3D cinema: post-production, production or pre-production?

On the one hand we've got many film critics (and myself included) who absolutely slate the addition of 3D in most films (though I was impressed with Avatar!!), saying at best it does little to add to the driving narrative; at worst, detracts and undermines it. On the other hand, however, we've clearly got big name film-makers, such as Peter Jackson, actively promoting 3D as a useful visual tool. So...do they know something we don't? Or is this just a fad that will die out?

We know 3D cinema isn't a 'new' thing; it has roots going back decades to the 'golden era' (see: Bwana Devil (1952); Man in the Dark (1953); House of Wax (1953) ) when it was first introduced. It died then as a gimmick and has resurfaced consistently with new bursts to the point where, technically, 3D has never left us. It's everywhere: TV, film, documentaries, web-videos, etc. But within the last ten years 3D has very slowly but surely started to rear its head again as a major marketing tool in cinema. That said, the aforementioned Avatar from David Cameron has certainly re-sparked curiosity and interest in the potential of 3D (though the pairing with IMAX presentation worked to its chief advantage.)

Filming in 3D.

Relatively speaking (though not exclusively) 3D has two major entry points into the film-making process: the first is the conversion method. This path is likely the source of the most criticism among detractors. Better articles and sources, on-line of off, can explain this process; however, for the layman, it is essentially the conversion of 2D footage (traditional shooting), merging two versions of the image, re-creating the depth of field illusion: 3D.

The other technique is shooting in Digital 3D; physically having two digital cameras mounted either-side of the required 'viewpoints' so that (usually) in post-production, they can be rendered into the appropriate 3D effect. This method largely achieves the more authentic illusion, though it is not without its drawbacks.

This leads me to my question: where does it belong in the production pipeline? Based on the above, it seems to fit comfortably within the tail-end of production, and squarely in post-production. What about during actual filming proper; the manipulation of 3D there and then whilst shooting the scene? What about 3D dropping down the pipeline scale into pre-production? Well, the below video seems to offer some interesting answers...

Now for an aspiring storyboard artist, I have to say, this intrigues me. Production illustration using 3D as a conceptual device? Pretty cool. Although...I'm still sceptical. Clearly what Alan Lee and John Howe are exploring is in its infancy, but even then, I couldn't quite see what the advantage was to Peter Jackson. Does he really need to have a crude rendition of 3D put in front of him to visualize it? How is that aiding the visual storytelling decisions? To me, it looked little more than an experimental gimmick; and yet, Lee and Howe are not ones for advocating such things. So it must be a legitimate attempt at something innovative.

But rather than commenting on the effectiveness of what was shown towards the end of that production blog, what particularly interests me is the implications of what they are attempting to do. If 3D is failing to impress critics due to it not adding to, or actually hindering, the central narrative, then by placing this method at the heart of where the film's narration is born is probably the most logical decision to have come from this resurgent technology. Pitches, design meetings, screen-writing, storyboarding, production illustration all come into play in outlining and formulating the essence of the story. Everything that comes after in the production pipeline is there to enforce and re-iterate the narrative's strengths: Cinematography, Sound, Editing. If 3D in concept can be placed firmly in pre-production and during production as a valid and important story-telling device, or visual 'problem solver', then maybe...maybe 3D can show that Avatar was the start, not the pinnacle.

At any rate, for my own personal learning, I'm keen to take things one step further from Lee and Howe and actually try and explore the validity of crude 3d rendering on storyboards (whether it is successful or not). Framing, composition, visual 'editing', and a sense of time are all crucial elements to Storyboarding. So, why not add evolved manipulation of Depth of Field to the process? Literally step inside the frame on a conceptual level...