Cost of 3D

It's interesting, after a number of meetings all the producers I talk to are convinced that the shooting cost will increase by at least 20%.

I manage to change that misconception but I do find that the "experts" that they're talking to seriously under estimate the additional post costs.

Of course this is far less of a problem than additional shooting costs, c'mon, we've got the entire cast and crew or a colourist or VFX guy!

Of course it's cheaper to get it approximately right when you shoot and then tweak later.

Oh I know it's not "correct" but I'd rather shoot a movie in 3D that wasn't "correct" than not shoot anything.

Also, not enough differentiation is made between Live, Event & Drama.

They're not the same!

Sorry for this rant but I keep hearing the same things from producers.

Geoff Boyle
EU Based
Skype geoff.boyle
mobile: +44 (0)7831 562877
www.gboyle.co.uk

Geoff Boyle wrote:

>> It's interesting, after a number of meetings all the producers I talk to are convinced that the >>shooting cost will increase by at least 20%.

GREG REPLIES :

>>Each picture -- large or small -- is different. I frankly don't know how it's possible to be unequivocal that it won't cost more without a detailed script breakdown, etc. IMO, the art direction and many other elements of 3D movie are (or should be) different than for a 2D movie. And that's just one element that can increase costs. Before 3D had proven itself as a commercially viable production/distribution choice, there was lots of pressure to convince producers that shooting "native" stereo wouldn't add to the cost (something that I always considered a dubious claim at best), but I think now is the time to be more realistic about costs. What's attracting producers is higher box office potential. If they have to pay 20% more for, say, a 50% greater return, that's good economics. Of course they with bitch and moan about it, but underestimating costs can be fatal (to the production and to careers.) Sure, one can shoot a 3D movie for the same cost as a 2D movie, but can one shoot a GOOD 3D movie that really takes advantage of the medium for the same cost? That depends on the movie, doesn't it? And, generally speaking, I don't think one can. In these early days of the 3D renaissance, audiences are less discriminating. But that's going to change as more 3D pictures are released, and as more people experience 3D on TV in the coming years. And that will require 3D production to up its game, so to speak. Maybe new tools will help control costs, but what costs most on any production is time. And nothing really replaces that.<<

GEOFF WROTE :

>>I manage to change that misconception but I do find that the "experts" that they're talking to >>seriously under estimate the additional post costs.

GREG REPLIES :

>>Again, this depends on the individual picture, doesn't it? There are still as many different stereo >>workflows as there are movies and I see no race toward standardization.

GEOFF WROTE :

>>Of course it's cheaper to get it approximately right when you shoot and then tweak later.

GREG REPLIES :

>>The reality seems to be that even if one strives for the absolute best, some post tweaks are inevitable.

GEOFF WROTE :

>>Oh I know it's not "correct" but I'd rather shoot a movie in 3D that wasn't "correct" than not shoot >>anything.

GREG REPLIES :

>>I'm not sure one should say that out loud. haha.

GEOFF WROTE :

>>Also, not enough differentiation is made between Live, Event & Drama. They're not the same!

GREG REPLIES :

>>That is definitely a big issue. It's a matter of education and experience. Something that's still in >>short supply.

Greg Lowry
Scopica Inc. | Scopica 3D
Vancouver

Tim Sassoon wrote:

> Q. "Why do I need a stereographer for post when we shot stereo?" A.
> Well, why do you need a colorist for post when you shot color?

Priceless!

Mark H. Weingartner
Chair, ICG National Training Committee
818 702 1777
818 970 6833 mobile

Tim Sassoon wrote:

> > Q. "Why do I need a stereographer for post when we shot stereo?" A.
> > Well, why do you need a colorist for post when you shot color?

The smartest thing anyone has said on here in a long time. But hey these days, who needs a
colorist or a stereographer, anyone can do this on their MAC.

(Ramona being a smart ass, in case you don't know me)

Cheers,

Ramona

--
Ramona Howard
Oakdale, Ca 95361
209 847-7812 ext 104
www.spectsoft.com
skype: ramonahoward988
Co-founder of SpectSoft, makers of the Rave and 3d Live product line.

Ramona writes:

> who needs a colorist or a stereographer, anyone can do this on their MAC.

Um, I'm a colorist and stereographer, who usually does it on my Mac.

Of course, Mac's aren't more than a couple of ASIC's different from anyone else's hardware these days. But I do like being able to run OSX, Win7 and Ubuntu 64 simultaneously, though I personally find Windows a bit depressing if I have to work in it too long, and Linux doesn't have the depth of applications and services support (like QT) to be a general-purpose graphics machine.

>Tim Sassoon
(absolutely not starting a platform war - I need them all!)
Santa Monica, CA

Tim Sassoon wrote:

>> But I do like being able to run OSX, Win7 and Ubuntu 64 simultaneously, though I personally find >>Windows a bit depressing if I have to work in it too long...

Tim,

Interesting, I too am using Ubuntu more. My macBook Pro is QUADRUPLE booted Fedora, Ubuntu, Win7, OSX. Such a pain.

I'd be much happier with Ubuntu/OSX dual boot.

Maybe someday we'll get there.

>
Jonathan Flack
Cinematographer

>>Um, I'm a colorist and stereographer, who usually does it on my Mac

The point was more, not that a professional who obviously has been working at it for years (bet you haven't only colored on a MAC) would be using the platform BUT that literally ANYONE can now be a colorist and stereographer.......or at least that is the way it is marketed. So why do we need these, if anyone can do it?

You and I and most of the people here know this to be a statement that is frustrating. But how do you work around it?

No platform war here. MAC is a close cousin to Linux, Windows is the stepchild.....I need to find the time to triple boot my MacPro, for now will just be happy running Linux virtually.

Cheers,

>
Ramona Howard
Oakdale, Ca 95361
209 847-7812 ext 104
www.spectsoft.com
skype: ramonahoward988

Co-founder of SpectSoft, makers of the Rave and 3d Live product line.

Ramona writes:

>> literally ANYONE can now be a colorist and stereographer.......or at least that is the way it is
>> marketed. So why do we need these, if anyone can do it?

Chisels and brushes weren't particularly expensive back in Michelangelo's time, but we still remember the fellow who chopped out "David" and painted the Sistine Chapel. I like to quote Raymond Chandler's fictional detective Philip Marlowe on the subject of commodification; "It's like lawyering and dentistry - you can get it at any price."

And yes, I've spent a lot of time twiddling knobs in telecine's, but given a good log scan, there's nothing I could do in them I couldn't do just as well or better today on my laptop, albeit not in RT. But I'm not in a RT delivery environment nowadays, though the other day I did push through 850GB of
7K DPX's, Aspera downloaded from Kiwi-land, into 124,000 2K projector-ready files, with CC, text tags, etc., quicker than I would've thought possible.

Although for that I didn't _just_ use the Mac Book Pro

Tim Sassoon
SFD
Santa Monica, CA

Ramona Howard wrote:

>> But hey these days, who needs a colorist or a stereographer, anyone can do this on their MAC.

For the record, please note that it was not me who stated that, out
loud (OK in print), in public, in front of other people.

Cheers!

I'm now going to go day-glo bowling and drink. Perhaps not in that order.

Mike Curtis having a silly moment as well, still in Santa Monica

>> For the record, please note that it was not me who stated that, out loud (OK in print), in public, in >>front of other people.

Nope that was me inserting my foot (again). What my brain was thinking and what my fingers
were typing were two different things.

I was just trying to point out that with all the 3D marketing, companies are making it seem so easy. With everyone into FCP (low and high-end), everyone can do it. Shoot, Edit, Color and make a movie.....

In reality we all know this isn't the case. This is hard s*%$# to get right. My eyes hurt already and the floor hasn't even opened

Mike, when are you going to come look at our stuff, you haven't seen 3d Live, have you?

Cheers,

Ramona Howard
Oakdale, Ca 95361

Tim, you write:

"why do you need a colorist for post when you shot color?"

I certainly agree with you, however I should point that I do not have a colorist on set. Neither do I bring my gaffer in post.

>
A few days ago I was asking if there needs to be a stereographer in post. I obviously had put it wrong. The real question was: does the stereographer who is on set need to be the same person as the stereographer who will be in post? Or not? This has to do with working practices and politics, so it might have to be answered in pro, still I think cml3D is a better place.

Needless to point that according to the answer, Very different results will come out.

Best

Argyris (sorry I cannot attend NAB even if at the Greek Isles) Theos
DoP
Athens Greece
+30 6944 725 315

>>"does the stereographer who is on set need to be the same person as the stereographer who will >>be in post? Or not? "

I would try to use the same stereographer on set and in post.
That would normally make for less changes and a common idea from set to post.

IMHO

best,

Jeff Olm
Stereo Colorist
LA, CA, USA