Fall Stereographer Interview Series - THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES' SEAN KELLY

Our Fall Stereographer Series continues and has a great list of the world's best stereographers and technicians. Our goal is to enlighten you about the modern stereographer, his/her role in major tentpole productions, new technology and expert advice for the up and coming new generation of 3D creators. Be sure to check out all our interviews right here.

Next on tap for our series is stereographer Sean Kelly (THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES, THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG, THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY) who has also worked on some other movies in various capacities that you MAY have heard of, like AVATAR and THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN. How I would dearly love to be a fly on the wall during the production of these movies!! Well, we've got the next best thing in Sean right now...

Here's THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES' storyline:
From Academy Award®-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson comes THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES, the third in a trilogy of films adapting the enduringly popular masterpiece The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien.

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES brings to an epic conclusion the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield and the Company of Dwarves. Having reclaimed their homeland from the Dragon Smaug, the Company has unwittingly unleashed a deadly force into the world. Enraged, Smaug rains his fiery wrath down upon the defenseless men, women and children of Lake-town.

Obsessed above all else with his reclaimed treasure, Thorin sacrifices friendship and honor to hoard it as Bilbo’s frantic attempts to make him see reason drive the Hobbit towards a desperate and dangerous choice. But there are even greater dangers ahead. Unseen by any but the Wizard Gandalf, the great enemy Sauron has sent forth legions of Orcs in a stealth attack upon the Lonely Mountain. As darkness converges on their escalating conflict, the races of Dwarves, Elves and Men must decide – unite or be destroyed. Bilbo finds himself fighting for his life and the lives of his friends in the epic Battle of the Five Armies, as the future of Middle-earth hangs in the balance.

Thanks for making yourself available Sean - I know you are very busy! Let's start off with what is your favorite 3D movie and why?
Sean Kelly: I enjoyed the visuals and story of THE LIFE OF PI. The idea of being left in the middle of a large expanse has always appealed to me in 3D. To me, this is a movie that deserved 3D due to simplicity of the environment for much of the movie and how it played on the fact that we naturally understand the space of a vast ocean. 3D did its job of enhancing an already fantastic story and absorbing the viewer in the drama without asking for any "work" on the viewers behalf. The beautiful visual effects and lack of gratuitous 3D, for 3D sake, did it for me. GRAVITY was also a movie that worked extremely well. Again, the environment of space being a fantastic setting to showcase 3D, albeit, a conversion.

I loved LIFE OF PI! And GRAVITY was amazing with plenty of rendered 3D too. Explain your thoughts on the native 3D vs. 3D conversion debate as it stands with today's technology?
SK: I practice the native style of film making so I am prejudiced towards that. There is no doubt that conversions can be done at extremely high quality. Cost will of course always be a factor in the decision. If a movie is converted without enough money or time, then the final product will suffer. This is not necessarily true when shooting native. In conversions, if each shot is "signed off" by the director when they are 100% happy, and have the proper resources to ensure there is no compromise, there is no reason flawless 3D cannot be achieved. I suspect that often the reason a movie is converted is based on the fear of shooting speed on Set with 3D rigs. I believe this fear is unfounded with todays equipment and crews.

What do you make of the negative comments that Seamus McGarvey has made regarding 3D?
SK: Making a 3D movie was often filled with unknown technical dangers. These can be easily solved now. They can have a roll on effect when shooting starts. Preparation of the rigs to be used and the understanding of their limitations and expected uses is extremely important. On "the Hobbit" we had a very clear understanding of what was expected when shooting started and were lucky enough to have the backup and technical expertise on hand to ensure we were ready. 3Ality and RED were with us from the start so we could discuss, develop and solve issues in a very quick manner. We found that rather than prepping, we used the systems as though we were in a shooting scenario as early in preproduction as possible. This enabled us to encounter not only the time frames needed to put our systems into different configurations, (lens changes, cranes, hand-held, steadicam etc) but also to find 3Dcentric issues that a 2D crew would not normally anticipate. Our aim was to shoot at 2D speed and we were all very proud of the end result. Some of the developments, like wireless steadicam, helped operators continue their jobs without technology becoming a burden. Of course, the post production pipeline also benefited greatly from this pre production approach. To start a shoot, without solving these mainly time issues, understandably leads to problems. These "problems" are solvable and it is very possible to shoot movies, as we have always done in 2D, with the right people, equipment and preparation. It is a pity he had such an experience, it doesn't necessarily need to be that way.

Yes I've heard many, many great things about the technical expertise from 3ality. How to you position China now on the world cinema stage now that they have ~20,000 3D screens in place and growing?
SK: A major improvement! Its great to see how they have embraced the 3D technology and have decided it is the future. I believe they are shooting more 3D than 2D now? And TV content must also be delivered in 3D in many cases. For me it is a natural progression in visual media. We have had the technology to make this possible for many years now and the leaders, like 3Ality, are firmly setup there now. I hope other countries take note that, with good content, 3D is at least equal if not a better experience. They are also a huge market for the West which can always help the bottom line. Too much negative press for 3D worldwide was based on hearsay and faux 3D. Everything is in place for many countries to do the same as China and, also, the 4K TV can only help.

I agree. What brought you to 3D in the first place? (chance, study, interest, etc)
SK: I was a 1st AC based in Wellington. When James Cameron came to town to shoot Avatar I was asked if I would be interested in being a "convergence operator". I very quickly found I enjoyed the medium and learned many valuable lessons under James Cameron. After this I became involved in various projects with local cinematographer Richard Bluck and Peter Jackson. Peter was very innovative and experimented with 3D well before the Hobbit. During these times we used 3Ality rigs and RED cameras. I could safely say I was in the right place at the right time with the right people.

I'll say! James Cameron and Peter Jackson are two of the top driving forces of the 3D industry. What is your preferred set up on set? (camera, rig, lens, etc)
SK: Steadicam. The TS5 lightweight in full wireless mode. prime lens, a few picture receivers set up, our wireless IA/convergence set up, with many players in the scene. I imagine a nightmare for the operator to remember all the lines but the more IA/convergence moves the better. This, when done right, can be seamless and very rewarding as an end result. I think this may be the focus puller in me.

Are there any new stereoscopic technologies coming out in the field that has your interest?
SK: Laser projection for better brightness and bigger dynamic ranges. Colour is such an important part of depth perception so the whiter whites and blacker blacks with a greater controllable range in between will be a benefit to 3D.

When working with optics do you find there is disparity between how long it takes to make a 2D lens change verses a modern 3D set up?
SK: We will always blow our trumpets at this point. The 1st AC's I have worked with are extremely capable. We mainly shoot prime lenses. For them to unhook lens motors, slide two cameras back, remove and remount the new lens, re-hook motors and slide the two bodies back into position takes one to two minutes. The stereographer part of remotely loading the lens data to the rig and then visually aligning the lens in a zero or overlay position takes another couple of minutes. This sounds fast, and it can be. Obviously the physical position of where this needs to occur can add a little time. Many times it can be done quicker and there are tricks with the 3Ality system that means the remote stage done by the stereographer can be done during setup/rehearsal to shorten the time even more.


What would be your favorite shot for 3D and why?
SK: I have always liked a wide lens on a big technocrane move into a full drama shot. A slow move establishing the environment at the head. I like to ignore any so called edge violations in the move. Lots of atmosphere, heavy rain and a finishing point where the negative space can be used. A set with texture and natural depth cues. With luck, no CG elements that weren't expected will appear later!

Obviously 3D has matured since the late 2000's both in technology and expertise. What credentials / experience would you mention that helps separate you from the field and brings you to the top of the industry?
SK: I have been extremely lucky with the people and technologies that have crossed my path. From my first 3D experience with Avatar to the continuing work with experts like Director Peter Jackson, Cinematographer Richard Bluck, Post Production Stereograhper Meetal Gokul, physical and electronic technical expert Dion Hartley, and the farm of experts at 3Ality, I'm just very lucky.

What education would you recommend to up and coming stereographers / cinematographers in today's world?
SK: There are now many 3D courses available worldwide. I don't really have any knowledge of their quality so I can't comment. I am sure there would be excellent ones out there. Or the "hands on" method of contacting anyone who is in 3D. We are an industry of people passionate about what we do. Many of us (if not all) have been helped to get where we are by kind and sharing people and will naturally help others, when possible, into the industry. The problem can be the timing of when that help can be given so keep trying. Also, read about and watch 3D! Lots of it, you need to train your eyes to see it properly. Cinematographers shooting in 3D can be greatly helped by collaborating with a good stereographer. Stereo is only there to enhance what the Cinematographer and Director are out to achieve. It shouldn't be a compromise.

Do you have a post-production software preference for working with the stereo images to do any fine tuning you need to do?
SK: Meetal Gokul is the expert and he is using Mistika from SGO. Park Road Post Production have worked closely with SGO to develop pipelines and workflows with their DI platform Mistika. It has been a strategic partnership for a number of years, providing the solutions that have been needed.

How important is resolution? Would more pixels be more important for stereo 3D? Higher dynamic range? HFR, like what is used in THE HOBBIT trilogy?
SK: Acquisition at higher resolution is a benefit but it is necessary that they go through the entire process to realize their benefit. More pixels only if they are "good" pixels. They must include the best dynamic range, color space and color range. HFR is a given when you see and feel the smoother visual delivery of the movie.

Are there any specialty filters that you find enhance the stereo images? How about specialty filters that you have found should never be used?
SK: We have always shot without filtration. Polas can cause retinal disparities very easily and should therefore be used carefully.

Split focus diopters are a popular tool in 2D. Do you think a director looking for an effect like that can get that in stereo 3D?
SK: That would be something I would like to try. I haven't up until now and would be interested in the result.

Open mic: What is the biggest challenge that you'd like to openly discuss about today's 3D?
SK: Conversion vs Native. Can we find a way to shoot Native in the first place rather than convert later? I still believe that negative space looks better in native capture. Are the producers convinced that the native process is much more expensive? Is 48fps or 60fps the future? Does this slow down the uptake of native shooting due to the post production price and fit out? And subtitle placement??! These questions are part of what keeps the 3D world an exciting place to be involved in as it develops.

Open mic: What are you happiest about in the 3D field
SK: I enjoy the film making process and being part of the creative process. It is good to still be onset and still have the experience of film making. The physical side of shooting native 3D means I can still be up a mountain or beside a river. Knowing that advancements in technology mean that 3D will only become better and more accessible. I love walking onto a new set that will lend itself to good 3D and know that this is where we can make a difference from the traditions of 2D

If there was one thing you could change about the industry what would it be?
SK: The sometimes negative attitude towards 3D. I understand that it is very differcult to make everyone enjoy 3D, but we can help change this pre-conception by making more good 3D. There are very capable Stereographers, Cinemotographers, and Post Production houses who could help in projects that are damaging the 3D reputation. The people and physical technology is already here to be used and New Zealand is a great place to do it.


Thanks so much for your time for this Sean! Speaking for everyone, I wish the best of success for the finale of THE HOBBIT in THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES at the box office and for the award season. I'm sure I'll be in the theater multiple times to relive the experience over and over again just like I did with the first two! For more from Sean, check out Peter Jackson's production video blog #6 right here.

Stay tuned for our next interview in the our Stereographer Series coming soon!

Fall Stereographer Interview Series - STALINGRAD's Céline Tricart

Our Fall Stereographer Series continues and has a great list of the world's best stereographers and technicians. Our goal is to enlighten you about the modern stereographer, his/her role in major tentpole productions, new technology and expert advice for the up and coming new generation of 3D creators. Be sure to check out all our interviews right here.

Next up is a fast-rising, behind the camera star in the 3D world, Céline Tricart. She's multi-talented as she is also a writer, director and producer - but I want to focus on her 3D passion. She is an independent filmmaker and was stereographer on Gordon Chan's THE FOUR 2 (2013), DERRIERE LES MURS (French supernatural thriller) and the short film OUTSIPLOU. Further testifying to her talents is the trust that large budget productions place on her as well - she was 3D Rig Technician for both Fedor Bondarchuk's STALINGRAD and Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION.

She has already directed several shorts, three of which were shot in 3D, and received many awards around the world. Since 2008 when she graduated from the famous ENS Louis Lumiere film school in Paris, she was the stereographer of more than 20 live broadcast, commercials and documentaries, and of the first French 3D feature film BEHIND THE WALLS from directors J. Lacombe and P. Sid (Sombrero Productions- 2010). She has worked with the R and D department of the french company Binocle (3D rigs and softwares) during 4 years as lead stereographer. Further, Céline has published a book about 3D storytelling in early 2013 which is available worldwide. She works now closely with the award-winning company 3ALITY Technica on numerous projects.

Celine is now developing her first feature film with award winning producer, Roger Frappier (“Jesus of Montreal”, “The Decline of the American Empire”, “The Grand Seduction”) and his Canadian production company, MAX FILMS. This film will of course be shot in 3D! Celine is also looking into TV as a fascinating new medium to tell her compelling stories. Her new book “Directing 3D: Concepts and Techniques for Stereoscopic Filmmakers” will be published by Focal Press in 2015 worldwide.

I think Céline represents one of the best of the best for up and coming stereographers in the world. Let's get to know her opinion on the Stereographer Series questions!

Hi Céline, I really want to thank you for taking the time to chat with me today! Could you tell me what's your favorite 3D movie and why?
Céline Tricart: My pleasure Jim. Gravity of course! 3D is the perfect way to tell this particular story, the tension relies on distances, depths, space! It's also technically very well done but to me it's first and foremost a good story and a director who wanted to use stereoscopy to enhance his storytelling.

Explain your thoughts on the native 3D vs. 3D conversion debate as it stands with today's technology?
CT: The real debate is elsewhere. I don't care if it's native 3D or conversion, if the 3D is considered as a filmmaking tool and used properly in accordance to the story, then I'm in. I believe in the future of hybrid movies, part of it being shot natively, part of it converted depending on what's easier / has a better quality / is cheaper. I generally prefer native 3D because it means having 3D monitors on set and that gives the creative crew the opportunity to learn this new medium and use it in a better way.

Right. Real-time feedback to the creatives. What do you make of the negative comments that Seamus McGarvey has made regarding 3D?
CT: Clearly this interview is dated. He talks about lenses changes that takes 45min while today it's between 3 and 4 minutes with a good 3D rig and an efficient 3D crew. It's funny he doesn't even remember the exact name of the rig he used. I guess the DP who used the first HD cameras in the 90's probably had the same point of view... But it would have been unfair to use these reviews to judge the HD cameras of the years 2000. It's also funny he said they had a stereographer on set on Avengers who was a pain in the ass... Avengers is, still today, one of the best 3D-converted movies, to me it means it was definitely worth it! People don't like to change, that's why most DPs hate digital compared to film, and 3D compared to 2D. I don't mind! As far as I'm concerned, I'm always on the lookout for new ways of telling compelling stories. Intellectual curiosity and need for experimentation is the best human quality I think.

Speaking of change, how to you position China now on the world cinema stage now that they have ~20,000 3D screens in place and growing?
CT: Definitely the biggest player out there for 3D box office. Most of the tentpoles now integrate Chinese locations and famous local stars. And the Chinese audience loves 3D! They're not stupid though, and if the studios keep sending them bad 3D conversions we'll get bored and upset. I hope they won't kill the golden goose...

What brought you to 3D in the first place? (chance, study, interest, etc)
CT: Chance! I feel really lucky to know a bit about 3D and have this amazing additional tool as a director! It was 2006, I was in film school in Paris and the french 3D club organized a screening in our projection room. It was basically a bunch of retired guys, building 3D rigs in their garage but they said something that changed my life: they said 3D was ready technically (well, almost!) and now what was desperately needed was writers, directors, artists to transform it into an art form. It blew my mind! I decided to write my end-of study essay about 3D storytelling and I directed a 6-minutes short film in 3D. It was very empowering to feel like a pioneer, to reinvent all the filmmaking rules and create a new language for this technology.

What is your preferred set up on set? (camera, rig, lens, etc)
CT: Technology is changing very fast... If I had to shoot a feature tomorrow I would probably choose Red Epics with 15-40 Optimo and a TS5 3ality Technica rig. With this configuration I know I can shoot as fast as in 2D and do steadycam, handheld...

Are there any new stereoscopic technologies coming out in the field that has your interest?
CT: I'm really interested in VR and shooting a fiction in 360 degrees 3D ! I can almost hear people complaining about it: "What's the point of not having a point of view decided by the director? What if the audience is not looking at the main character? Film was so much better..." VR is a new challenge, we'll have to figure out what storytelling in VR means... I'm very excited about it !

When working with optics do you find there is disparity between how long it takes to make a 2D lens change verses a modern 3D set up?
CT: Of course, you have to change 2 lenses instead of one and to redo the 3D alignment... With a decent crew and a modern 3D rig it shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 minutes though.

If you have worked with 3D conversions as a stereographer adviser on set, how are the general interactions with the cinematographer and director as opposed to a native 3D production?
CT: I've worked as an on-set stereographer for a Chinese movie that was shot in 2D and later converted. I had a blast! The Chinese / Hong Kong crew has eager to learn and "think in 3D" despite the fact they were shooting with a 2D Arri alexa like they usually do. I trained the DP and director as much as I could, and stayed on set for two weeks. The first few days I had to intervene a lot, mostly about the framing (get rid of blurry foregrounds, over the shoulder etc.) and the depth of field. After a week I didn't have to say anything anymore. They got it right away, embraced it and had a lot of fun with it!

What would be your favorite shot for 3D and why?
CT: Long steadycam POV shot I guess... Works really well and 3D makes sense as we see in 3D in real life.

Obviously 3D has matured since the late 2000's both in technology and expertise. What credentials / experience would you mention that helps separate you from the field and brings you to the top of the industry?
CT: I don't think I'm at the top of the industry! I'm still learning, and enjoying it a lot! My ultimate goal is to direct a 3D feature film, hopefully soon... Then I'll be able to use this credential and pretend I'm at the top in the industry !

Many would agree with me that you should be mentioned in the best of the best. Speaking of learning, what education would you recommend to up and coming stereographers / cinematographers in today's world?
CT: I'm not very familiar with US film schools, but I think the best education is to watch as many 3D movies as possible, take notes of what you liked / disliked, and then watch the movie again without the 3D glasses so you can identify the type of 3D settings or shots that works best. And do some tests, experiments! It's very easy to build a cheap 3D camera or to buy some of the prosumer ones out there.

Do you have a post-production software preference for working with the stereo images to do any fine tuning you need to do?
CT: Not really, the software changes and gets better every year.

How important is resolution? Would more pixels be more important for stereo 3D? Higher dynamic range? HFR?
CT: None of these are "necessary" for 3D. It's a matter of storytelling, again. Is the story demanding a higher resolution? HFR? HDR? Maybe no, maybe yes! I like the HFR technology but to be honest I didn't really like it in "The Hobbit". It's a fantasy film, taking place in an imaginary and magic world, I don't think the realistic effect of the HFR is suitable for this type of story.

Are there any specialty filters that you find enhance the stereo images? How about specialty filters that you have found should never be used?
CT: Whatever filter the DP wants to use, we can make it work. Sometimes it's tricky because it means ordering a filter big enough to cover the entire mirror box of a 3D rig. Some specialty filters can create different effects on each lenses and therefore retinal rivalry. That's why I believe in hybrid filmmaking: Is a particular scene requires a specialty filter and the director doesn't want to add it in post, then why not shooting this scene in 2D and convert it in 3D in post ?

Split focus diopters are a popular tool in 2D. Do you think a director looking for an effect like that can get that in stereo 3D?
CT: I've never try to do it in native 3D but it's probably worth trying, especially because we love wide depth of field in 3D! If it's technically too challenging, then again this shot can be converted in post. Anything is possible!

Open mic: What is the biggest challenge that you'd like to openly discuss about today's 3D?
CT: Same thing as 2, 3, 4 years ago: We have to get rid of the ticket upcharge for 3D! Do we pay an upcharge to see a movie in cinemascope? In color? In surround sound? If seeing a movie in 3D cost as much as a 2D movie, it will encourage independent filmmakers and smaller budget to shoot in 3D because they'll know their audience will go and see it.

Open mic: What are you happiest about in the 3D field?
CT: The technology and 3D rigs have never been better, and the best 3D movies I've ever seen has been released in the last 3 years. It's very encouraging to see talented directors getting interested in this new language! Hopefully the new generation will have the same open mind.

If there was one thing you could change about the industry what would it be?
CT: No upcharge for 3D movies!

Thanks so much for your time on this Céline! Congratulations on TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION being the number one box office movie around the world thus far for 2014! Almost $1.1 billion. And... I loved the 3D. Looking forward to seeing more of your stereo work soon Céline!

Stay tuned for our next interview in the Fall Stereographer Series coming soon!

Fall Stereographer Interview Series - EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS's JAMES GOLDMAN

Our Fall Stereographer Series continues and has a great list of the world's best stereographers and technicians. Our goal is to enlighten you about the modern stereographer, his/her role in major tentpole productions, new technology and expert advice for the up and coming new generation of 3D creators. Be sure to check out all our interviews right here.

Next on tap for our series is stereographer James Goldman (OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, PROMETHEUS, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES) who is also responsible for the stereoscopic 3D in Ridley Scott's new epic EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS! This guy has his finger on the pulse of 3D and I am thrilled to have this chance to talk with him. EXODUS looks absolutely breathtaking. If you haven't seen the latest trailer - definitely check it out.

Here's EXODUS' storyline:
From acclaimed director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Prometheus) comes the epic adventure "Exodus: Gods and Kings," the story of one man's daring courage to take on the might of an empire. Using state of the art visual effects and 3D immersion, Scott brings new life to the story of the defiant leader Moses (Christian Bale) as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses (Joel Edgerton), setting 400,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues.

Thanks for taking time to talk with me James - I know you are extremely busy. How about and easy one to start: What is your favorite 3D movie and why?

James Goldman: Of course Jim, my pleasure. My favorite 3d film is Pina, the Wim Wenders film about Pina Bausch. I think that film really made a lot of people see what 3d was capable of. It took amazing spaces and filled them with objects and people to really utilize foreground, mid, and background. It played a lot with movement of foreground to background and vice versa. Not all narrative films can get away with that set up every time, but a dance film can.

Explain your thoughts on the native 3D vs. 3D conversion debate as it stands with today's technology?
JG: I think the debate really boils down to money and time with the studios. If a movie has a hard release date in the near future and 3d is desired, then they shoot native because conversion adds a whole other element to the post work time needed. If time is of no concern, then it seems to fall to conversion. I have heard conflicting reports as to which is cheaper; I’m sure that has a huge part to do with the direction it goes. Very few filmmakers are up to shoot 3d because they have heard all these horror stories about the delays and how long it takes to change lenses and so on. Conversion has come a long away- Guardians of the Galaxy looked amazing in 3d compared to earlier films.

What do you make of the negative comments that Seamus McGarvey has made regarding 3D?
JG: I respect Seamus McGarvey very much as a DP. His body of work speaks for itself. I know that his first experience with 3d was not a good one. He went out to test for Avengers with a camera crew that had never done 3d, a stereographer that was from the post side of things, and a package that was prepped in three days. I know this because I gave his camera crew some advice while I was prepping Prometheus in the next hallway at Panavision. I believe that, if prepped right, supported by a strong crew from camera, dit, and stereo, and given the proper tools, 3d can move almost as quickly and efficiently as a 2d film. I say almost because no matter how well prepared, you are always going to encounter issues. One rig has twice the issues as a 2d camera; that is simple math. We shot Prometheus and Exodus with five rigs in use almost constantly and in less than 90 days. I’ve worked on 2d films of the same scope that went much longer than 90 days.

How to you position China now on the world cinema stage now that they have ~20,000 3D screens in place and growing?

JG: China has a lot of people. Obviously those people want to see 3d, or the movie houses want them to see 3d. Only time will tell if that holds true. 3d made a big splash here a few years back and kind of slowed down. I know a lot of people hope it will take off over there for good. It can’t hurt 3d to have that much presence in the theatres.

What brought you to 3D in the first place? (chance, study, interest, etc)

JG: I ended up in 3d by chance first, and by study, second. I had done Alice in Wonderland as a camera assistant and was very interested in how it all worked. On Pirates of the Caribbean 4, we shot in 3d and I just paid attention to what was happening around me. Dave Drzewiecki was great to me and showed me how everything worked, along with Dave West from Pace, the best rig tech at Pace, hands down. I took over Pirates 4 in London and that was that. I did a lot of testing for Prometheus to get more comfortable with what I was doing and then it just all figured itself out. It helped to have good people around. Steve Evans on Prometheus was my right hand and very helpful in all areas.

What is your preferred set up on set? (camera, rig, lens, etc)

JG: My preferred setup is the 3ality TS-5 with Red Epic or Dragon. We have used a lot of zooms on big rigs: Angenieux zooms from 15-40, 45-120, and everything in between. Super speed prime lenses for the steadicam rig. Fiber system is a must. A SIP (Stereo Image Processor) for each rig. Fairly standard. Every rig has its own cart, then all carts hub into my main A cart so myself, or someone else, can monitor all of them as a final check.

Are there any new stereoscopic technologies coming out in the field that has your interest?

JG: There is always something new, bigger and better. Until I have seen it used and worked in the field I don’t get very caught up in it. I’ve been most happy with the wireless setups that have become available for rig and video transmission in the last few years. Small, fast, and easy to use.

When working with optics do you find there is disparity between how long it takes to make a 2D lens change verses a modern 3D set up?

JG: It definitely takes longer to make a lens change in 3d. On Exodus, we had it down to less than five minutes including setup of the rig. But that was because the stereo department and camera department worked very closely with one another. I was a camera assistant first and always try to think like that when setting up a rig. It is the camera crew that has to deal with it on a minute-by-minute basis. The more friendly the rigs are to everyone, the easier it is for everyone to help one another out when finding problems or changing configurations.

If you have worked with 3D conversions as a stereographer adviser on set, how are the general interactions with the cinematographer and director as opposed to a native 3D production?
JG: Never have.

What would be your favorite shot for 3D and why?

JG: Not sure about that one. Every situation has a different approach and way to shoot it. I like to play with each shot and see what I can get out of it. I know this- my least favorite 3d shot is a tight over.

Obviously 3D has matured since the late 2000's both in technology and expertise. What credentials / experience would you mention that helps separate you from the field and brings you to the top of the industry?
JG: I think what sets me apart of a lot of stereographers is my approach to shooting. I like to be on set. I like to see what is going on when cameras are being set up. It’s easier to work hand in hand with the operators to get what you want then to deal with the director or the dp for little things like moving foreground or cheating things around the edges of frames. I find it easier to go to the director and dp with over all concerns, not every little thing. I have been very fortunate with Ridley and Dariusz because they both trust me to do what looks best and are very accepting of the 3d and willing to work with it, to a certain extent.

What education would you recommend to up and coming stereographers / cinematographers in today's world?

JG: Pay attention to what others are doing. The best schooling you can get is watching films and other media to see what people are doing. A good shot will always be a good shot, 3d or not. Everything else is just practice. I started working in film because I really enjoy watching movies and was interested in how things were done. I still am.

Do you have a post-production software preference for working with the stereo images to do any fine tuning you need to do?
JG: I haven’t spent much time in post; none, actually. My good friend, Gareth Daley, who worked with me on Exodus and followed the film through post, swears by RV software. Gareth swears it is the best for viewing shots in 3d and all stereo analysis. He is one of the smartest guys I know and probably has more 3d experience than any other working in film. He did all The Hobbit films as head rig tech and worked on many other 3d projects.

How important is resolution? Would more pixels be more important for stereo 3D? Higher dynamic range? HFR?
JG: More resolution could always be better in some ways. With more pixels you just begin to create larger files and, until the world is showing 4k in every theatre, it’s only truly beneficial for post and visual effects. It would allow you to crop in and reframe later, as well. I’m kind of old school and like my movies to look like film, crazy idea in this day and age, I know. I still feel like the crispier the image gets the more it looks like sports on TV.

Are there any specialty filters that you find enhance the stereo images? How about specialty filters that you have found should never be used?

JG: The only real filter we use often is the quarter wave retarder. It helps to eliminate glare or polarization in one eye or both depending on the situation. When something is wet or painted with a sheen, it sometimes looks different in the reflected eye. If that can be fixed in camra and save the VFX houses from doing it than we try.

Split focus diopters are a popular tool in 2D. Do you think a director looking for an effect like that can get that in stereo 3D?

JG: I’ve never seen anyone try the diopter thing in 3d, although it sounds interesting. Not sure if the eyes could take it. I’ve always wanted to the old Martin Scorsese trick where you dolly in and zoom out only instead of zoom replace it with IO and Convergence manipulation, make the world breathe and shift planes.

Open mic: What is the biggest challenge that you'd like to openly discuss about today's 3D?

JG: I think the biggest challenge in 3d today is making good 3d movies. Often, when I go and see a 3d movie, and I see them all, it lacks good overall 3d. It seems like the 3d is just an afterthought. Working with people and hearing stories, I know that sometimes it is just that. When people go to see 3d, that’s what they are paying to see. Thank god for Marvel because they have continued to put out big movies that a lot of people see and they have continued to try and keep the 3d as big as possible. Even though its post converted, they still work to get the depth in and I think it makes a big difference with the viewers.

Open mic: What are you happiest about in the 3D field?

JG: I’m happy it’s still around. I’m not happy with things like 4DX. I’ve sat through a couple movies in that thing and it seems so gag orientated so far, much like the movie houses in the 1950’s that didn’t last.

Thanks so much again for your time for this James! I'm sure I speak for everyone in wishing the best for EXODUS at the box office and critical acclaim. I can't wait for it!

Stay tuned for our next interview in the Fall Stereographer Series coming soon!

Fall Stereographer Interview Series: GRAVITY's Chris Parks

Our Fall Stereographer Series this year continues from our Summer edition and has a great list of the world's best stereographers and technicians. Our goal is to enlighten you about the modern stereographer, his/her role in major tentpole productions, new technology and expert advice for the up and coming new generation of 3D creators. Be sure to check out all our interviews right here.

Next on tap for our series is stereographer and stereo supervisor Chris Parks (EDGE OF TOMORROW, JUPITER ASCENDING, JACK THE GIANT SLAYER, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END) who of course absolutely nailed the stereo in Alfonso Cuaron's GRAVITY and helped push the movie over the top for audiences around the world. I'm very excited to have the chance to learn something from him! GRAVITY is one of my favorite 3D movies of all time.

I know you're extremely busy Chris - thanks for taking time to be with me today. Let's get right into it - What is your favorite 3D movie and why?
Chris Parks: Anytime Jim, thanks for the opportunity. There are elements of several 3D films that I like although I don’t think any of them get it all right. Avatar was amazing for its time and has to take a lot of credit for getting 3D to where it is now. Pina shows how 3D can be used to really add value to a film. T.S.Spivet was very bold with its 3D and should be applauded for that. I am too close to Gravity to be objective but it did show how a film can be shot and edited in a way that enables the viewer to perceive the 3D fully and so allows the 3D to affect the audience in the way that was intended

Explain your thoughts on the native 3D vs. 3D conversion debate as it stands with today's technology?
CP: They are both very useful tools that together allow you to achieve creatively what is impossible with just one or the other. Native 3D will give you the best results, but only if you shoot the film in a way that is designed to achieve what you want to in 3D as well as 2D. If, as a director, you just want to shoot your film as you would if it was just going to be in 2D, then most of the time you would achieve a better end result by converting some or all of it. If you have a lot of VFX, then the results from converting those fully CG shots can be as good as rendering them in stereo.

The other thing that conversion allows you to do, is to distort space. When I am doing a conversion project, I am not trying to recreate what the scene would look like if it had been shot with a native rig. I am trying to create a native aesthetic but I am changing the spacial relationships, the volumes of characters and objects to give a better result than if they had been shot natively. A hybrid solution where the decision to go native or conversion on each shot or sequence is made from a creative standpoint rather than for logistical reasons would allow the stereographer to craft the most rewarding experience for the audience.

What do you make of the negative comments that Seamus McGarvey has made regarding 3D? 
CP: A lot of what Seamus says I can relate to, or I think are absolutely right. When he talks about not wanting the reality of 3D and liking the flatness of 2D I really understand that. Cinematographers and directors aren’t creating flat films when they work in 2D. They are creating films with depth and using all the 2D depth cues at their disposal to give their films depth. Then someone like me comes along and adds in this depth and it is messing with what they are doing anyway, just in a different way. 2D film is an amazing art and is limitless in its ways of expression and I love it for that. Where I differ with Seamus though is that I believe that 3D does have a value in film making, and not just as a gimmick. I do think it is possible to use 3D to help tell stories and as part of the art, rather than just as a layer on top of what would otherwise be a perfectly good 2D film. I think we are only just starting to find ways to use it properly and even in Gravity where I think we pushed that side of it further than has been done before, I think we were only just touching the tip of the iceberg.

Seamus also talks about 3D rigs being too slow and breaking the flow of film making. He mentions 45 minute lens changes and endless alignment problems. All of that can be addressed with good crews and the right equipment. If we have the necessary prep prior to the first day of principal, then my crew can change lenses in 3 minutes and I expect to be able to use 95% of shots without any alignment in post. Nobody would last a day if they were taking 45 minutes to change a lens. There was a time when that was the norm, and I know there are still some rigs where that is the case, but it is not workable on a feature set. Without a doubt though, 3D rigs are bigger than 2D rigs of equivalent quality and steadicam operating becomes a game of survival rather than the art that it is in 2D. I have worked with Peter Robertson a couple of times and however much we try to strip things back, it is impossible for him to do in 3D what he can in 2D.

A lot though depends on the project that you are working on. I think Anna Karenina would have been stunning in 3D and the medium could have been used to support the story, the cinematography and the design. Joe Wright has a way of shooting that allows the 3D to be used in very creative ways. I personally think that it could be used more effectively in a film like Anna Karenina than in a film such as Avengers – but then I love what 3D can add to intimacy and those human moments.

What brought you to 3D in the first place? (chance, study, interest, etc)
CP: I got interested in 3D as a kid when my dad was filming for Life on Earth. He had a binocular (stereo) microscope, and the subjects that I had seen before down ordinary microscopes and which looked confusing and drab in 2D, suddenly looked incredible in 3D. Their design, transparency and subtle details all became visible. Later, I studied design at The Royal College of Art in London and my main research area was into 3D. Off the back of that I was involved in publishing a series of 3D books for which I designed the book itself and did the majority of the photography. That lead to being involved in IMAX 3D and special venue films for 15 years before the current resurgence of 3D allowed me to explore what was possible in narrative film making.

What is your preferred set up on set? (camera, rig, lens, etc)
CP: It depends on the nature of the shoot. My favoured setup for large feature film shoots would be a 3ality TS-5 rig. Red Epics and Arri Alexas are both good cameras for 3D and then whatever lens is dictated by the cinematographer and the look that the director wants for the film. I love the look of anamorphics but they aren’t feasible for native stereo work. Well matched Cookes probably hit the sweet spot for me in terms of a look that is attractive but precise enough to match between the eyes in stereo. Matched Angenieux zooms are great for speed if the shoot lends itself to that way of shooting. For other uses the P&S Freestyle rig is wonderful for its simplicity and I still have a lot of affection for the Hines Rigs – a wonder to behold with two 15/70 IMAX cameras on board!

Are there any new stereoscopic technologies coming out in the field that has your interest?
CP: Good Autostereo TV’s will rejuvenate 3D TV and create a market for film makers to push 3D forwards. So far I haven’t seen any that are good enough though and we risk alienating audiences by releasing TV’s which give a poor 3D experience.

When working with optics do you find there is disparity between how long it takes to make a 2D lens change verses a modern 3D set up?
CP: If you are comparing primes, then yes. A 3D lens change will take approximately 3 minutes on average with a good rig setup and experienced crew. With a bit of thinking ahead though the time taken for lens changes can nearly always be lost in the time taken for lighting changes or camera moves. If you are happy to shoot with zooms however, there is no difference.

If you have worked with 3D conversions as a stereographer adviser on set, how are the general interactions with the cinematographer and director as opposed to a native 3D production?
CP: The big difference is that on set you are talking in very abstract terms when working in 2D. There is no way to show how doing something will affect the 3D. You can suggest that changing the camera position, or lens or lighting etc will give better 3D – but better for whom? Maybe what I as stereographer think will be better actually takes it further away from what the director wants, but with no way to view it the discussion becomes much less precise. I try to counter that with conversations and screenings prior to shooting – looking at a selection of 3D material and gauging what the director lights. From that I can get a feel for what would work to support the film that they are doing. I will then suggest an approach for the 3D and we will refine it as much or as little as they want to. From that point, if we are on set, I can say relate comments to what we have discussed and what I know they want - ‘If you want the feel that we talked about then you need to stay wider’ for example. They can then decide whether in this case they do want that feel, or whether going tighter actually gives them what they are looking for.

What would be your favorite shot for 3D and why?
CP: High speed always works – it gives the audience time to explore the subject.

Obviously 3D has matured since the late 2000's both in technology and expertise. What credentials / experience would you mention that helps separate you from the field and brings you to the top of the industry?
CP: I think that it is really important that anyone working on a production is working to help tell the story, rather than working to a preconceived agenda. It is easy as a stereographer to go into a project with an idea of what will make for good 3D but it is really important to remember that films are collaborative efforts and it doesn’t matter whether a certain decision will help the 3D, if it hinders the telling of the story then it is not good. There are 100 things a day that have to make you change what you were planning, but the important thing is to be flexible and come up with a different (and ideally better) way to achieve good 3D. I think that having respect for all the other disciplines on a production is a very good starting point!

What education would you recommend to up and coming stereographers / cinematographers in today's world?
CP: Stereographers need to have an understanding of how a camera department works. Start out as a runner or trainee. Get experience as a camera assistant. Understand the language of film. Understand the 2D grammar and language of film. Once you have that, you can then use that to strengthen what you do in 3D

Do you have a post-production software preference for working with the stereo images to do any fine tuning you need to do?
CP: They are all just tools. Having a good operator is the most important thing. I have worked via T-vips (a remote teleconferencing system that allows me to be in a cinema in the UK while the operator is in the US and we are both seeing the same things on our screens) with an operator who I have never met. I only know him as Chris. We have done depth grading sessions that have worked seamlessly despite us being 3000 miles apart. It doesn’t matter what software he is on (it happens to be base light), the important thing is the result. Having said that, if I was operating then I would choose the Mistika as I know it can do everything that I need of it.

How important is resolution? Would more pixels be more important for stereo 3D? Higher dynamic range? HFR?
CP: More resolution is good for bigger screens, and particularly IMAX where 2K and even 4K images don’t compare to the resolution we get from 15/70 prints. 3D anyway gives a greater perceived resolution which helps. Higher dynamic range is great for 3D – being able to see further into the shadows or highlights in 3D helps stop them flattening out. Anywhere in the image that we can hold details, however subtle, is valuable. HFR – I think the jury is still out. It definitely helps with the strobing which kills the image in 3D films. It can make action sequences much more watchable. However, having drama sequences looking like TV isn’t going to win it any friends. Maybe the answer is to have a variable framerate that can jump between 24 and 48 as James Cameron is rumoured to be doing on the next Avatar. Maybe it is more about how it is used or lit? Maybe we just need to learn how to use it better!

Thanks so much for your time on this Chris! I appreciate it tremendously.

Stay tuned for our next interview in the Fall Stereographer Series coming soon!

Summer Stereographer Interview Series: THE GREAT GATSBY's Jeff Amaral

Our Summer Stereographer Series this year has a great list of the world's best stereographers and technicians and our goal is to enlighten you about the modern stereographer, his/her role in major tentpole productions, new technology and expert advice for the up and coming new generation of 3D creators. Be sure to check out all our interviews right here. 

Next on tap for our series is Jeff Amaral who has had his hands in many 3D silos including being a leading Stereographer and 3D Producing Engineer with the 3ality Technica team that made global broadcast history with the first live 3DTV transmissions in 2008-09. He was also Key 3D Engineer and Stereographer: Satellite Unit on THE GREAT GATSBY and Stereographer: Splinter Unit on X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST.

As an avid 3D Filmmaker, Jeff brings both a creative and technical passion to 3D cinema. In addition to over 20 years of feature film production experience, Jeff has been actively working in S3D Cinema since 1999 and he helped create the 2005 IMAX / Playtone documentary MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION for Executive Producer Tom Hanks.

After traveling the world to help launch the first live S3D Broadcasts in 5 additional countries, Jeff has created compelling S3D imagery for numerous live music, sports, television, and IMAX clients. Most recently, Jeff has helped pioneer the use of digital twin-camera systems for native stereo 3D imaging on the feature films THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, THE GREAT GATSBY, and XMEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST.

I appreciate your help with this series Jeff - thanks for helping out! What's your favorite 3D movie and why?
Jeff Amaral: My pleasure Jim! I was thrilled in 2004 when I saw POLAR EXPRESS in 3D as the first IMAX feature length film. Directed by Bob Zemekis, the film is a thoughtful, adult meditation on faith in modern times, balanced with a thrilling, immersive 3D adventure for kids. That picture, a performance capture, native stereo CGI film for kids, really tried to take full advantage of the emerging language of 3D Cinema.

You are transported into the world of a young boy, and embark on a quest to find out if Santa exists. A giant train arrives into your snow-filled cinema. You sink beneath the words on a page as if to get a different perspective and question what’s been written there. During the journey, you get to feel what it’s like to run with the wolves, to soar with an eagle, and hurtle toward certain doom on the top of a speeding locomotive. Fantastic.

From what I’ve seen lately, the real progress in the evolution of the language of 3D Cinema is being driven forward by the independent 3D film community. For example, Wim Wenders 3D documentary PINA is an awesome contribution to the global dialogue of this medium.

I truly hope that more great directors will consider exploring live action 3D for dramas and non-VFX explosion movies. I’m looking forward to seeing Wenders’ upcoming 3D drama EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.

Explain your thoughts on the native 3D vs. the 3D post-conversion debate as it stands with today's technology?
JA: There isn't a debate.  Native is far superior. So superior, in fact, that anyone discussing the “debate” isn’t interested in picture quality at all, nor in serving the eyes or hearts of their audience.
Post Conversions are great to help fill in the gaps in the current state of native stereo cinematography, but it’s not an option for an entire live action film, GRAVITY notwithstanding.

Here’s how I see it: While it may be true that a 2d picture is worth a thousand words, a 3D picture is worth a library. It’s simply more information contained in the frame, a massive amount more. Over 100 years later, I can still step into a native stereo 3D photo from China shot in 1900 like I am time-travelling; it still moves me into a deep emotional connection with the subject across a century of time. That feeling doesn’t exist with any of the current 3D post-conversion processes.

3D post Conversions are a series of paper-dolls cut out and strung together with dark fuzzy gaps in between. It’s an easy studio marketing solution to justify an up-charge, but as might be expected, the audience has already tired of such over-processed product, and it’s slowing the evolution of the language of the 3D Cinema Medium to a crawl.

TOP two questions for Directors and DP’s when the studio offers 3D post-conversion as a total solution:
A.   How can we let some poor VFX kid chained to a box destroy our academy award winning actress’ face for a large percentage of our global audience?

B.   If we can use the greater information contained in the 3D frame to reach an audience with a deeper emotional impact, a deeper understanding than we previously were able to...would filmmakers of integrity would want anything less for their audience?

What do you make of the negative comments that Seamus McGarvey has made regarding 3D?
JA: This is the bleeding edge of the language of storytelling, and it’s not for the faint of heart.
I have such great respect for cinematographers such as Allen Daviau, Simon Duggan, Newton Thomas Sigel, and Benoit Debie who in spite of the technical challenges of native 3D shooting, were willing to dig into the medium and explore what is possible out here on the frontier.

Of course I’ve also dealt with a number of older cinematographers that were downright scared about the change to digital, let alone native stereo 3D. All I can offer to them is don’t be scared, be BRAVE. You can help write the language of this rapidly evolving medium.

How do you position China now on the world cinema stage now that they have ~20,000 3D screens in place and growing?
JA: Reportedly there’s a billion people that have been trapped under Marxist national identity stories for a very long time. The people there are probably desperate to get as much information as quickly as possible to help them grow out of their trap. What will they do when they realize who they truly are and what will they want from the west? I have no idea, but I believe strongly that the only answer for any tyranny is education. Screening 3D large format educational films alongside movies of multi-cultural superheroes battling against tyranny and oppression may well be the best way to foster change there. For my part, the day that AI WEIWEI wants to make a 3D movie, I’m going to help make it happen.

What brought you to 3D in the first place? (chance, study, interest, etc)
JA: I was raised in New England, and when I was 7 years old my mother gave me my first Viewmaster, brought home from a trip out to California. I started out with the 3 reel sets from the Universal Studios Backlot Tour, Knotts Berry Farm, and a collection of awesome Peanuts Cartoon dioramas. For example, the Snoopy and the Red Baron series were real model planes and puppets, shot on miniature sets and lit with strong, super-saturate colors. I’m fairly certain that they led me directly into a lifelong pursuit of theatre and cinema lighting, which grew into 3D Photography. The next thing I knew, I was living in California and making 3D movies. So I guess it’s true, I can actually blame my mother.

Well thanks to your mother, the world is enjoying better 3D! What is your preferred set up on set? (camera, rig, lens, etc)
JA: My preferred set up always starts with smart people, committed to the work. I try to hire the right team, and not get attached to which hammer they choose to use. That said, I’ve had a number of no hassle shoots with teams that were fluent with 3ality Technica gear.

Are there any new stereoscopic technologies coming out in the field that has your interest?
JA: Yes, but I’m really looking forward to the day that my handheld will have the power to document the entire data set of a “what if” scene that we have staged, and stream the story as we go to multiple venues around the globe.

When working with optics, do you find there is disparity between how long it takes to make a 2D lens change verses a modern 3D set up?
JA: There is no longer an on-set difference worth mentioning, because a good camera team is a good camera team, whether working in 2D or 3D. Forgive me for speaking plainly, but that kind of question only applies to FLAT FILMMAKERS, trying to wrap their brains around changing the way they have always done things.

How long should it take to do a lens change? A better question might be ‘How many shots do you really need to tell the story correctly in 3D?’ There is such a greater emotional impact in a 3D shot that you may find that you get away with far fewer shots. Might our creative time be better spent handcrafting each frame and sculpting the performances? I realize that I might be old-fashioned, but why would I waste our precious time together with the hustle and bustle of counting how many set-ups a day we get, or getting shots that we don’t need?

If you have worked with 3D conversions as a stereography adviser on set, how are the general interactions with the cinematographer and director as opposed to a native 3D production?
JA: I love it! It’s like 1st contact with an alien species, or perhaps preaching to the heathen in the wilderness. A delicate dance to be sure, but most of us are great movie lovers and so far it’s been easy to find common ground.

What would be your favorite shot for 3D and why?
JA: I can’t wait to see Tilda Swinton in 3D, the way she creates a character’s body language is like cold water magically brought forth into the dying desert of the flatlanders.

Obviously 3D has matured since the late 2000's both in technology and expertise. What credentials / experience would you mention that helps separate you from the field and brings you to the top of the industry?
JA: Anyone can learn to use the gear, but it takes time to learn how to see. I bring something to the medium that very few people have, a genuine love and respect for 3D Cinema and the history that brought us here. I grew up in the theatre and then transitioned into flat cinema; For me, 3D Cinema is the ultimate marriage of those two very different worlds, and I’m an enthusiastic proponent of the best of both. If you are a lover of storytelling, and you care about how your stories affect the planet, then I want to help you reach your audience with the greatest possible emotional impact.

What education would you recommend to up and coming stereographers / cinematographers in today's world?
JA: Ask yourself the question, What makes a 3D image different from a 2D image? You might start looking for the answer in the US Library of Congress Stereoview archives, by screening all the films in 3D from the 1950’s onward, and by patronizing a proper Theatre. I encourage students to consider the language of 3D from the perspective of both theatrical and cinematic history. There are many things that have never been seen on-screen nor said from the stage, this is an opportunity to write yourself into the history books.

Great point! Do you have a post-production software preference for working with the stereo images to do any fine tuning you need to do?
JA: The tool is only as good as the operator. That said, I’ve been very impressed by both Mistika and DaVinci operators.

How important is resolution? Would more pixels be more important for stereo 3D? Higher dynamic range? HFR?
JA: Yes, More is better, always. More information is what we are after in the pursuit of truth in the frame. In the future, it’s silly to have something like film grain blocking me from seeing what’s really happening in the story; it’s fun and nostalgic for sure, and sometimes it can be used to great artistic success for a story, but these are exceptions not the rule. For my part, I’ll never again watch the big game on my grandfather’s tube TV.

Are there any specialty filters that you find enhance the stereo images? How about specialty filters that you have found should never be used?
JA: I appreciate that DP’s often come attached to their old bag of tricks, and it’s true that specialty Filters and FLAT cinematography can be spectacular, but they’re tools developed over decades for an essentially different medium. In 2014, stereo matched lenses are just becoming readily accessible, but we still have to hunt through the bins at the rental house to find an acceptably matched set of basic ND Filters. That said, if you have a great in-camera idea that enhances a story point in some unique way, let’s test it.

Split focus diopters are a popular tool in 2D. Do you think a director looking for an effect like that can get that in stereo 3D?
JA: Sure, but I suspect that even De Palma would agree that you shouldn’t bring a knife to a gun fight? For my part, there is a danger in framing the discussion of contemporary stereo 3D content in relation to outdated special or visual effects. It is a different medium, a different LANGUAGE, that’s not quite THEATRE nor FLAT CINEMA. There are many tools that have been created to fulfill goals in FLAT CINEMA. Why would you want to restrict the advanced storytelling capabilities of the STEREO 3D medium by saddling it with a boat anchor like split focus diopter shots? That was cutting edge 40 years ago. Don’t get me wrong, if you want to cut one into your movie as an homage to your favorite director, then by all means we’ll find the best way to do it. It’ll be fun.

Open mic: What is the biggest challenge that you'd like to openly discuss about today's 3D?
JA: Cutting up the movie up into a ridiculous FLAT TYRANNY of 2 second shots.  It’s completely the opposite of the 3D aesthetic. The whole point of a 3D picture is that I can look at it longer, there just so much more to see. I can grok the content of a 2D image in the blink of an eye! Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why we cut so fast in 2D these days? But seriously, if Gene Kelly’s got legs, why are we cutting him up into little tiny pieces? I want to see him dance.

I usually encourage Directors & Editors to watch Gene Kelly in the Three Musketeers. Well before martial arts movies, it’s a first rate example of amazing sword-fighting skill, grace and athleticism. That movie is joy of wide frames and long takes, and the opportunity to see the real guy do all this amazing stuff. I’m a true fan of Johnny Depp’s work, but I can’t even watch the pirate movies today because I can’t see the sword-fights at all through the blur of edits. Either the actors do the fighting or the pictures do it. I prefer to see the actors.

Open Mic: What are you happiest about in the 3D field?
JA: That there are still people out there making amazing 3D content without a thought of financial or logistical concerns. They are passionate about the stories they tell, and they have found that 3D can enhance that story’s impact.

If there was one thing you could change about the industry what would it be?
JA: I do wish we could move a little faster from idea to eyeballs. Proper Bio Feedback for the direction of our species is fast becoming an endangered beast, and If we intend to hold up a mirror to nature we had best get busy.

What stories can be told in 3D that can’t be told via 2D?
JA: My late 3D Guru, Ray Zone, in his book 3D REVOLUTION wrote “stereography presents to the storyteller an expanded narrative palette with subtler and more seductive tools to invoke belief”. I’m really interested in expanding the 3D Cinema language palette by exploring flat thinking vs. multi-dimensional thinking, and finding ways to show the difference in Z-Space. If you recall, the world used to be flat. Then some humans started thinking about the question and lo and behold the world is actually round.

For example, in Zemekis’ POLAR EXPRESS, 3D makes it possible to literally sink to the opposite side of words printed on a page, when considering the opposite side of the story. That’s very interesting to me.

If they ever make a movie version of WICKED, the ultimate 2D-to-3D dissolve would take place when the story of the wicked witch intersects with our well known story of Dorothy. It would reference the B&W-to-Color dissolve in the Wizard of Oz, but when we consider the wicked witch as the hero of her own story, our understanding of the original story expands beyond 2D Propaganda and into Dimensionality. That's the stuff of cinema history.

There must be a proper 3D movie that’s coming, the “PLEASANTVILLE” of 2D & 3D if you will. I can’t wait to work with those kids. It’s going to be blast.

Thanks so much for your time on this Jeff! We appreciate it a great deal and thank you for your work that you are doing on movies like THE GREAT GATSBY. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the classic tale so wonderfully brought to 3D screens.

Stay tuned for our next interview in the Summer Stereographer Series coming soon!

Summer Stereographer Interview Series: X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST's John Harper

John Harper on set of THE THREE MUSKETEERS - Photo credit: Rolf Konow, SMPSP

Welcome to MarketSaw's Summer Stereographer Interview Series! To launch the program this year I have a nice list of the world's best stereographers and our goal is to enlighten you about the modern stereographer, his/her role in major tentpole productions, new technology and expert advice for the up and coming new generation of 3D creators.

First on our schedule is John Harper, who was lead stereographer on X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION and THE THREE MUSKETEERS. He was also the second unit stereographer on 47 RONIN. For anyone who has seen DAYS OF FUTURE PAST you'll know that the 3D was impeccable and a joy to experience. John has almost 20 years technical experience on feature films and he has risen rapidly in the modern stereoscopic 3D space.

I met John last year at Toronto's International Stereoscopic 3D Conference and was immediately taken with his professionalism, knowledge and passion for cinematography and of course 3D. And yeah, he's a nice guy too.

So I hope you enjoy this interview with John, get something from it and if you have any questions you can leave a comment or email me directly: jim (at) marketsaw (dot) com. John's a busy guy so I can't guarantee a response from him through me, but we do want to foster growth in the 3D community by sharing knowledge!

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions John. I really appreciate it! What is your favorite 3D movie and why?
John Harper: You're welcome Jim. Tough call. Many good choices out there, probably Avatar. It was a film that really showed the potential for 3D in modern cinema. Avatar reached a large audience who responded very positively. The success of the project paved the way for the advancements in 3D technology (capture and projection) we possess at present.

Explain your thoughts on the native 3D vs. 3D conversion debate as it stands with today's technology?
JH: Shooting native you are capturing the full depth of a scene by shooting with two cameras (left and right eye), similar to how we as human perceive depth. 3D post conversion is captured by a single camera. Through computer extrapolation and rendering, the conversion process generates the missing information of the second camera. The more time and money spent on a conversion shot, the closer that depth representation mimics that of a native shot.

In Native, 3D is composed and create live on set. With the help of 3D screens, the director and DP are put into direct involvement with the dimensional aspects of the scene. Creative and technical decision can be dealt with on set and later refined if needed in post. This to me is a key advantage in shooting native. The director is choreographing many different elements during a scene (action, lighting, 3D, camera movement, etc.) being able to see how all the elements interact within the scene has strong advantages. In Conversion, a larger portion of the 3D decisions can be left till post production. It gives the director a few less things to think about but in my experience often leads to the 3D considerations of the project being overlooked as the shoot progresses.

The effectiveness of using 3D in the story telling is that it needs to be kept in mind during the shooting process. Using the 3D as a tool to enhance immersion and composition through out the narrative. This being true for both native and post dimensionalized projects. Using it as an after thought (as we have seen from the response of audiences in the past) has drawn a lot of criticism and rightly so. Another point about the conversion process is that the edit and VFX must be locked earlier, to provide ample time for decent 3D conversion. This cuts down the amount of time the director has to refine the story line and VFX to tweak their work. Both technologies have their definite advantages and continue to improve. The competitive nature of native versus conversion breeds positive advancements in both technologies. The last show I participated on was a hybrid (80% native, 20% conversion). The Director Bryan Singer and DP Newton Thomas Sigel ASC used both technologies to their distinct advantages (eg. 3D rig could not fit into the cockpit of the aircraft), the shot was post dimensionalized. I see this as a highly effective way (creatively and economically) to facilitate 3D in production. To ignore either technology reduces the ability to use the right tool to get the shot the director envisions.

What do you make of the negative comments that Seamus McGarvey has made regarding 3D? 
JH: As the cinematographer of Godzilla, he should be entitled to his opinions and preferences about the film he is helping to create. Granted, not all productions should be produced in 3D and it’s not for all audiences. Conversely, Godzilla’s 3D revenue was 51% of it’s total box office. That’s a pretty decent ratio of movie goers interested in seeing the 3D version of that film. I’d say there is a good portion of the audience that believes differently to some of arguments he presents pertaining to 3D. Strong opinions exist within the film industry, at opposite ends of the ongoing 3D argument. Both bring up some interesting views. At some point our opinions have to be equated with those of the audiences. In the end, the movie goers are the ones we are trying to effect on an entertaining and engaging level. Giving the audience the option of both formats (2D or 3D) should be seen as beneficial to the overall movie going experience.

In regards to the 45 minutes lens lineups, sounds like some technical issues that should have been resolved during prep. To be fair, you cannot fault the DP here for being frustrated on this particular point. The Rig manufacturers at present have really created some very efficient systems. Shooting native, it’s our job as 3D techs on the set floor to show the full potential of these rigs. Otherwise we are doing a great disservice to native 3d as a whole. Prep time should be focus on making the 3D system and crew as efficient and mobile as possible.A loss in the industry’s confidence in the native 3D process is going to be very hard to retrieve.

How to you position China now on the world cinema stage now that they have ~20,000 3D screens in place and growing?
JH: China is quickly becoming a big box office consideration in many ways. In respect to it’s growing appetite for 3D, hopefully this will inspire all of us in the film industry to work even harder to produce 3D productions worth experiencing. We have already seen a back lash last year (in 3D revenue and attendance) from productions throwing a 3D label on a projects for the sake of ticket prices. I believe this caused productions to start to take stock of the situation. Also, let’s not forget about the great stereo work on Gravity here. This year (contrary to the 2014 predictions) we are seeing more people in 3D theaters domestically and abroad. As long as productions continue to consider 3D as a legitimate part of the story telling fabric, I believe that it will be beneficial to the film industry and audiences a like.

What brought you to 3D in the first place? (chance, study, interest, etc)
JH: My initiation to 3D was in the late nineties I got the chance to work (2nd AC) on a IMAX 3D shoot with the Solido. After the first day of dailies, I was blown away. Unfortunately, in the 90’s there very few 3D productions going on. Cut to 2009, I was asked to work as a convergence puller on a feature film. The DP (Glen MacPherson ASC) felt that a 1st AC’s skill set, could be translated to interaxial and conversion pulling. Glen continued his support by taking me on to his next 3D project in Germany. My initial responsibilities were technical support of the 3D system and advise the local camera crew who (at that time) had little exposure to native 3D technology. The project consisted of 4 rigs shooting in some very challenging locations. I enjoyed the experience immensely and decided to pursue more projects shooting 3D.

What is your preferred set up on set? (camera, rig, lens, etc)
JH: Cameras and lens are the part of cinematographers the tool set. It is part of the job description to try to facilitate what the DP prefers and work that into the 3D system. Of course there will be some limitations to what is feasible. Consultation as the stereographer then comes into play, pointing out any impact or disadvantages with the desired gear in regards to 3D.

Personally, my preferences for 3D:
(It should be understood that this is based on gear that I have utilized in the past and found amicable. Other manufacturers exist and with emerging technologies there are always options to explore.)

Camera:
Arri Alex M beautiful images and compact.
Red Epic good resolution , high speed capture, on board recording and light weight
Phantom: ultra high speed capture

Lens:
Primes: Optical quality, light weight and compact. efficient stereo lineups
Leica: Summilux-C good optical quality , match really well as stereo pairs.
Zeiss: Master primes great optical quality, nice depth and roundness
Zeiss: Ultra primes good optical quality , lightweight and compact.

3D Rigs:
3ality TS35: Remote stereo lineups, rigid rig construction. thick mirror with minimal flex. Preston compatibility, utilize different cameras (Arri, Red,Sony etc.) steadicam, handheld

CPG Smart rig: Remote stereo lineups, rigid rig construction. Preston compatibility, utilize different cameras (Arri, Red,Sony etc.). Acquisition of gear from a single rental source, steadicam, handheld, underwater and phantom camera rigs.

Cinesail 3D Atom Rig: Light weight and compact , rigid rig construction,acquisition from a single rental source, steadicam, handheld, budget conscious, transforms to side by side rig using same components, built to ship and shoot quickly with little prep time.

Stereotec rig: Have not used but by the great things I have heard needs to be mentioned.

This list consist of the broad strokes regarding advantages of each system. Looking at shooting style, terrain, budget, VFX considerations etc. becomes a key factor in choosing what is best for the production. A good example of this is shooting in a remote location under hostile weather conditions, such as the arctic. Motors will sometimes freeze, having a rig with manual adjustment has it’s advantages in this scenario. A rule of thumb for myself is building a 3D system and work flow that is efficient but not overly complicated.

Preferences of gear aside, you must also rely on the talents and experience of the camera and 3D team. The efficiency of the equipment is reliant on whose hands it is placed in. Building a talented team can be said to win half of the battle. The X men DOFP Camera and 3D team where a fine example of effective on set 3D execution. A real pleasure to work with.

Are there any new stereoscopic technologies coming out in the field that has your interest?
JH: The IMAX 3D digital camera, has my vote. Hopefully more cinematographers utilize this system in the future. 3D aerial drones. I believe will simplify getting some epic air to ground shots.

When working with optics do you find there is disparity between how long it takes to make a 2D lens change verses a modern 3D set up?
JH: Since I started in 3D, this has been one of the main criticism against shooting native stereo capture and a big concern of mine. The advancements in rig, camera and lens technology combined with veteran stereo crews have reduced this change over time considerably. You’re averaging around the 3 minute mark these days. By the time the Director, Actors, DP’s lighting, Hair/Make up, Stunts etc. have all made their adjustments, they are not waiting on the 3D rigs.

If you have worked with 3D conversions as a stereographer adviser on set, how are the general interactions with the cinematographer and director as opposed to a native 3D production?
JH: A little more difficult. Without the ability to show the director a 3D image on set you loose the strengths of the visual support of the image. When the director has a question pertaining to 3D, it is often easier to use a visual reference to show different 3D opportunities. The director has the ability to make a decision based on a visual presentation rather than oral interpretation. In this instance a picture is truly worth a thousand words.

What would be your favorite shot for 3D and why?
JH: Atmospheric environments are always one of my favorites (rain, snow, underwater, explosive debris etc.). You're really showing off the expansive depth of the space with great dramatic effect. This combined with a larger depth of field and slow motion can be very visually rewarding. Sparingly used throughout the film seems to create better impact. Also 3D medium close up using a wider lens, personally seems give a character a more engaging presence than you can achieve in 2D with the typical longer lens look. The roundness of the characters face plays on a very subtle level but
subconsciously effective.

Obviously 3D has matured since the late 2000's both in technology and expertise. What credentials / experience would you mention that helps separate you from the field and brings you to the top of the industry?
JH: There are a lot of great stereographers in the industry and I have been very lucky to participate on the projects offered to me. Interaction with cinematographers, other stereographers, VFX supervisors and 3D rig manufacturers has help me progress both technically and creatively. Experience, is another key factor in ones development. Each project brings new challenges and with that better solutions. On a personal level I think coming from a camera department background gave me a solid base in which to draw from and accomplish the job.

What education would you recommend to up and coming stereographers / cinematographers in today's world?
JH: Addressing the up and coming my advice would be, read, converse, experiment and make some mistakes (just not too many of them). I’ve gained an equal amount of valuable experience from negative and positive results while searching for solutions. Technically, know your tools at hand (camera, lens, 3D rigs, etc.). It’s important to know where the gear might hang you up during production and have a solution. The belief that digital equipment is bulletproof can be dangerous. Especially, working at “the bleeding edge of technology”. We often find ourselves working with prototypes because of the desire for the newest, most advanced systems. Preparation and testing during pre-production becomes very important.

Do you have a post-production software preference for working with the stereo images to do any fine tuning you need to do?
JH: Most of my work occurs on set. We employ a stereo image processor usually different depending on the 3D rig chosen. This speeds up rig alignment during lens changes and helps identify any optical disparities between the two cameras. A Qtake is responsible for providing 3D/2D playback and disbursing an image to different locations around the set. When required to shoot in parallel the Qtake will generate a H.I.T value which is passed onto the Dailies trailer. This allows the DaVinci Resolve operator to properly input the desired convergence into the image. This is later refined at the end of day with the director, cinematographer and myself present.

How important is resolution? Would more pixels be more important for stereo 3D? Higher dynamic range? HFR?
JH: All of the above components serve to better the expression of depth in 3D. The more information captured without causing unwanted optical disparities creates a better sense of dimension. HFR, to me personally works better in action sequences than in dramatic sequences. The only argument I would have against these advancements is taken to a hyper level, does the image become unreal to the viewer and destructive to the suspension of disbelief.

Are there any specialty filters that you find enhance the stereo images? How about specialty filters that you have found should never be used?
JH: The least amount of glass you put between the subject and the camera chip the better. Filters in native photography must have a uniform effect across the field of view in both cameras so no optical disparities occur. Basically, if the filter effect is greater in one eye you’re going to cause discomfort to the viewer. Neutral density filters, front mounted quarter wave attenuators and optical flats (during explosions) are generally what we stick with. Diffusion filter by diminishing sharpness also diminishes depth. Many of the filter effects such as contrast and color can be effectively dealt with in post.

Split focus diopters are a popular tool in 2D. Do you think a director looking for an effect like that can get that in stereo 3D?
JH: Diopters have been successfully used in native 3D photography, but do take a longer to align. With the use of a wide angle lens, camera proximity and a large depth of field we have achieved a similar effect. Enlarged props and set pieces have also been successful. A VFX option with green screen can also be an alternative. Shooting two 3D passes and then combining them.

Open mic: What is the biggest industry challenge that you'd like to openly discuss about today's 3D?
JH: From some members of the audience and film industry’s perspective, 3D is seen only as a gimmick to charge higher ticket prices. The visual effect of 3D is subjective and therefore open to debate. Not all projects (do to there subject matter) will be bettered by dimension. This can be illustrated by the differences in 3D revenues percentages of individual projects. To enhance the experience of those who prefer the 3D format we have to make a commitment. If 3D is to continue, then our attitude should be to employ it purposefully on a immersive, entertaining level. I am not saying that 3D should be the main focus of a project. Clearly direction, acting, cinematography, script, production design etc. are the mainstays of creative story telling. The history of film is defined by them. Hopefully, like the introduction of sound and color into movies, 3D’s contribution to the film experience will mature and find it’s place. If this is achieved the audience may feel more justified in paying for the extra premium. The consumer and manufacturer both benefiting. Theaters also must keep up their end of the deal with proper quality projection. Anything strived for 2D or 3D during production can be diminished by unsuitable projection. The exposure and color the DP has worked hard at accomplishing should be translated faithfully to the movie goer.

Open Mic: What are you happiest about in the 3D field?
JH: Seeing advancements in image capture technology that will benefit 3D, better lens, cameras and recording systems. Seeing directors actively supporting 3D and employing it creatively. We are seeing better quality in 3D and this in part is because of their efforts.

If there was one thing you could change about the industry what would it be?
JH: When talking with productions considering 3D, certain ideas persist about native 3D technology that I consider outdated. Technical information based on 3 or 4 years ago. The technology and crews have advanced considerably since then. Perceptions should not be locked in the past. Reassessment by production is needed to judge what has been achieved. This will be important for the continuation of native 3D in the future. A process with great potential and if disappears will be detrimental to the industry and audience.

Thank you so much for your help with this John! I'm really looking forward to your next set of 3D projects. And again, congratulations on X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST - it was amazing.

Stay tuned for our next interview in the Summer Stereographer Series coming soon!