for 3D to begin with: the computer simply renders out the scene from two slightly, perfectly offset perspectives, creating two video files for the same scene. More complex, yes, but hardly as difficult as everything that goes into CG in the first place.

As for the projection, it's slighly more complex than a typical strip of film running through a projector, but not much more complex than a typical digital projection situation. In the case of modern linear polarization methods, the big trick is the material of the screen itself (reflects back light more perfectly) and, of course, the glasses.

Of course- this brave new world of digital cameras and robust desktop non-linear editing has empowered to common man to steal the thunder of Hollywood. You too can make a 3D film if you are driven to do so. Here's two examples of 3D for the mere mortals:

Check out MAKE: Magazine, volume 14 for a homebrew guide to 3D using linear polarization. I haven't tried this... yet.

Or for people that might want to capture their more extreme moments in glorious 3D, a company called Tachyon has created a relatively inexpensive and robust system. It uses the red-blue method, and apparently has its own editing package, too. Also very curious to try this.

And as the final word... let us not forget porn. Regardless of your tastes and sensibilities, new technology has been driven by horny men. Once there is a simple (not necessarily cheap, mind you) way to watch 3D at home (hands free), you can bet there will be enterprising and greedy folks producing incredible amounts of 3D porn. That's partially why VHS won, and why broadband internet was born-- it met new demands for adult entertainment. And when the market for this new form of porn appears, the floodgates will open and this format will start to become standardized. But until this happens, it will remain a mere curiosity--and Hollywood will retain their monopoly.

Even though the idea of 3D porn is scary and perhaps even less needed than HD porn, if that's what it takes to usher in the new era and steal the fire from the studio overlords, so be it.