What's the consensus on 3D? The effect is not new and I'll be honest, I've never been turned on by it before. However, i just saw Guardians of the Galaxy in this form and i have to say i was impressed.
I'm putting together a funding campaign for a short at the moment and find myself wondering if there's any mileage in bidding for a bigger budget to shoot the whole thing in stereoscope.
Targeted at festivals, do you think there's anything to be gained from the extra expense and effort or will festivals prefer to screen in 2D anyway? Given the scale of most animation events and the fact that currently most short content is not 3D.
The mainstream cinema appears to be demonstrating that this is more than a gimmick.
I would be interested to hear your views about whether audience expectation is turning towards (especially in animation) the extra dimension, or will there always be a sustainable market for traditional photography?
3d. Meh. I experimented with it, shooting my Harryhausen 90th birthday tribute (Walking the Walk) in 3d, but didn't have much interest in shooting any more in 3d. Most people on Youtube watch the 2d version. The bigger picture in 2d beats the smaller side by side pair, even if you do have a viewer like I got when I was making it. And red- green glasses for colour film pretty well sucks.
Then I built sets for a short film ( Grace Under Water) which is on the festival circuit now. I should ask the director if any festivals wanted the 3d version - somehow I don't think so. It required a lot more set building, because a lot of compositing tricks like foreground miniatures and matte painting don't work in 3d, you can see the miniature is closer to camera. I was able to use painted backdrops at the back, where things look pretty much the same to both eyes anyway. So as well as the longer shooting time when animating, setbuilding took longer. So did post production, and that added quite a lot of expense. I wasn't encouraged to shoot in 3d again by the experience of working on it. The crew will get a 3d screening some time soon, but probably it will rarely be watched that way afterwards.
Maybe you should look at the rules for submissions to a few festivals and see if you find any that accept a 3d format.
Like most people I went to a few feature films in 3d. Generally, after a few minutes I stop noticing. Unless it's so obvious it's actually taking me out of the story. Funny because it ought to make you feel more immersed in that world, since we see our own world in 3d, but somehow it feels like there is something artificial about it. I'm not sure the trade-off of a dimmer picture is worth it. The last few, I've gone to a local cinema that only projects in 2d, but costs less and is closer to get to. I did see Coraline in 3d, and might do that for Boxtrolls, but I'm just as likely to not bother.
I don't know, is a generational thing? Do kids who have grown up with this current wave of 3d feel there is something missing when a film is in 2d? There have been a few advances in cinema over the last hundred years, and to me, though I love the German Expressionist silent cinema, sound made the biggest difference to the viewing experience. Colour comes second, then widescreen and higher resolution, but to me, stereo 3d has a much smaller impact than any of those.