10
same time managing to avoid obstructing the views of the spectators. In addition to these
considerations, 3D filmmakers who shoot live events are unlikely to want the depth and
scale artifacts that may find a useful place in the palette of the dramatic filmmaker. In
particular, by shooting with a very narrow I/O, live event filmmakers may inadvertently
capture images that suffer from gigantism, while the choice of a wide I/O may result in
images that suffer from miniaturization. In this regard, it is often advisable for live event
filmmakers to shoot most of the action in
orthostereographic
mode, with their cameras
mounted in side-by-side configuration, the I/O of their lenses set at 2.5,” and the lenses
converged a short distance behind the key subject of interest. An exception to this rule
applies to establishing shots, wide vistas from a vantage point at the back of the arena or
high in the stands. In this case the stereographer may opt for a slightly wider-than-
normal I/O in order to lend some depth to the performers on the stage or the players on
the field—while taking care to avoid the miniaturization effect that results from an overly-
wide I/O. Along with the above, live event filmmakers, like all other 3D filmmakers, are
generally advised to reject long focal length lenses in favor of those with a wide depth-of-
field.
Pacing the Cut
The caveats that apply to 3D production also apply to the art of composing 3D films in
post. In addition to carefully matching convergence and interocular distances from shot
to shot, experienced 3D picture editors tend to make allowances for an extended audience
reading time—especially in the case of adults. Until their audiences become accustomed
to rapidly reading 3D images, editors working on films that are intended for general
audiences are advised to play scenes for durations that are up to two times longer than
they normally would play in 2D.
Weighing the Cost
As more films are produced in 3D, filmmakers will gain a clearer perspective on the
impact in time and dollars of shooting in 3D relative to 2D. In general, however, it seems
safe to estimate that a 3D film will take 30% longer to shoot and 50% longer to post than
a comparable 2D film and will cost 30% to 50% more overall. Ultimately, the decision to
shoot in 3D instead of 2D, while subject to creative considerations, must depend upon the
ability of the marketplace to return that incremental investment.
