[by Stacy Nick]
The future of film is so bright it needs to wear (3-D) shades, according to movie visual effects guru Rob Engle.
A lot has changed in technology even since Engle – who most recently worked on films “Green Hornet” and “Smurfs” and is in production on “The Amazing Spiderman” – began working on his first 3-D film, 2004’s “Polar Express.”
“We had to create a lot of the technology ourselves, things that now you can buy off the shelf,” said Engle, who originally was a software developer for HP before going back to school (he got his initial bachelor’s degree at the University of Colorado) to learn how to do computer visual effects for film. Engle will give a presentation on the present and future of 3-D today at The National Stereoscopic Association’s 37th annual 3-D convention at the Embassy Suites Hotel and Conference Center in
Loveland. The conference, running through Monday, will feature 3-D workshops for a variety of skill levels, a 3-D trade fair, a 3-D Art Gallery with modern and historic exhibits and nightly independent 3-D video and slide shows.
Derived from stereoscopic photography, the 3-D effect is created when regular motion picture cameras are used to record images from two perspectives (or when computer-generated imagery generates the two perspectives in post-production). The format got its start in the 1950s and enjoyed a brief resurgence in the ’80s before the current trend of both animated and live 3-D films.
“Live 3-D is significantly more difficult to do,” Engle said. “In animation you always have a perfect world and the virtual actors will stand still while you move the cameras around … and you don’t have anyone screaming at you that they’re losing the light.”
Live action 3-D also needs more time in post-production, he added.
While there is some controversy over whether a film is better off being shot in 3-D or adapted to 3-D later, Engle said that “80 percent of what we do, whether planned or not, works fine for 3-D.” The trick is in how that image is used and whether 3-D is used to its best effect, he said.
When a film is shot planned for 3-D, the cinematographer can work to avoid issues including distracting foreground images such as the classic over-the-shoulder shot. The shoulder is the closest thing in the scene: In 2-D, the viewer’s eye will easily overlook that to go to the brightest and most in focus image; in 3-D the eye goes to the closest thing in the frame, Engle said.
The flood of 3-D films and media, including televisions and cameras, is great for Engle but it has to be used judiciously, he said.
“You have to know your audience,” he said. “Different films lend themselves to different treatment.”
A film like 2009’s “G-Force,” an animated film about secret agent guinea pigs, is just fun and can really be played with Engle said. But films like “Avatar,” which really brings the viewer into another world, didn’t lend itself to overt 3-D moments and so it didn’t need to bang audiences over the head with it.
In addition to more, the influx of 3-D films will also see better 3-D films, Engle said.
One of chief complaints with 3-D films is that they are too dark and the new technology that is coming out will bring a brighter presentation.
The increase in the number of 3-D films has really put a spotlight on presentation so there is a renewed push to improve what is already there, Engle said.
Every time there is a resurgence, things get better, he said. “3-D in the ’80s was really a blip on the radar,” added Engle, pointing to horror movies like “Friday the 13th” that relied on gimmicky 3-D such as giant pokers sticking out of a victim’s eye.
Right now the top film makers of the craft, including Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg, are using this tool, he said. “These are the heavy hitters and even they are saying how much they are excited about what this will mean.”