Misinformation

[TheMightyEthan]

I think of 3D in films just like color in films: sure it's not absolutely necessary, but it allows a more accurate representation of the real world, and will in time come to be the standard.

[WTF]

I'm sorry Ethan being a film-maker that is actually quite offensive. Not the 3D bit but colour. Colour or Black and White needs to be used to express emotion and semiotics. It is absolutely necessary to have colour, for some things a monochrome look works - but that's an exception not the norm. The reason why you're probably saying that is because in the past 10 years there has been a stupid movement amongst certain film-makers to grade films in one particular colour which basically makes the effect of colour seem bad.

 

Let me bring two examples to show you how colour is used effectively and where black and white should be used. Pan's Labyrinth is a good move. Now if you haven't seen the film, then I'm not going to say watch it for the colours first. Watch it first . Now the second time you watch it, you'll notice the intricate use of colour between the two worlds. As the story starts there is a stark contrast between the colour used in the two worlds, but as events unfold the two worlds start to collide, we see things happening that give a hint of parallels but it is through colour with the two worlds overlapping via colour initially and then by the end almost becoming one that it works.

 

To the regular person, it might not be explicitly noticeable unless someone points it out, but once you see it, you'll realise that it was the subtle hint that worked to explain the story visual.

 

For Black and white instead of using a more recent example like Control, I'd like to explain it with La Jetee - the story which inspired 12 monkeys. The whole film is a series of black and white photographs. The reason why the monochrome look works is because it paints a bleak picture and it was to contrast between the dichotomy the narrator feels and the two worlds he inhabits (although we do not see the future world explicitly). Black and white works there mostly because it needs to portray the grimness.

 

In short, the grade of the film depends on the emotion and the effect that it needs to convey. It's not something that can be said is necessary or unnecessary. A lot of people use it wrong and do not use the right semiotics to express the right emotion. As a cinematographer, grader and editor - I can tell you the fault does not lie with colour but rather the person's vision. Colour actually is quite necessary and even in something that appears monochrome there are hints, if the film-maker is good to show why such a thing works.

[Thursday Next]

I agree with Ethan. 3D is a "nice to have" just as colour was a nice to have. Eventually the way 3D is used will have a significant impact on story telling.

 

To extend the colour analogy (suck it Dean) the Matrix used blue for the "Real" world and green for "The Matrix". In Tron Legacy the "Real" world was in 2D and the "Grid" was in 3D.

 

Some films do interesting things with colour, The Sixth Sense in varying degrees of subtlety, the aforementioned Matrix and Pan's Labyrinth, Schindler's List.

 

However most films (or at least most Hollywood films) do that Blue/Orange thing to vary levels of absurdity (see the A-Team for a particularly bad offender).

[deanb]

tbh I think a lot of the misinformation with the 3DS and "glasses free 3D" is down to the press in general not really understanding it all on a technical level.

It's treat as some technical milestone that Nintendo have managed to create a device with a 3.5" screen that displays 3D to one person at a time. How come so few people click that your TV is much much bigger and watched by more than one person at once.

Do people just assume that all the TV makers have this technology at their disposal and despite the stigma of glasses 3D continue to put out TV's that need glasses instead of glasses free 3DTV's?

 

Also I wish folks won't notice how damn insensitive they are complaining about having to use glasses to watch the cinema or TV. Boo-fucking-hoo. I have to wear glasses all the time.

[Hot Heart]

If you want an idea of tabloid misinformation, you only have to know about the MMR stuff which newspapers were only too happy to spread (although I guess a lot of blame rests on Andrew Wakefield) as well as other things Ben Goldacre writes about.

 

Most recently: http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/why-dont-journalists-link-to-primary-sources/#more-1997

Edited March 23, 2011 by Hot Heart

[Can]

For recent news, the misinformation about Libya is getting annoying. Some people are even calling it unconstitutional and warmongering.

 

I'm a moderate when it comes to politics, but I would really advise people to check all the facts before jumping to conclusions, never mind publishing a piece or making a public statement without all the facts.

[TheMightyEthan]

@WTF: Your entire post just goes to show that color is artistically useful, but in a world where color film was a physical impossibility (just assume for the sake of argument) people would still make films that are just as good.

 

Pan's Labyrinth could still have been made in such a world, it would just have been constructed differently to achieve the effect using something other than color.

 

Color is not absolutely, 100% necessary, in the sense that the lack of color would prevent the films from being made or from being just as well done.

[TheMightyEthan]

For recent news, the misinformation about Libya is getting annoying. Some people are even calling it unconstitutional and warmongering.

 

I'm a moderate when it comes to politics, but I would really advise people to check all the facts before jumping to conclusions, never mind publishing a piece or making a public statement without all the facts.

I wouldn't call it warmongering, but I would say that the statutory authorization for the President to use military force against other countries for 90 days (60 days of operation + 30 for withdrawal) without Congressional authorization specific to that conflict is probably unconstitutional. Under the constitution Congress has the sole authority to declare war and while it still retains the sole power to actually make the declaration, it has effectively delegated the power to start a war to the President. That delegation is in violation of separation of powers/checks and balances principles underlying the constitution.

 

*Edit* - I'm not arguing that the attacks are in violation of international law, in that sense they're legal because they were authorized by the UN. I'm also not saying that Obama is "usurping Congress" as some have been saying, as there is general statutory authorization, passed by Congress, allowing the President to conduct military operations for 90 days before those operations require Congressional assent. I would just argue that that grant of power was unconstitutional.

[Can]

Agreed.

 

The 90 days thing you're talking about is the War Powers Act, approved by Congress in 1973.

 

If Obama doesn't end military actions after 90 days or doesn't ask for Congress's approval within that time period, then it would be unconstitutional. However, this is where it falls into gray area, since the authorization by the UN could make up for Congress's approval, since all international treaties the US signs are treated as national law as well.

 

The stuff that annoys me is people from both extremes of the political spectrum are calling for Obama's impeachment for this, and that people are stupidly listening to them.

[TheMightyEthan]

No, my argument is that the War Powers Resolution is itself an unconstitutional act, and therefore any Presidential action pursuant to that Resolution is also unconstitutional.

 

The UN resolution has the effect of making the military action legal under international law, but that has no bearing as to whether the US participating is legal under our own domestic law.

[deanb]

Ended up for some reason (Can't remember the line of conversation, think it started with "why is the sun red at dusk/dawn") talking about this with my housemate.

Thought I'd pass along while it's on my mind:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Should provide a giggle for a few of you.

[Yantelope]

I'm sad I missed the 3D conversation. I agree with Ethan that it's just another tool that can be used by filmmakers as well as abused by filmmakers. Any time there's a new tool available people don't know what works and what doesn't and there is a certain amount of experimentation involved. I think 3D will continue to be utilized and it can be one more tool in the filmmakers kit to express whatever ideas or feelings he would like to. To imply that 3D is a gimmick doesn't exactly make sense to me.

[WTF]

@WTF: Your entire post just goes to show that color is artistically useful, but in a world where color film was a physical impossibility (just assume for the sake of argument) people would still make films that are just as good.

 

Pan's Labyrinth could still have been made in such a world, it would just have been constructed differently to achieve the effect using something other than color.

 

Color is not absolutely, 100% necessary, in the sense that the lack of color would prevent the films from being made or from being just as well done.

 

Here's the thing, it's not an absolute and we think in colour for the most part, even our dreams are in colour so long as we have good vision (we need the memories to see vivid colours, but even blind people are known to have dreams in colour so it's probably a far more intrinsic thing than we realise).

 

I mean your argument is sort of null and void given the current conditions. It's as TN said, most people grade films badly which do little to give the importance of colour. Saying you can make good films without colour is like saying you can make good games like pong but do you really want to make Pong when that's 3 generations behind and you can express a game concept much better in the myriad of ways.

 

There's also the fact that black and white films are shot on varying levels of saturation and colour and this is quite important. Saying that colour isn't important is a bit silly. For instance you shoot these things with varying levels of colour information before you take it out. So colour is essential, regardless what you think - because the truth is it's always been essential even when photography was in black and white. I don't really want to get into a lighting discussion here because then I'd end up writing a thesis .

[Thursday Next]

I mean your argument is sort of null and void given the current conditions. It's as TN said, most people grade films badly which do little to give the importance of colour. Saying you can make good films without colour is like saying you can make good games like pong but do you really want to make Pong when that's 3 generations behind and you can express a game concept much better in the myriad of ways.

 

Uh... No. His argument is neither null nor void. All I said was that colour is a tool like 3D. Some people use colour well, some people use it badly just like 3D.

 

Either way, films can, did and do exist in black and white just as they will continue to exist in 2D.

 

What I'm saying is "Colour is as essential as 3D". In fact I'd go further and say that "3D is as essential as colour, which is as essential as film."

[WTF]

I mean your argument is sort of null and void given the current conditions. It's as TN said, most people grade films badly which do little to give the importance of colour. Saying you can make good films without colour is like saying you can make good games like pong but do you really want to make Pong when that's 3 generations behind and you can express a game concept much better in the myriad of ways.

 

Uh... No. His argument is neither null nor void. All I said was that colour is a tool like 3D. Some people use colour well, some people use it badly just like 3D.

 

Either way, films can, did and do exist in black and white just as they will continue to exist in 2D.

 

What I'm saying is "Colour is as essential as 3D". In fact I'd go further and say that "3D is as essential as colour, which is as essential as film."

 

Excuse me, but there's no scenario except in a hypothetical world where the argument exists that there would be no colour. Not to mention the colour we see is limited to a tiny spectrum of our visible range. The reason why the argument is void is you need to create a scenario where a there exists no colour (blacks and whites are colours too and not just by the definition - contrast is one thing but colour contrast which is what we're speaking of here in terms of blacks and whites). An example would be that in a world of the blind, a one eyed man is king. Now there's that argument you can bring in all sorts of equations and in fact there's several stories about that particular scenario. However does it exist in the present conditions? That's where the argument is null and void. You have a given that we can see colour and we can record colour, the way we record blacks and whites are as colour information. Not just some random 2 set array of information. If none of those existed, it's a different scenario.

 

I think the problem is, that you are see it in simply colour or black and white. The truth is it's not that simple. 3D is different because 3D has not been applied. When it has been practically applied then we can say something. Right now barring a few exceptions where it has been sort of justified - the application of 3D does not see a lot of merit since the same emotional effect can be achieved without 3D. Colour and black and white work differently.

 

I mean you can argue, but your arguments are more semantics than expression. There's a difference here.

 

I didn't express myself clearly perhaps since I still am tired. However the existence is not the question. The question here is expression and creation of that expression. if you think that colour is not essential to shoot a good black and white film you're quite wrong there. That, is the creation of that expression. Colour is vital to create that expression.

You don't need 3D to create that expression, you don't even need a 3D camera to shoot 3D in all honesty. You do need colour however even if you want to film in black and white. I mean honestly you guys are speaking from a totally different side. There's first the act of filming, then the act of grading. When both don't express right then there's the failure of colour which is a fault of either or both.

 

I'm honestly going to say one more time. Colour is bloody essential to FILM anything you see on screen unless you're talking about computer generated images in which case the PROCESS is different but has a lot of similarities

 

The second point colour information exists even in your black and white films. There's two steps to it, one visual representation to make people attired right to shoot and the second to film it (or shoot it) in the right way.

 

After these two processes have been done comes the next part where you can choose to remove a part of the information to ideally express the emotion in either colour or monochrome. However there is COLOUR INFORMATION even in those. It's always been there when you film in celluloid film and there now when you film from 4:2:2 (or even lower, but 4:2:2 pretty much is the base requirement these days to have a good process 4K's ideal though).

 

Not to mention that there are emotions that you require colour grading from. I can cite several examples where colour-grading has been done wrong such certain scenes in Iron Man, Hangover etc.

 

The last statement is wrong mostly cause well you can't say 3D is essential until it 1)is required for the filming process, 2)delivers emotion consistently via the final product.

To state that they are both as essential as film pretty much shows the difference between our views and actual misunderstanding you have of my statement.

 

Edit: In retrospect, I know that came out a bit harsh and possibly may have slighted or annoyed you guys - But I was a bit annoyed. However as a film-maker and someone who pretty much holds workshops to train people to understand how to use it right, your statements couldn't possibly be more annoying. It's also probably why I don't talk about film stuff in general. Honestly if you want to do good work, you need the passion, otherwise it just doesn't happen. But I can post about colour and semiotics if anyone's interested. Of course not everything, since I do get some money from those paid workshops too .

 

P.S. just a side note I keep my professional life, private life and internet life totally separate from each other and don't really like them to crossover is why I don't speak or say of anything I do.

Edited March 25, 2011 by WTF

[Thursday Next]

You're getting bogged down in the semantics of what the word "colour" means to the profession. I'm not talking about "colour" I'm talking about "Colour".

 

May I present Ethan and Myself. Also known as "the average Joe." To the average Joe, there are two types of film colourisation. "Black & White" and "Colour".

 

Yes, I get that "Black" and "White" are "Colours" but you must know what the average Joe means by "Black & White" and "Colour".

 

"Colour" is not essential to a film. I can watch Iron Man on a Black & White TV and it will display just fine. 3D is the same. I prefer watching films in "Colour" because that is how I see the world. I also like to watch films in stereoscopic 3D because evolution blessed me with a nice set of predatory eyes and it's great to put them to use.

 

You saying that all films are in colour therefore colour is essential is like me saying that all films are in 3D so 3D is essential. All films try to give the impression of depth, whether that is done with lighting, perspective or stereoscopic trickery.

 

EDIT: Put my emphasis in the wrong place and also... Ethan, hope I'm not putting words in your mouth. Or on your fingers. Or whatever the internet equivalent is.

 

P.S. Relevant to the topic. This is what I mean about simplification and misinformation. You've misinterpreted a simplification as being "wrong" when in fact we're just not using the terminology you would.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Thursday Next

[TheMightyEthan]

P.S. Relevant to the topic. This is what I mean about simplification and misinformation. You've misinterpreted a simplification as being "wrong" when in fact we're just not using the terminology you would.

This. 1000x this.

 

WTF, you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I was saying.

[WTF]

Sorry if I've not had the time to get back to this argument. I've been working continuously the past few days and will be doing so again.

 

Anyway firstly your eyes do not see in 3D as in stereoscopic 3D as you'd seen in a cinema. There's a reason for this, it's because when an image forms on your retina, the image is formed focussed on the plane from where the light reflects out which is approximately the same as the position of the object. When it's in 3D, you'll not see it in the same way.

 

The best way to explain how we see 3D is to explain how camera lenses work. When you're looking at a screen your eye focusses on the screen, everything else in the periphery is blurred out. Try to view objects and you'll notice that your eye only focuses on a certain range and everything outside of that is focussed out as you'd see with a lens. Fortunately for us our iris and the muscles around our eye can vary the focal length so we can observe greater distances without the need for lenses. So the flat non stereoscopic 3D image created by multiple lenses would be the vision that we would actually see. There's no clear variable lens like that in existence which is why one needs to resort to trickery..

3D does not represent the eye.

Your analogy does not work because you are simplifying it which in turn is sort of like generalising things. It doesn't work the same way.

 

I'll get back to colour now. To average layperson it might seem like colour and black and white. But we as humans or in fact most animals do not see in monochrome, there's always a hint of colour.This is because light rays are in colour. When all colours exist it's white and absence of that is black (visually speaking, it's different when it comes to print). What you're referring to is basically contrast which is different from colour. I know this may sound condescending but you can't say colour and contrast are the same. Actually colour is essential to the film, not just from a technical standpoint. If you were to remove all colour composition from an image it is hard to distinguish between various items and also different objects within the focal range. it's mostly to do with the way our eye works and it reads colour information. If you were to shoot something in black and white and something in colour there's not only a world of difference in filming procedures but also in framing. I agree that you might not feel the difference but it is there. A lot of things would not work. For instance trying to film some guy flying away in a suit in a cloudy sky can work, but if it was crowded sky with objects in the background the eye isn't capable to process various imagery. It would work on a still, but there are issues as relates to the moving image. Depth as in depth of field is done via lenses and lighting (shadows actually).

 

I do stand by one argument clearly that it is ridiculous to make a statement that's impossible for the sake of an argument. I mean yes in a theoretical sense perhaps. But we do live in a world that has colour corresponding to waves of light. You can't say there exists a world without colour when it's something that exists unless you want to switch the discussion to a philosophical or metaphysical level. And colour is absolutely essential in a world where we read information the way we do. 3D is not the same because 3D does not work the same way. Neither does standard imagery for that matter but it is closer to the way our ocular lenses work. 3D is more of an artifice and will remain so because there's a difference in the way our eyes work and how 3D currently works. 3D projection is different and isn't really viable but would/should work similar to how we see.