In my first post about the Gokinema 3D Workshop I attended in Sweden, I noted a few basics concepts: edge violation, screen distance and IA (inter-axial), to complement my article in the November issue of American Cinematographer
I now share two of the simple tests we shot to evaluate the look of distant 3D backgrounds, which I call faraway for short. When watching 3D movies I have often been struck by how objects at distances of more than a hundred meters have a different quality, often lacking the depth we perceive with our eyes. Geoff Boyle‘s 3D workshop in Gothenburg was a great opportunity to begin exploring the faraway image.
Once again, if you don’t already own some, I heartily encourage you to obtain a pair of cyan red cardboard glasses. And once again, I must stress that I am just a student of 3D, not an expert.
+++
Thomas Harbers assisted Geoff Boyle with the course, providing post-production for the 3D footage we shot.
Thomas is a man of many talents: in addition to 3D production and post services, he also does CAD and invents gear; his latest offering is DasRekorder, a file-based recorder for 3D video streams. Thomas kindly prepared the anaglyph movies from the workshop for this post.
+++
faraway flatness
The YouTube icon below displays the separate left and right views, once you click the play arrow, the video will combine them in an anaglyph.
I recommend looking at this full screen.
We shot this scene converged with 2 small SI-2K cameras mounted on a Stereotek rig, using 16mm Zeiss Ultra Primes. The point of conversion was about 10 meters, the nearest distance to the incoming boat. There is a HIT of 0%, in other words Thomas left the images as is. (Note that the bottom-screen info is wrong).
This footage illustrates how faraway objects in stereo 3D often look flattened. The bridge in the distance almost looks like a painted backing, except for the moving cars.
(click for larger image in separate window)
The flattening effect is most noticeable to me when the incoming boat is seen in front of the bigger vessels behind it. The foreground ferry’s volume makes the background ships seem that much flatter.
(click for larger image in separate window)
Thomas comments that “this is an impossible shot, you can’t make both the distant objects and the close objects look good”. The lesson here is that it’s the combination of deep nearby and flat faraway objects that doesn’t work.
The November issue of American Cinematographer features an article I wrote about low-budget 3D, based on a workshop I attended in Gothenburg, Sweden which was led by cinematographer Geoff Boyle, also known as the father of CML, the Cinematography Mailing List. Geoff was assisted by post specialist Thomas Harbers.
I wanted to offer some 3D images and notes from the workshop to complement the article, and raise some 3D topics. I must emphasize that I am still a student of 3D. I do not pretend to be a 3D expert, rather I propose to share my notes and questions on the subject, as I “deepen” my knowledge. Please do not hesitate to give me your corrections and explanations.
+++
Geoff Boyle showing us 2 Alexas on a P+S Technik Freestyle Rig
+++
anaglyph glasses
I now believe that anyone interested in cinematography should own a pair of Red/Cyan anaglyph 3D glasses. I got mine for free at a trade show, but one can also order some on the internet (check the links below). The Greek etymology is ana + glyph, to carve upon. The word originally referred to low relief sculptures with a slight offset between background and foreground. Anaglyph 3D also has a slight offset, a horizontal shift between the red and the cyan images.
It is in this spirit that I will offer some anaglyph images from the workshop to complement my article.
If you don’t have glasses, I would like to convince you to get some soon, and in the meantime, you can analyze anaglyph images sans glasses, like many stereographers do on the set. They do so because viewing anaglyph with glasses quickly tires your eyes, however you can still get a quick visual indication without glasses of the amount of depth from the thickness of the red or cyan offset.
+++
colored edges
During the workshop, I shot the image below with a P+S Technik Freestyle rig on my shoulder — with two tiny SI-2K cameras. Let’s start looking at the anaglyph image without glasses. (You might want to click on the image to see a bigger size in a separate browser window). Look for the colored edges. If there are no colored edges, the image is the same for each eye and the object position is on the screen, just like all the objects in a 2D movie.
Objects with red and cyan edges are either behind or in front of the screen: the larger the colored edge, the greater the distance from the screen. This edge is sometimes measured as a percentage of the total screen. During the workshop, Geoff Boyle once positioned a 1 cm piece of tape on our 1 meter screen, saying “here is a 1% reference”. We also used the built-in grids of our Transvideo monitors to display percentage offsets.
click on any image for closer view
edge violation
Let’s put on the glasses. When I look at a 3D images with my glasses on, I sometimes get confused about where the screen plane is. One way is to hold your hand out and point your finger sideways at where you think the screen is. You can also move your mouse cursor around. In both cases you’ll probably end up finding the screen position halfway up the ramp. Continue reading ’3D Workshop: Edges, Screen, IA’
The September issue of American Cinematographer features an article I wrote about PINA, the beautiful 3D film directed by Wim Wenders, assisted by cinematographer Hélène Louvart, AFC, 3D supervisor François Garnier and director of stereography Alain Derobe.
Wenders was very busy on another project when I was writing the article, but kindly accepted to answer some written questions in time for publication. I thank him for the time he took to write this thoughtful, honest and passionate text!
I must add that PINA is a true 3D masterpiece that combines the cinematic and dance art forms in a powerful, poetic and moving film.
click on images for closer view
+++
emotion
Benjamin B: Can you talk about the emotional impact of Pina’s work on you?
Wim Wenders: I was totally overwhelmed when I saw a piece of Pina Bausch for the first time. Nothing had prepared me for it. I didn’t care much about dance, I must admit. I didn’t think that was for me, or concerned me in any way. My girl friend at the time had to drag me into the theatre to see CAFÉ MÜLLER. And then I found myself on the edge of my seat, after 10 minutes, crying, and finally weeping through the entire performance. What I saw on stage touched me more than anything I had ever seen. It went deep into my heart and really shook me to the bone. This (to me yet unknown) woman by the name of Pina Bausch was showing me more about men and women than the entire history of cinema had done, and all that without a WORD! I was eager to see more, and could not get enough of Pina’s work. (Luckily, there were already 20 pieces at the time!) She had created a new art form, indeed, that didn’t owe much to neither conventional dance nor theatre…
You see, as a film director I fancied I knew something about the language of our bodies. We deal with actors, sometimes famous ones, we often tell them what to do, we sometimes correct them. And after all, the actor’s “presence”, that magic thing some of them have to appeal to the camera, what else is it than their body language? So, in my profession, we think we are experts in that. And then you see the work of Pina Bausch, and you realize: we are all analphabets of that language, we know little or nothing in relation to Pina about how to decipher that most fundamental language on Earth.
I have known Pina (and her work) for over 20 years, and I cannot possibly grasp how much that encounter influenced me. A couple of years after I saw her work for the first time I made Wings of Desire. Which is probably the most “choreographed” film I ever made, and which certainly owes a lot to Pina. (More on subconscious levels, I guess, than on any obvious first-hand “inspiration”.)
BB: Is there a scene in PINA that you particularly liked directing and why?
WW: Yes, one little moment. It is a quote from the piece TEN CHI … An older man is carrying his daughter on his back. He walks leaned over, like carrying a big load, and she is cuddled on his back like a baby. And then he stops and she glides down from his back. And then the unimaginable happens: she bends down, and her father climbs onto her back and also turns into a baby, and she carries him for a stretch of the path. And then she stops and they change parts again. Father and daughter cross the entire stage like this…
We shot this outdoors, and I was looking for the longest time for the ideal place for this little scene, until I found a location, in an industrial area near Wuppertal, that looked like a moonscape. I have seen this father and daughter movement countless times, on stage, and then in the editing room of course, but even now, in the finished film, I get goose-pimples when I see it…
+++
presence
BB: How do you feel about placing people or objects in front of the screen? Can you give an example from the film?
WW: Hard to give ONE example. In 3D there is this whole new aspect to consider: where to you place your characters in space? Are they on the screen level, or behind, or before it? That question appears with every shot. You have to organize the entire depth of the space you have available. In a way that’s the basic work in 3D that you expect, also from watching other 3D films. What really hit me more during the shoot, a whole new experience, was that the actors’ bodies themselves appears so differently.
All of a sudden, these bodies have VOLUME. They are round, and voluptuous, no longer flat surfaces as they have always been on the screen. That presence of the body has surprised me most, more than depth and space as such. And in a way, I felt we were on new territory here with PINA, as the dancers and that incredibly physical work they are doing were the main subject of the film. There was a phenomenal affinity between 3D and our subject. They both brought out the best in each other. Not only was 3D perfect to represent dance, dance also really brought out the essence of 3D, it felt.
BB: Can you talk about how 3D conveys the presence of performers differently than 2D? Is there a shot that comes to mind?
WW: The most simple shot of the film was the most striking one in that regard. It was a recurring set-up, some sort of a “silent portrait” that we made with each of the dancers, over a longer shooting period. They each sat in front of the camera, as if it was a sitting for a painter, or photographer, eventually directing their look straight into the lens. I always sent the entire crew away, when the stereo cameras were running, so I was alone with each of the actors/dancers, and we would have a really intimate situation. I sat behind the rig with our TRANSVIDEO monitor on my lap, so I became invisible for the person in front of the cameras, while I could watch in 3D what we were shooting. So there was just a person sitting in front of a three-dimensional camera, and I was watching a live feed on a monitor.
I tell you: it blew my mind! This was the most exciting thing in my 3D experience, I felt, far more compelling than huge crane shots with hundreds of camera positions and a complex choreography. The presence of that person on my 3D monitor was breathtaking. It really felt, for the first time, as if I could actually touch the dancers. There was an aura around them I had never experienced in cinema before. They were THERE is an ever before unseen way! We could use the entire little space – the person on a chair with a wall a feet behind them – for our stereographic representation. There was nothing “spectacular” about the whole thing, only that the very presence of a human being was utterly spectacular in itself. The face was a real landscape, the body had volume and roundness, “weight”… I cant even put it in words why this was so thrilling and extraordinary. The “reality” of the body, the “existential truth” of this representation, the very miracle of a human being alive not only in front of the camera but also captured absolutely “live-like” by this new medium… it struck me each time we did this shot (and I went through the experience each time anew) that this was, indeed, the future of filmmaking, especially of documentary filmmaking.
You always say that great actors have that special “presence” in front of the camera, but here was an even more magnified presence. You can only guess how this would be filled by a great actor in a story that would actually USE this potential of 3D and not just treat the new language as a production value in itself. The real attraction of 3D is how people can appear in this new space! I have just not seen that yet in a movie. 3D movies are all about themselves, it seems to me, all self-fulfilling prophecies. There was only one masterpiece in the genre so far, and that was Avatar. Ever since I wait for a film that would incorporate 3D with all its new possibilities for storytelling.
+++
wide
BB: How does 3D change your mise en scène ?
WW: What changed most for my own approach to filmmaking and directing was the use of lenses. The use of a wide angle, let’s say a 24mm lens for a huge wide shot (if we are talking 35mm film lenses) or a 32 to 38 for a medium wide shot, or a 50-65 for a close-up, or an 135 for a tight close-up… As a film director (like most of my colleagues) I have that in my blood, I “think” in set-ups and focal lengths that go with it.
That just didn’t work for me in 3D. I soon realized that the ideal lens for a 3D shoot was the one that came as close as possible to our human eye and its angle of perception. For our SONY 1500 cameras that became a set of 10mm Zeiss prime lenses, and we shot the entire film with that focal length, with the exception of very few closer shots that we did on a 14mm. (Which is still relatively wide.) I just thought that changing lenses did some harm to the stereographic perception. If you changed focal length when going from a wider shot to a closer one the entire space would be compressed. I experienced that as unpleasant when I made the first cuts in 3D and started to refrain from changing lenses. We would just go closer or wider with the camera, this way respecting as much as possible a 3D approach that was as “physiologically correct” as possible.
+++
future
BB: What do you think is the future of 3D for features and documentaries?
WW: There is no future if the new medium isn’t done more justice soon! If the studios keep producing trash with it, strictly action-based roller-coaster rides, the medium will collapse. It can do so much more!!! I can’t wait to see filmmakers, independent directors and authors and documentary crews take up 3D, make the best out of it and use it finally to its full potential. Stories that are “space adventures”, not in outer space, but on our own planet. Intimate stories of real people, not just of fantasy characters! I can’t wait to see the first round of documentaries exploring the new three-dimensional language to its max, taking us into the lives and the work of people in ways that we have never seen before. THEN 3D has a brilliant future, then it is a change comparable to the step from silent movies to sound!
BB: How about you personally, which kind of projects would you like to shoot in 3D or 2D in the future?
WW: I have done a couple of short films since PINA, documentary-style, or as an installation for the Architecture Biennale in Venice. I am working with a writer on a feature film that could be shot in 3D, an intimate story that would have the “affinity” to 3D that I mentioned before. I am also very tempted to shoot another feature-length documentary in 3D, with a very small crew, travelling a lot and filming in remote places. I’m really addicted to 3D, I must say. Very hard to return to conventional flat screens once you have tasted the thrill of a three-dimensional shoot.
+++
+++
Links
September 2011 Preview of American Cinematographer. You can read my PINA article on pages 44 to 55.
(If you are a subscriber you can download the entire issue).
Berlinale Podcast by my colleague Iain Stasukevich. Iain did thoughtful interviews of Wenders, Guy Maddin and Wojcieszek at the Berlin Film Festival.
This is the first installment in a series of occasional columns that will analyze film scenes in detail, using key frames as illustrations.
Scene in Stills is an extension of the work on scenes in my book Reflections, 21 Cinematographers at Work, published by the ASC Press.
I start with a scene from one of the most perfect films ever made, Rear Window (1962) by Alfred Hitchcock, starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly and Thelma Ritter, with cinematography by Robert Burks, ASC. Burks collaborated on 12 films with the legendary director, using his friend Leonard J. South, ASC, as camera operator.
Robert Burks was nominated for an Oscar for the wonderful Technicolor cinematography of Rear Window.
+++
How do you introduce an important character? Every story has to. In Rear Window, it goes like this, about 15 minutes into the movie:
The scene
The camera moves across the courtyard buildings at dusk, a singer is doing scales, windows light up, the camera moves into our hero’s darkened apartment, he is asleep, a shadow crosses his face…
My first post about Princess of Montpensier outlined the story. In the second post I spoke to the cinematographer, Bruno de Keyzer, focusing on 3 scenes from the movie. In this post I present a video interview that I shot with the director, Bertrand Tavernier, also discussing one of those scenes.
+++
Director Bertrand Tavernier evokes camera movement, the camera as a character, and the use of music.
The Princess of Montpensier offers an unusual, refreshing blend of romanticism and realism, brought to the screen by veteran director Bertrand Tavernier and his frequent collaborator, cinematographer Bruno de Keyzer, BSC.
My first post outlined the story. In this post I speak to the cinematographer, focusing on 3 scenes from the movie. In the next post I interview Bertrand Tavernier about the first scene.
+++
PART 2: INTERVIEW with BRUNO DE KEYZER, BSC
Benjamin B: The film is shot with anamorphic lenses. What equipment did you use, and what stock?
Bruno de Keyzer: We shot the film with Panavision’s new G series lenses. They’re very good quality, and they’re light, which was important because Chris Squires our operator shot a lot of Steadicam. When shooting anamorphic, I like to get a 4 or 4.5 stop in day interiors; you want both actors to be in focus on a two-shot!
I used Fuji 500 daylight stock. It’s close to the sensibility of your eyes. At my age I know the stop for interiors by heart, outside it’s more difficult.
The Princess of Montpensier offers an unusual, refreshing blend of romanticism and realism. The classic French novella is brought to the screen by veteran director Bertrand Tavernier and his frequent collaborator, cinematographer Bruno de Keyzer, BSC.
I will present this movie in several posts. I start here with the story then interview the cinematographer and the director.
+++
PART 1: THE STORY
The Princess of Montpensier takes place in the sixteenth century during the French Wars of Religion. It begins as the learned, chilvarous count of Chabannes (played by Lambert Wilson) deserts the Protestant army after being shocked by his own violence. The count is taken in under the protection of his friend the prince of Montpensier (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet).
The prince is quickly wedded to Marie (Mélanie Thierry), a teenage heiress, in a marriage arranged by their fathers as a business transaction. As she struggles to assume the bearing of her new rank, the young princess is torn by a sense of duty to her shy, awkward husband, and her lingering crush for the handsome, arrogant duke of Guise (Gaspard Ulliel).
When the prince is called to war, he leaves his bride with the count, asking him to help educate Marie to prepare her for a life at court. Despite himself, the older count falls in love with his student, blurts out his feelings only to be put back in his place by the princess.
I was recently invited to a set of a short French film shooting in Stereo 3D. Since we often hear about big 3D movies, I thought I’d offer my photos of a low-budget 3D production.
The film was La troisième voie (The Third Way) a cop story with a twist directed by Jean-Michel Tari, with cinematography by Paul-Anthony Mille and stereography by Cédric-Alexandre Saudinos.
The 3D short was shot with a P+S Technik Freestyle Rig & Silicon Imaging SI-2K cameras connected to a 1 Beyond Wrangler Mini3D box recording Cineform RAW Quicktime.
Richard Leacock died in Paris yesterday. He was 89. Ricky was one of the founders of the cinema vérité movement, and a constant innovator in documentary filmmaking. Ricky’s last great work is an upcoming multi-media memoir that will also serve as a personal history of documentary.
Ricky was also my mentor and my friend. This is for him:
Ricky with his partner & collaborator Valérie Lalonde (photo Anne Aghion)
From time to time I will post a video I have made in this column.
In the video below Philippe Bordelais assembles the Freestyle Rig that he invented, to shoot Steadicam in Stereoscopic 3D. Key ingredients include 2 Sony EX3 cameras, and a Transvideo 3DView monitor that Philippe uses to align the cameras.
(ipad iOS 4.3 )
Sweden, France, Germany
I recently went to Gothenburg Studios in Sweden to attend a Stereo 3D workshop led by Geoff Boyle, BSC, known to many as the founder of the CML mailing list, but also an experienced Stereo 3D cinematographer. Lessons from this very practical workshop will be the subject of a future column.
We shot with several different rigs in Gothenburg, and I had the opportunity to shoot a scene handheld with a Freestyle Rig, which was invented by French Steadicamer Philippe Bordelais, who developed it from prototype to finished product in collaboration with P+S Technik in Munich. I was impressed by the carbon fiber rig’s strength, steadiness and lightness.
Get out your anaglyph glasses! 
Thomas Harbers assisted Geoff Boyle with the course, providing post-production for the 3D footage we shot. 
my knowledge. Please do not hesitate to give me your corrections and explanations.
Bruno de Keyzer: We shot the film with Panavision’s new G series lenses. They’re very good quality, and they’re light, which was important because Chris Squires our operator shot a lot of Steadicam. When shooting anamorphic, I like to get a 4 or 4.5 stop in day interiors; you want both actors to be in focus on a two-shot! 
Recent Comments