Blade Runner 2049 3D conversion (7 replies and 8 comments)
As I know Blade Runner 2049 will be showing in 3D and IMAX3D. So, I am curious that are you working on 3D conversion progress with the conversion company or let them do their job?
Ps. I have to apologize for my writing skills.
I am involved in the 3D conversion. Obviously, there are all sorts of ways to interpret a 2D film in 3D space rather than it being a standard setting.
I can't wait to see your work in 3D.
I'm hoping for a strong 3-D experience at the imax. Old movies like House of Wax and Creature From the Black Lagoon continue to sell out at repertory screenings and festivals precisely because they are a strong 3-D experience. Newer 3-D films have sold more tickets than their flat 2d counterpart because the 3-D was deep enough to be an experience. If you provide shallow or marginal 3-D you will cheat the audience and disappoint a lot of people. They will no doubt still like the movie, but they also be disappointed.
I've seen so many of these 'Real 3D' films when the technology was new when 'Avatar' was released, and I felt the technology worked against the storytelling, because it feels too gimmicky and I was always aware of things that became distracting within the setting. I haven't seen a single filmmaker make any real use of the technology. I mean how do you begin to tell a story in three dimensional space when the way a film camera captures it is not true to how the human eye would see it. For instance, in a close-up the background will become blurry because of shallow depth of field, and that doesn't look very good in 3-D. So, I think the way William Wyler shot his films in deep focus with Gregg Toland would be a much better alternative. I know there have been a lot of experimental VR films which will inevitably replace 3-D and those horrendous glasses, but I think doing that would require a vastly different approach to filmmaking. I think there would have to be far less cutting, the cinema screen would become obsolete, as cinema-goers would have to put on VR devices, and the user would be able to rotate and see 360 around the room. Therefore, the way screenplays are written would need to become more interactive.
If films become three-dimensional in its truer sense, then films would become something like video games where the viewer is able to interact, maybe he can play an alternative character and interact with movie stars, and decide the 'fate' of the movie by making decisions that affect the course of the film.
The way 3-D films are made now are imprisoned to what the director wants, which is why I think people haven't responded to it very well, because its true potential hasn't been unlocked. Of course, when this revolution takes place, I will absolutely sever my film-going completely.
I think that's exactly how movies will change, because in this day and age everyone is so obsessed with themselves, they have their own little social media apps where they voice their opinions, people want to feel important. And with the emerging VR technology, placing the viewer as an interactive player in the film would heighten their experience. Imagine there is a VR horror film, and the viewer is one of the teen kids going on a camping trip, and as the cliche goes some demented serial killer begins to hunt them down. The decision this certain person makes will inevitably affect the outcome of the story, whether he lives or dies, or whether he is able to help his friends or not. I just realized the potential of VR films will place the viewer as their own movie star.
The way films are now, people don't have much of an excuse to go out and watch a movie. I mean everyone has their flat screen television with 4k resolution, you can get theater sound from Best Buy, buy a comfortable barcalounger and put some pop corn in the microwave and you have the same experience that you would have in a cinemark theater. Maybe this VR technology will revolutionize movies the way talkies made some filmmakers and actors obsolete. Someone out there will invest in this, I think Megan Ellison invested in this VR stuff. Just a crazy thought, since we're talking about 3-D.
I will plead the 5th regarding 3D.
Hi Roger, I respect your right to keep your personal opinions on 3D in general to yourself but I was wondering if 3D was a consideration at all during production and pre-production (camera/lens choice, shot selection, storyboarding)? Did it influence the choices you made or is this going to be essentially a 2D movie, retro-fitted to 3D?
I was kind of joking. Anyone who knows me also knows I do not like 3D.
So is it fair to read into that there was no consideration for 3D in pre-production or during production? Thanks in advance.
No, that is not really true. We knew we were going to produce a 3D version down the line so we did have that in mind. But when you shoot in 2D you are trying to create depth when it is called for and also reduce depth when that seems appropriate 3D conversion or not. You could say, and some do, that we should have shot everything on an 18mm lens and with a constantly moving camera but that would have been another film entirely. Maybe the 3D would have been 'better' but that is a personal opinion, nothing else.
Thanks for taking the time to answer the question. Much appreciated.
Since we see with two eyes, there should be no conflict in shooting films through two lenses that mimic how we see. Most current 3-D films look like muck because the visual syntax of 3-D is not respected. It is an afterthought to be tossed off in post. I hope that someday Roger Deakins will embrace the science and discipline of stereoscopic photography. If he plans and shoots in the process with a proper capture system I'm confident he'd do it right, and perhaps show others in the business that there is legitimacy and tremendous visual advantages in stereoscopic photography.
Kind of amusing when I visit the house where the expensive home audio equipment is nerfed by stereo placement without any separation ( sometimes stacked on each other without even acknowledging a directional attempt! )
I would have thought that using an audio stereo analogy as an example where realistic fidelity through the experience of depth ( space ) would be unimaginable to anyone's experience of sound.
But apparently even audio stereo is seemingly a gimmick in many peoples estimation? Or hopefully they simply account for a minority that simply do not care? ( "fideliopaths" )
On the other hand...
It is amusing that even stereo music met with resistance when first introduced! Where one might find listening to a seminal feat of 4 track audio pioneering recording such as the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Album unimaginable without stereo speakers or headphone magic. But George Martin and Geoff Emerick's stereo ambitions were met with resistance towards stereo by the musicians themselves! George Harrison's remarks towards the stereo version at the time seem to mirror the knee jerk sentiment that some have towards the bi-ocular visual equivalent: Depth as a cheap gimmick ( as if God gave us two eyes by mistake? ).
Fast forward to today and know one barely thinks twice about wearing bulky headphone cups over one's ears ( some models even garnering reputational awe of their technical achievements reflected in their price tags )
Light disposable polarizing glasses are a gimmick?
I suppose all is not well even with regards to Sgt. Pepper's standing as the new mono remix releases are being touted as the defacto experience fer listening to that music! ( insanity! )
Some even go so far as to claim that no effort was given to the stereo versions! Where they were rushed to market as cheap marketing fluff. In which case, Geoff Emerick had to go on record to set the record straight on George Martin's and His own visionary Stereo aspirations for Sgt Pepper's as recently as one month ago in Variety!
And an awful lot of it has been misinformation that I frankly find both defamatory and disrespectful. I’ve read that we put no time into the stereo mix, which is just inaccurate. We put just as much into the stereo mix as we did the mono mix. And to hear that [producer] George Martin would have loved to have all the tracks we have today to work from, I would say, “No, he wouldn’t.” But of course he’s not here to ask.
( not only re-interpreting mono madness... but apparently audio engineering disrespectful madness as well )
I don't think we can have it both ways.
We have two ears and two eyes!
One version of stereo depth cannot be a valid cumbersome headpiece while the other is magically anointed as gimmick because of tacky marketing considerations that have lingered on from the 50's.
What's infuriatingly difficult is the fervor in antipathy towards stereoscopic depth? As if in the angry internet age it is not enough to simply have one's own personal tastes and preferences...
But it is as if there simply can not be a minority preference as a "valid" experiential medium that is differnet. Where minority numbers equate to invalid/incorrect experiences that have to be openly dismissed and even mocked.
Infuriating because of the 1 out of 30 consumers who no longer have an LG OLED Stereoscopic option... Out of those 30, 29 naysayers who would not be affected one way or the other...
It is the Stereo Enthusiast who has the most avid investment!
( Already resigned to paying insanely disproportionately for that preference. One doesn't simply enjoy 3D... It is an invested interest! Nothing like the death of say, CD or VHS. Perhaps even desktop computing with a mouse for console gaming and tablet finger scrolling! It's more like... being a fan of headphone stereo immersion where one woke up to a world where the sale of all headphones and stereo recording where no longer marketed!
It's devastating. Jimi Hendrix under one ear instead of a good pair of stereo headphones? for all eternity? Devastating! )
The bulkiness and price of admission with the first gen of VR devices seem to add more negativity despite the billions invested into stereoscopic concerns oddly enough?
But all is not lost.
The new depth agnostic ( "essentially" infinitely focusable glass planes. Similar to the lytro "light field" photography technologies )
Glass lenses on upcoming AR glasses and head mounts might bring back depth concerns to the spotlight. Hopefully enough to drive new visually advanced technologies faster!
Many might be perfectly happy with stereo options in a "glassless/HMD-less" future.
But it's an impossible field of dreams with so much negativity towards a technology still in it's infancy.
A sad catch 22 made worse by an arrogant internet:
( make it and the market will come vs the market will come when they make it )
Came here by coincident searching to find out if Roger photographed Blade Runner in Stereo before choosing the right venue for my first viewing. It is awesome that he actively participated in the conversion process. Enough so that I think I will take a chance on that for the virgin experience.
I assume that the American Cinematographer Magazine issue is already out!
Since the Jordan Cronenweth/Bladerunner issue is the highest selling/back-issue requested in their history ( as well as fer Cinefex )...
It will be interesting to see if we have a sequel that can finally do justice to a legend! ( perhaps Godfather II? )
Happy accident either way finding this site! Been a devout fan since Barton Fink. ( still remember being horrified that Sonnenfeld wasn't directing photography. Who is this friggin Deakins upstart anyway? Who thinks he can mess with my exaggerated wide angle POV addictions? ) Though I remember being very excited about the energy caught in Sid and Nancy! ( had I known at that time? )
But ever since it's release...
Hudsucker is still my all time favorite cinematic accomplishment. Grossly underrated motif and montage.
Doh! Sorry for the wall...
I am inches from institutionalization with any posting that doesn't allow correcting mania with an edit feature.
Or am I overlooking an edit feature?
The intended dichotomy should had obviously read as: "they will make it when there is a sufficient market vs make it and the market will come".
Moore's hitherto unpublished/apocryphal...
"catch 22" rule for new technologies.