I wonder if that’s why I got dizzy? I thought it was just me.
3-D, I suppose, is a sort of artificial extension of depth of field toward the eye rather than away from it. One of the primary, um, focuses of focus is to guide the eye. I think you there are still legitimate stylistic reasons for selective focus, racking focus, tracking shots, etc. even in the 3-D frame.
I find shallow focus to be very very important. It’s like a subtle guide for the eye indicating what the viewer should be paying attention to without actually having to indicate so with a character or plot device or dialogue. Why 3D would somehow be beyond such a thing just doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s not a 3D or 2D or whatever thing, it’s a cinematic thing, and it would actually detract from the quality of a film if there was no “depth” to it and everything just looked clear and static.
As far as it being used purely as a stylistic choice, I’m often reminded of the film Seventh Moon where the “focus” of many of the scenes was shown out-of-focus for no reason other than a cheat to show the “monster” and also not show it. When used like that, I would say that it’s bollocks and unnecessary (and lazy directing), perhaps that’s what the original OP meant?
I adore deep focus when merged with precise staging.
Searching Avatar topics, this is the best one to post my review under:
Enjoy, y’all.
—PolarisDiB
The matter of virtual cinematography and simulation and style is still being hashed out, and probably will be for some time to come. A virtual camera is on one hand free in practice of all of the artifacts to which practical cameras are susceptible: shake, exposure, focus (racking, bokeh, etc.). And with video cameras there are also of course specific blooming & quick-motion artifacts which can be distracting for some viewers.
On the other hand, any artifact of real cameras may be simulated with virtual cameras (at any point in the digital workflow) – so that the virtual cinematographer is like an artifact-artist (not unlike a pastiche artist), daubing fuzzy and shaky features/details over what is first a painfully crisp image capturing mathematically ideal objects…If you extend the “uncanny valley” notion – normally reserved for discussions of the “synthespian,” the CG proxy of a human actor (achieved in Benjamin Button?) – to the virtual camera operator, you could say that this kind of self-conscious daubing of artifacts still draws our notice, seems uncanny…We’re made most aware of the ineffable “fakeness” of the simulation of an operated camera where the filmmakers most strive to make it real…
I think 3D CGI’s infinite latitude of plane-of-focus options will primarily benefit more surrealistically styled films than it will for those striving for a realistic aesthetic (AVATAR basically strives for realism, when you come down to it, blue aliens and all).
The trailer for ALICE seemed to address this. Multiple planes of focus within the 3D depth design, coming in and out of focus. If the whole thing’s as good as I remember the trailer being, movies are about to get a lot cooler.
Depth will and multiple planes of focus and mixed shallow and deep focus (in a single frame, mind you, where it was previously impossible to achieve) will begin to get used expressively as color was after being introduced. Maybe some really snazzy, sensory-overloading process as eye-catching as 3-strip Technicolor will arise in depth design…I hope so.
EDIT: …or to put it a little differently, depth perception is a sensory technology our bodies have developed over thrillions of years of evolution, and it serves a very specific, predictable purpose in our day to day realities. The directors who recognize how manipulable this aspect of our perception now is via CGI and how little they need to stick to the laws of visual reality will probably be cranking out more interesting 3D movies with more experimental, profound explorations of the technology’s possibilities. They might even direct us think about our experience of depth in the physical world differently than we ever have before (I hope so).
Interesting to see that someone else noticed this. It wasn’t just me.
I do photography, so naturally I’m paying attention to the photography in films.
I thought there were several occasions in Avatar where the depth-of-field choices clashed badly with the 3D effect. In my case, I did not notice so much when the background went soft, but when the foreground did.
I could not for the life of me understand why Cameron chose to do this,since it seemed to conflict directly with the 3D realism he was going for. Maybe it did not bother others. The benefit of the 3D is that it allowed the eye to wander and explore the frame. Immersion, right? But when object have been thrown out of focus by lens choices, the illusion of 3D reality breaks, because your eye cannot resolve what it is choosing to look at.
That whole experience made me question 3D in films actually. Because it got me thinking about everything other cinematic storytelling technique and how they all evolved to guide the viewer’s gaze and attention through a story (composition, color, editing, sound, etc). 3D does the opposite in principle. Rather than direct your gaze, it invites you to explore, which seems a bit at cross-purposes with a narrated experience, and more in keeping with an interactive (ie. gaming) one. I would be much more willing to try 3D in a gaming context than I would to revisit it in a cinematic one. For all future releases for which there is an option, I’ll be choosing the 2D one.
i’m not sold on 3D, not using Avatar as a prime example of how great it could be… aside from the ‘pod’ like interior shots and the floating jellyfish (of the tree) creatures, the background was too soft through much of the viewing… the trailer’s for ‘alice’ and ‘hubble’ seemed much more impressive… i know i have a lot to learn about 3D, i’m just hoping to get it down pat before blu ray becomes obsolete.
I don’t know a lot about 3d, but can I just say that Shallow Focus sucks?
You can, but that’s kind of a, um, shallow comment.
I noticed the same thing. I think that it might just be a step forward, that we’re just not used to it yet. In normal films with shallow focus we can look at the blurry parts and still have an okay time registering it, but that’s actually not how it is in life. You never look at what you’re not focusing on. I think if we can learn to focus on what the camera tells us to, and explore when it allows it, the experience will be more rewarding.
That said, it makes it much more important for the director to know when to use shallow focus in 3d. I’m not arguing that Cameron made the right choices, or the wrong ones for that matter. I’m just saying we’re not used to it, but once we accept it, it could become a pretty powerful tool.
Gummi
This has been bugging me a bit since I saw Avatar, and I’d like to hear what you all think. I guess 3d will be ever more prominent in the coming years, especially in blockbusters and action movies, for better or for worse. Using 3d, filmmakers will have to rethink their approach somewhat, especially in relation to perspective and focus. In Avatar, deep focus is quite prominent, which is normal for a 3d world, I guess. Still, there were a few shots with shallow focus, i.e. the background was blurred while the foreground was sharp (mostly in medium shots or two shots). Those shots were quite jarring in the context of the visuals (IMO), as I was watching a 3d world I found it uncomfortable not being able to focus in on the person in the background. Shallow focus is mostly used to isolate a certain focal plane (most often persons or things in foreground) for various reasons, and many directors use it consciously to get their vision across (Mireilles springs to mind). So, the question is, what purpose can focus serve in a 3d movie? Will it disappear or what? Just curious to hear your thoughts…