Montage (filmmaking)

A montage is "a single pictorial composition made by juxtaposing or superimposing many pictures

or designs." In filmmaking, a montage is an editing technique in which shots are juxtaposed in an

often fast-paced fashion that compresses time and conveys a lot of information in a relatively short

period.

Montage is a technique in film editing in which a series of short shots are edited into a sequence

to condense space, time, and information. The term has been used in various contexts. It was

introduced to cinema primarily by Eisenstein, and early Soviet directors used it as a synonym for

creative editing. In France the word "montage" simply denotes cutting. The term "montage

sequence" has been used primarily by British and American studios, which refers to the common

technique as outlined in this article.

The montage sequence is usually used to suggest the passage of time, rather than to create symbolic

meaning as it does in Soviet montage theory.

From the 1930s to the 1950s, montage sequences often combined numerous short shots with

special optical effects (fades, dissolves, split screens, double and triple exposures) dance and

music. They were usually assembled by someone other than the director or the editor of the movie.

Development: The word montage came to identify . . . specifically the rapid, shock cutting that

Eisenstein employed in his films. Its use survives to this day in the specially created 'montage

sequences' inserted into Hollywood films to suggest, in a blur of double exposures, the rise to fame

of an opera singer or, in brief model shots, the destruction of an airplane, a city or a planet.

Two common montage sequence devices of the period are a newspaper one and a railroad one. In

the newspaper one, there are multiple shots of newspapers being printed (multiple layered shots of

papers moving between rollers, papers coming off the end of the press, a pressman looking at a

paper) and headlines zooming on to the screen telling whatever needs to be told. There are two

montages like this in It Happened One Night. In a typical railroad montage, the shots include

engines racing toward the camera, giant engine wheels moving across the screen, and long trains

racing past the camera as destination signs zoom into the screen.

Montages cannot create strong emotions. Ergo, they are not used to make the audience feel, rather

they make the audience know. Montages inform.

This is so true that the message inherent to some montages could be replaced by simple text cards.

However, this alternative is far less exciting and stimulating… far less cinematic. Think of Rocky

(1976) and the now famous training montage. That whole sequence could be replaced by a title

card reading "After weeks of training, Rocky improved his stamina and perfected his boxing

skills." This short sentence essentially summarizes that 3-minute montage… but which one do you

think is more cinematic? Which one would make you have goose bumps?

For this reason, it is often said that characters cannot fall in love during montages. The courtship

and romance would be too bland or dull. Love deserves a better treatment.

Q. What is a Jump Cut? Justify its deliberate use in a film.

A jump cut is a transition between two shots which appears to "jump" due to the way the shots are

framed in relation to each other.

A jump cut is a cut in film editing in which two sequential shots of the same subject are taken from

camera positions that vary only slightly.

This type of edit causes the subject of the shots to appear to "jump" position in a discontinuous

way. For this reason, jump cuts are considered a violation of classical continuity editing, which

aims to give the appearance of continuous time and space in the story-world by de-emphasizing

editing. Jump cuts, in contrast, draw attention to the constructed nature of the film. Although the

term is sometimes used in a loose way, a cut between two different subjects is not a true jump cut,

no matter how jarring.

George Melies is known as the father of the jump cut as a result of having discovered it

accidentally, and then using it to simulate magical tricks; however, he tried to make the cut appear

seamless to compliment his illusions. Contemporary use of the jump cut stems from its appearance

in the work of Jean-Luc Godard and other filmmakers of the French New Wave of the late 1950s

and 1960s.

Cutting between People

The jump cut effect is even more disconcerting when it happens between two different subjects.

For example, if a shot of one person is followed by a shot of a different person in the same position,

it looks like the first person has transformed into the second one. When cutting between different

people, pay attention to looking room and other positioning elements. For example:

If both people are facing the camera, you have a jump shot.

If one person is facing left and the other is facing right (with appropriate looking room), it

looks like two people talking to each other.

Jump cut used in films:

In Godard's ground-breaking Breathless (1960), for example, he cut together shots of Jean Seberg

riding in a convertible (see right) in such a way that the discontinuity between shots is emphasized

and its jarring effect deliberate. In the screen shots to the right, the first image comes from the very

end of one shot and the second is the very beginning of the next shot — thus emphasizing the gap

in action between the two (when Seberg picked up the mirror).

The jump cut has sometimes served a political use in film. It has been used as an alienating

Brechtian technique that makes the audience aware of the unreality of the film experience, in

order to focus the audience's attention on the political message of a film rather than the drama or

emotion of the narrative — as may be observed in some segments of Sergei Eisenstein's The

Battleship Potemkin.

Jump cut is sometimes used to describe any abrupt and noticeable edit cut in a film. A famous

example of this is found at the end of the "Dawn of Man" sequence in the film 2001: A Space

Odyssey. A primitive ape discovers the use of bones as a weapon and throws the bone into the air.

When the bone reaches its highest point, the shot cuts to that of a similarly-shaped space station in

orbit above the earth. This edit has been described as a jump cut, including on the box of the DVD

release of the film, but it is more correctly a graphic match because the viewer is meant to see the

similarity between the bone and the space craft and not the discontinuity between the two shots.

Jump Cut Applications:

The jump cut was an uncommon technique for television until shows like "" popularized it on the

small screen in the 1990s. It was also famously used in a campaign commercial for US President

Ronald Reagan's successful 1984 reelection bid.

The jump cut is also sometimes utilised, particularly on children's television shows, as a very cheap

special effects device to give the impression that a character or item can suddenly 'appear' in a

scene, usually accompanied by an appropriate sound effect to show the audience that the visual

discontinuity is part of the story. A truly convincing visual effect of this nature would need to

involve some variation of chroma key visual effects or some form of digital or optical compositing,

and so the jump-cut is often used as a 'passable' quick-and-easy and moderately effective

technique.

Jump cutting is also very common in horror movies (and video games) as a way to frighten the

audience into believing that paranormal events are happening (eg. the ghost-girl-walking-down-a-

hallway clip). Movies such as "The Ring" and games like F.E.A.R. use this often.

Other films, such as Cloverfield and the Blair Witch Project, are filmed to look as if they were

filmed by an amateur on a hand-held home video camera, and utilise jump cuts to reinforce this

impression.

Q. Is film a collaborative art? Explain.

Films always have a story to tell, but whose story is it? As its credits show, a film is born out of a

collaboration of many different skills and talents. However, films are also largely attributed to its

director. The auteur theory would say this is rightly so, but what about all the other people that

contributed to the filmmaking process? There is a contradiction, then, between the auteur theory

and the origins of film as a collaborative art.

Hollywood Ending: Film as a Collaborative Art

A large number of people from different fields of expertise come together for the making of a film.

Here, individual skill becomes absorbed in group effort. This group effort is what characterizes

film as a collaborative art, where collaboration is the core of cinematic creativity, and the creativity

of each person influences and contributes to the making of a film. As Woody Allenís Hollywood

Ending shows, such collaboration calls for a great deal of communication.

Perhaps the most important piece of communication takes place between the cinematographer and

the director, where they most share their respective visions for the film in order to come up with

the film they together with the studious big bosses want to create.

In Allenís Hollywood Ending, the cinematographer and the director could not communicate with

one another. The cinematographer was a Chinese man who needed the help of an interpreter who

unfortunately, had studied business and not film. Since the interpreters understanding of what

would be important to the two creative minds was limited, the cinematographer’s creativity then,

could have been lost somewhere in the translation. The director, on the other hand, was

psychosomatically blind, so he could not even see if things were turning out the way he wanted

them to in his mind. He had no way of expressing his vision for the film because he literally didn’t

have the means to do so. Thus, the film flopped partly because of the lack of communication

between the cinematographer and the director, both important people in the creative process.

The director is an important figure in the filmmaking process not just because of his creativity, but

also because he serves as the link between the studio and the film itself. The communication that

happens between him and the film’s producer boils down to just this: the producer believes the

knows what the public wants it, and the director must conform to what the producer says in order

to give the public the film they want.

The relationship between director and producer is the contradiction between the industrial nature

of film and what is known as the auteur theory, where the director is the controlling force in the

structure of a film. The auteur theory seems to disregard the presence of the producer as a

controlling force which, in reality, he is. A line in Hollywood Ending affirms this in saying that

the producer Hal likes to hire and fire, having the power to choose the film’s director: with much

reluctance, he took a chance on Val. Val is given power over the film as well, but it is always

subject to the wishes of the big bosses in New York. Thus, as the director conforms to the studious

demands, he contradicts the very theory that regards him as the driving force of the film.

OR

Wong Kar Wais Chung King Express and Fallen Angels: Film and the Auteur

Theory

It is not uncommon for films to be identified by their directors. As their movies are governed by a

certain style and technique as well as certain themes and philosophies viewers learn to identify

these elements and expect the director’s next film to be just like its predecessor, only different. In

the words of Jean Renoir, air director really makes just one film in the course of his career.

Wong Kar Wai is one director who personifies the auteur theory. Both Chung King Express and

Fallen Angels bring the viewer into the world of Hong Kong, a place that does not have any

concrete roots and suffers from an identity crisis. But more than introduce their viewers to Hong

Kong as a locale, both films depict the loves and lives of individuals lost in the frenetic pace of

Hong Kong life. Thus, they juxtapose Hong Kong’s identity crisis as a nation with the image of

lost, confused characters living in this place that is just as confused as they are.

In both films, the exchange of goods and services serves as the basis of all relationships, instead

of emotional connection. Chung King Express shows how Badge 663 unknowingly benefits from

the relationship with Faye as she breaks into his apartment every day to clean it and fix it up even

if she gets nothing in return. Fallen Angels parallels this with the mutual relationship between the

assassin and his agent: she fixes everything he needs and all he has to do is show up and gun people

down, while he fulfills all her sexual fantasies even in his absence. In none of these instances does

a relationship form out of love at first sight or anything other than economics. Thus, this exchange

of goods and services proves to be the binding force between individuals, where only one person,

no matter how absent he or she is, can fulfill the other person’s needs and desires.

Film is a collaborative art, and this is a reality that is most recognized by the people involved in

the filmmaking process itself. These people would be the first to contest the auteur theory and its

notion that the director is the controlling force of a film. They know that the director always takes

his orders from the studio and the film’s producers, and he must make a balancing act out of

pleasing the studios and satisfying his creative urges.

Among all the people involved in the filmmaking process, viewers tend to identify most with the

actors because they are the film’s most visible personalities. However, viewers recognize the

artificiality and limitations of the roles actors play when they see that these roles cannot connect

films in the same way that a director’s worldview or philosophy consistently characterizes his

films. In the long run, the recognition of patterns embedded in a directors films allows viewers to

begin identifying films with the director rather than the actor. The auteur theory, then, is correct in

saying the director is the controlling force of the films creative aspect, as he has the power to

express his views through film. It is important to note though, that he is not the controlling force

of the entire film.

The challenge for the viewers, then, is to realize that although a film may convey the director’s

personality and life philosophies, he is not the only one responsible for the making of a film. A

whole lot of people are involved in it, and most of the time they don’t get the credit they deserve.

Film is and will always be a collaborative art, an art the director simply uses to express certain

ideas he has of the world around him.

OR

Film is a collaborative art, and this is a reality that is most recognized by the people involved in

the filmmaking process itself. These people would be the first to contest the auteur theory and its

notion that the director is the controlling force of a film. They know that the director always takes

his orders from the studio and the film’s producers, and he must make a balancing act out of

pleasing the studios and satisfying his creative urges.

Among all the people involved in the filmmaking process, viewers tend to identify most with the

actors because they are the film’s most visible personalities. However, viewers recognize the

artificiality and limitations of the roles actors play when they see that these roles cannot connect

films in the same way that a director’s worldview or philosophy consistently characterizes his

films. In the long run, the recognition of patterns embedded in a directors films allows viewers to

begin identifying films with the director rather than the actor. The auteur theory, then, is correct in

saying the director is the controlling force of the films creative aspect, as he has the power to

express his views through film. It is important to note though, that he is not the controlling force

of the entire film.

The challenge for the viewers, then, is to realize that although a film may convey the director’s

personality and life philosophies, he is not the only one responsible for the making of a film. A

whole lot of people are involved in it, and most of the time they don’t get the credit they deserve.

Film is and will always be a collaborative art, an art the director simply uses to express certain

ideas he has of the world around him.

The issue of films authorship, then, is all a question of perspective.

OR

“Filmmaking in the real world is collaborative”. “This business is time-sensitive. There is always

the pressure of the clock. Filmmaking is so expensive, and there are so many unknowns and

variables, so there has to be a system to cope with that. And the reality is that a camera crew works

most efficiently with an operator. The work of the director of photography is wide-ranging. He or

she is burdened with thinking and planning ahead. An operator makes that possible.”

Operating a camera gives students insight into all aspects of filmmaking. “You get to learn an

enormous amount about directing, for example, by being a camera operator”. You can see what

works and what doesn’t. You get to know what the director is envisioning. You become privy

(hidden) to many of the conversations between the director and the actors, and you will be able to

talk performance with the director, and to participate in the visual storytelling.”

Camera operating provides film students with an unparalleled opportunity to learn, regardless of

which role they hope to play on a film crew.

“A camera operator also sees how the cinematographer’s choices affect the movie,” he says.

“Creatively, it’s the best job on the set, because you are responding instinctively. The dolly is a

great platform from which to observe what is happening across all departments. Communicating

with all these departments is a requirement of the job. You get to have an impact on all the factors

involved in creating the shot and the movie.”

We also spoke with cinematography instructors at top film schools. They all agree that it is

important to train future cinematographers how to collaborate with operators.

“Collaboration is the name of the game,” says Judy Irola, ASC, head of the cinematography

faculty at USC. “We would be irresponsible to teach that anyone can make a top-quality movie on

their own. This fall, we are starting a revised graduate curriculum that brings together all five

disciplines from day one. We are making stronger connections with the USC writing, animation,

theater and music programs, for example.”

Bill MacDonald has been teaching cinematography at UCLA for more than 20 years. “Students

come to us sometimes with an auteur sensibility, because that’s what they read about in the popular

press,” he says. “They read reviews that talk about Steven Spielberg lighting scenes when in reality

he collaborated with Janusz Kaminski, the cinematographer who shot his last 11 films, and Mitch

Dubin, a master camera operator. They are told that all you need is a camera and an iMac to make

great films. They soon discover they can’t do it all by themselves.

“Teaching them to work with each other is absolutely a fundamental principle of our approach,”

says MacDonald. “We’re building a collaborative environment that requires well-defined, clearly

articulated visions. Generally speaking, filmmaking is maybe the most collaborative environment

ever created by humanity to create art. To make a certain kind of film, you need to know how to

get others on the same page. Our focus is on making very individually-driven and passionate work,

but in an incredibly collaborative environment.”

Bill Dill, ASC is head of cinematography at Chapman University. “Any complex undertaking

requires a group of skills that rarely resides in a single person,” he says. “In addition to that, the

advantage of the collaborative process is that you have lots of great ideas coming from a number

of different directions. Filmmaking has always been a group endeavor. Quality art tends to come

from a concentrated effort. It’s an intense experience that comes from many minds feeding into

the creation of the end result. That is much more of a determining factor of how we will make

movies than mere mechanics.

“Technology has never been the determining factor in human creativity,” says Dill. “That’s a naive

attitude. Smart directors don’t believe that hype. They are interested in making the best films they

can by working with other people who share their vision. The people who do that do very well in

their careers.”

Stephen Lighthill, ASC is the Senior Filmmaker in Residence, Cinematography, at the American

Film Institute. “It’s great that people can shoot little movies and put them on YouTube,” he says.

“However, we teach traditional team filmmaking. Fellows in our two-year MFA program shoot

five films in collaboration with directors, producers, editors, production designers, writers and

camera crews, often including operators. The very essence of what we teach is collaboration. The

crafts we are teaching take second place to learning how to work in a team environment. We see

having a camera operator on the crew as another opportunity for fellows in our program to learn

effective communication in narrative filmmaking production.

“We also find that cinematographers can often concentrate more effectively on the range of

production challenges while working with operators,” he adds. “They have more time and energy

to collaborate with their gaffer, key grip, AD and director.”

OR

Filmmaking is NOT a collaborative art. It is a collaborative PROCESS. Those are two totally different things.

This goes across the board with any artistic endeavor, be it music, painting, or design. Let’s use

painting as the example. One person can stretch the canvas, another person can mix the paint, but

when it comes time, only one person can hold the brush—or it will look like it. If more than one

person holds the brush the painting will lack unity and the perspective will be off. Then, of course,

you can have another person sell to painting to a gallery, and yet another person at that gallery

selling it to the consumer.

Sure, filmmaking by committee exists, and I have no problem with filmmaking by committee. But

people might confuse filmmaking by committee as a collaborate art—it isn’t. It’s a collaborative

process. There always needs to be one person in charge—the head honcho—whether the director,

a producer, or a studio executive. If you have too many people making decisions, the end result

will be chaotic and lack any kind of unity or focus. Which sometimes happens, and we’ve all seen

examples of the outcome.

When you’re about to make a film it’s very important to define who is the leader. If you are merely

a director who is translating what the producer tells you to do, you need to have a clear

understanding of what that means. And so does the producer. You don’t want to wait until half

way into your shoot and realize you’ve done it all wrong, that he’s in charge and you aren’t.

Once I was working with a make-up person who wouldn’t create the “faces” and looks I wanted,

but rather, wanted to do it his way. He said, “but this is my art.” I replied, “No it isn’t. This is

about PROCESS. It is your job to use your abilities to translate what I want, because this is my

vision, my perspective.” If we had our actors wear the make-up he wanted them to wear, the movie

would’ve looked like a cartoon. He had been hired based on his technical skill, not his taste.

On the flip-side, there are artists I’ve worked with that have an absolutely keen eye. When we

filmed THE CASSEROLE CLUB, I asked Jane Wiedlin to be my second set of eyes. I value her

opinion as an artist, and in this case, we had reached an aesthetic understanding of what we were

creating, so I knew that if she had any ideas, they would be worth considering. And they were.

Still, she knew I was in charge, but I gave her the freedom to speak up if she had an idea that could

make the scene brighter, or point out something that didn’t seem right, or props that weren’t

historically accurate.

As a director, if you can define your vision and share those definitions with people, chances are

that when you set them free inside that spectrum, they will create something you love. I usually

like to make a list of rules that apply to every aspect of the process. I make a “look book” that

illustrates what we’re going for. If you tell someone to make it “exotic” or “gothic” and not much

else, they could come back with something appropriate for a Tim Burton movie, or at the other

end of the spectrum, a look suitable for Twilight. Neither of which may be what you want. But,

it isn’t their fault. It’s yours. Because you didn’t communicate effectively. Remember: the

meaning of communication is what the other person hears—not what you say.

It’s very important to illustrate verbally, visually, and in great detail, what it is you’re creating so

that everyone’s on the same page. Then, the collaborative process can be an enjoyable one. But,

remember, there must always be one person in charge and it’s important to define who that is right

at the start.

Q. Describe the output of the Tilt Shift lens.

A Tilt & Shift lens is a special kind of lens that enables you to change the sharpness (tilt) of a

subject and to straighten warped vertical lines (shift right ). Tilt Shift photography involves taking

photos with a type of specialty lens which allows you to control your plane of focus.

Lenses are made for 35mm DSLR and film cameras (Canon and Nikon) as well as medium format

cameras. You typically see tilt-shift photography for things like

By adjusting the tilt mechanism ensures that the whole subject remains in focus or only a certain

part of the subject. The shift mechanism can draw distorted vertical lines right. This distortion is

caused by the angle from which is photographed and is most common in wide-angle lenses. By

using the shift mechanism you change the way the image is perceived on the sensor, ensuring that

vertical line are truly vertical.

By using both the tilt and shift mechanism, you have complete control over vertical lines and field

of depth.

Tilt & Shift lenses are popular with food photography and architectural photography where it is

necessary to precisely control the plane of focus (so that a whole plate of food is in focus) or correct

converging lines (so that buildings appear geometrically correct), but also with product

photographers who want to have complete control of field of depth.

More recently photographers have been using it with great success for interesting portrait

photography, and tilt-shift photography is gaining in popularity.

When using it with portraits it helps create almost three dimensional images helping your subject

pop out of the photo. At times it also grabs the viewers’ attention as being unexplainably different.

A tilt-shift lens can perform two different actions: it can tilt, and it can shift. The following two

images show each function, and how it affects the same image.

1. Miniature Faking: It is a technique that employs the use of tilt-shift photography.

Miniature Faking photography is an interesting photography technique that photographers

'transform' the actual scene into a 'toy-like' scene. The image captured is made to look like a

miniature model scale setting, where every subject is minified.

Miniature Faking is either achieved by using tilt-shift lens or using image-editing software to

digitally modify the images, which is popularly known as Fake Tilt-Shift.

One result tilt can have on an image is creating the appearance that everything is miniature! This

effect is most obvious in city shots, and shots taken from above, like the following.

2. Correcting converging lines: Use of the shift function to correct the converging lines in the

building. When you’re taking a photo of a building from the ground up lines converge. That means

that they appear closer together at the top. By using the shift function of the lens you will be able

to effectively straighten out the building. While not perfect, the lines appear much more vertical.

3. Portraits: The examples above are more landscape images than portraits, but this lens can also

be used effectively for closer portrait photography. Notice the tilted plane of focus in the next

image. You can think about the plane of focus sloping down into the photo. Their eyes are in focus,

and the bottom of the trees behind them are in focus. Just connect that plane and you’ll see that tilt

effect.

Controlling the plane of focus like this can be useful when you want to draw in other graphic

elements in a scene, bringing them together in tight focus with the subject. The image below is a

good example of this. The couple is in focus as well as the strong graphic element of the repeating

red pillars.

Tilt is definitely the function anyone could use the most in order to isolate subjects.

4. Selective focus: Selective focus can be used to direct the viewer's attention to a small part of the

image while de-emphasizing other parts.

With tilt, the effect is different from that obtained by using a large f-number without tilt. With a

regular camera, the PoF (plane of focus) and the DoF (depth of field) are perpendicular to the line

of sight; with tilt, the PoF can be almost parallel to the line of sight, and the DoF can be very

narrow but extend to infinity. Thus parts of a scene at greatly different distances from the camera

can be rendered sharp, and selective focus can be given to different parts of a scene at the same

distance from the camera.

With tilt, the depth of field is wedge shaped. As noted above under Tilt, using a large amount of

tilt and a small f-number gives a small angular DoF. This can be useful if the objective is to provide

selective focus to different objects at essentially the same distance from the camera. Because the

tilt also affects the position of the PoF, it may not be possible to use a large amount of tilt and have

the PoF pass through all desired points. This may not be a problem if only one point is to be sharp;

for example, if it is desired to emphasize one building in a row of buildings, the tilt and f-number

can be used to control the width of the sharp area, and the focus used to determine which building

is sharp. But if it is desired to have two or more points sharp (for example, two people at different

distances from the camera), the PoF must include both points, and it usually is not possible to

achieve this while also using the tilt to control DoF.

Q. What is the role of the production manager?

Production Managers are responsible for all the organisational aspects of production scheduling

and budgeting. They work across all genres in television production including documentaries,

current affairs, light entertainment or children's programmes, situation comedies, soaps or serial

dramas, or one off dramas.

They assist the Producer to interpret and realise the Director’s vision, financially and logistically.

They prepare production schedules or script breakdowns to confirm that sufficient time has been

allocated for all aspects of the production process, and to check the Producer’s budget and

schedule.

On drama productions they use special software, such as Movie Magic, to provide logistical

breakdowns of scripts, detailing all aspects of production requirements, such as: how many and

which actors are needed on which days; what locations are required each day; and crewing

requirements.

The Production Manager is the key person in the production department. They report directly to

Producers. They work closely with all other heads of department to ensure that productions run

smoothly, meet deadlines, and stay within budgets. Throughout shooting, they monitor schedules

and budgets, and prepare daily report sheets for Producers, detailing all aspects of each day's shoot.

During pre-production and shooting, they deal with any unexpected circumstances and prepare

workable alternative plans. They oversee all aspects of the day-to-day running of shoots, from

contract preparation to all Health and Safety requirements, and work closely with members of all

other production departments, Actors, and other contributors.

On drama productions, they oversee the 1st Assistant Director’s (1st ADs) preparation of daily

call sheets for actors and crew members. They must ensure that all cast and crew members'

conditions of work are in compliance with the relevant local agreements and regulations.

Sound in Filmmaking

“Sound” refers to everything we hear in a movie — words, sound effects, and music. Sound is used

in film to heighten a mood, provide us with information about the location of a scene, advance the

plot, and tell us about the characters in the story.

There are two categories of sound in film: Diegetic and Non-Diegetic.

Diegetic Sound refers to all those audio elements that come from sources inside the world we see

on the screen, including dialogue, doors slamming, footsteps, etc.

Non-Diegetic Sound refers to all those audio elements that come from outside of the fictional

world we see on screen, including the musical score and sound effects like the screeches in the

shower scene in Psycho.

How do sound effects help to shape a film?

Sound effects can be used to add mood or atmosphere to a film by creating a soundscape that

accents or adds another layer of meaning to the images on the screen. Pitch, tempo, and volume

may be altered to indicate how the filmmaker expects the audience to respond to a given noise.

For instance, high-pitched sounds, including screams or squealing tires, help to create a sense of

anxiety, while low-pitched sounds, including the sounds of waves or the swinging of a door, can

be used to create a sense of calm or mystery.

Perhaps the most interesting use of sound in a movie is the very absence of it: silence. At key

points in a film, directors may use silence in much the same way that they would use a freeze

frame. Both tend to arrest the audience’s attention to highlight some action or change in story

direction. Silence can be used to build up a scene’s intensity or to foreshadow impending doom.

In recent years, special sound effects have been added to movies in order to heighten the film

experience. Many of these sound effects, including explosions, phaser blasts, wind, and animal

sounds are drawn from computer sound effects libraries and are added to a film after the movie

has been shot. Besides creating louder and more dramatic movies, these effects have tended to

draw more attention to movie sound. With advancements in surround sound, sound effects have

developed a more “directional” element, appearing to come from a specific place or direction. This

directional quality of sound (alongside elements such as echoes) enhances a three-dimensional

sense of space in the movie.

Examples:

a) Simulating Reality:

Scene: In a western barroom fight our hero is hit over the head with a whiskey bottle.

The bottle is fake. It becomes real with the addition of an actual glass bottle crash from the sound

editors library. In gun battles the weapon actually is actually loaded with blanks and what is

called quarter loads which means one-fourth of normal amount of gunpowder contained in a real

bullet. The actual sound is just slightly louder than a cap pistol until the sound editor has completed

work.

You see it - you hear it - you must believe it!

b) Creating illusion:

Scene: A safari makes it through the jungle.

The sound editor cuts a lion roar. Nor has he placed a lion in the film where none exists but he

has also placed the safari in danger.

Scene: A woman is sitting in her living room. The door opens and her husband walks into the

room.

With the addition of a few sound effects, it is possible to inform the audience that he has driven

up to the house, parked his car, walked to the door, and used his key to unlock the door. None of

this was shot. It was an illusion created with effects.

c) Mood:

Scene: A leading lady awakens in the morning snuggled in her bed.

The sound of a distant train whistle make is a lonesome scene.

Replace the train whistle with the sound of kids playing outside, and the audience perceives

an entirely different emotion

Scene: The leading man drives up to a house.

As he parks, we hear the sound of a small dog yapping. No particular danger is perceived.

Inside is probably a child or an old lady.

Change the small dog yapping to the sound of a vicious Doberman, and the mood is again

changed.

The sound effect is not only a mechanical tool (e. g., fire a gun, cut a shot), it can also be employed

creatively and artistically.

How does music help to shape a film?

If we step back and think about it, music is one of the most peculiar conventions in movies. No

one questions that music should be a part of movies because we’ve all grown used to the idea that,

in a movie, when two people kiss, we should hear music in the background. Or when the platoon

attacks the beach, a symphony should provide the inspiration behind their assault. Of course, no

one has a soundtrack accompanying their real lives. But in movies we not only accept this

convention, we demand it.

Music can be used for a number of effects in a movie. The most obvious way music scores are

used is to guide the emotional response of the audience. They provide clues, or, in most cases,

huge signposts, that tell audiences how the filmmaker wants them to react to a given scene. Some

directors play against our expectations and use music in ways we might not expect.

Stanley Kubrick shocked audiences when he used “Singin’ in the Rain” as the backdrop to a

horrible rape scene in A Clockwork Orange (1971).

Music can also provide an overture for a movie when it’s used as the backdrop for the opening

credits. The brassy theme music composed by John Williams for Star Wars is one famous and

often-parodied example.

In some instances, directors use music to foreshadow upcoming events. In horror movies, for

example, the score is often used to build up tension and suspense just before the monster attacks

one of its victims.

Finally, music can be used to shape the ethnic or cultural context of a film.

How does the spoken word help to shape a film?

In addition to giving voice to the characters in a movie, two of the more interesting ways the

spoken word can shape a movie are through voice-overs and by providing subtext to a scene.

Voice-overs are typically used in documentary films, although they occasionally turn up in fiction

films such as the original Blade Runner (1982), to provide background to a story or to help move

a story from one set of events to another.

Used well, voice-overs can be unobtrusive. Used poorly, voice-overs can often seem like “the

voice of god”, bringing forth wisdom audiences are supposed to accept unquestioningly. For this

reason, some filmmakers refuse to use voice-overs in their films to let audiences have more

freedom in determining what the meaning of the film is.

We all know from our own personal conversations that there is often a subtext to the words we

hear. Subtext means there is an implicit meaning standing behind the language we actually hear.

In film, actors use this element of language to shape a scene without actually saying what they

mean.

Similarly, some actors are known for their distinctive voices which have helped define the

characters they play. Marilyn Monroe is remembered for her high-pitched breathy voice, which

gave a slightly ditzy feel to many of her characters, while John Malkovich has a distant, aloof, and

direct manner of speech which helps to give a sinister edge to many of his best on-screen

performances.

The function of sound effects is three-fold:

To simulate reality.

To add or create something off scene that is not really there.

To help the director create a mood.

Simulating Reality

The simulation of reality can be something as small but distinctive as the sound of a door opening

and closing on the Starship Enterprise, to the extremely complex creation of a language for the

Star Wars series' Ewoks.

Sometimes the reality that sound creates is so compelling that even though it contradicts what we

know to be scientifically true, we believe it anyway. Though we know, for example, that because

space is a vacuum sound cannot travel in it, we are still utterly compelled by the sounds of

intergalactic battle or just spaceships traveling at warp speed in nearly every space opera produced

since the creation of Buck Rogers in the 1930s. And gunshots never sound as satisfyingly long or

loud in real life as they do in Dolby with the bass cranked way up. Finally, in many of those great

Hollywood musicals, the best songs are not actually performed by Audrey Hepburn or Debbie

Reynolds, but by unsung singers like Marnie Nixon, whose faces and figures don't look as

appealing on-screen as those of the major stars.

Adding or Creating Something That Is Not Really There

You are the director of Victor/Victoria (Great Britain, 1982), and you want more emphatic

applause for Julie Andrews's big number than the actual audience of extras was able to provide.

This is the kind of sound effect provided by the Foley artist, who creates sound tracks that amplify

or add sounds not easily available as ambient noise. Sometimes sounds can be added to a film from

a "library" of sound effects. But for more particular and idiosyncratic sounds, the Foley artist

creates effects on a Foley stage, which is simply a production room in which everything is a sound

prop, including the floor, which can provide different kinds of footfalls. The film rolls on-screen,

and the Foley artist matches the kind of sound the filmmaker wants to the image projected:

submarines submerging, horses clopping into the distance, echo effects, crowds roaring, and so

on.

Creating a Mood

Test your ability to create a mood. Here is the shot: A woman gets into a bath or shower. Match

the movie to the background music we hear.

Music:

A. Driving, shrill string music leading up to discordant screeches.

B. Slow, stately full-orchestra music, filled with pomp.

C. Five-piece jazz combo playing something with a slow, bluesy beat.

Movies: Cleopatra, Psycho & The Happy Hooker.

Obviously, the erotic Cinemax soundtrack is meant to titillate, while the Cleopatra (1963) music

is supposed to impress you with the royal pomp of the queen's most elementary activities, and

Psycho (1960) sound effects are supposed to set you on edge from the very beginning of the famous

shower scene. Of course the photography in these films is very different, but the mood of each is

still dependent on the musical accompaniment. The same music, depending on context, can

actually mean different things. The terrifyingly screechy violins in Psycho have a more comic

effect when used as background music when a character stabs Mel Brooks with a newspaper while

he is showering in High Anxiety (1977).

Besides setting the mood, sound can introduce important elements of the plot, or even intentionally

confuse or mislead audiences. Because nothing about the voice of the transvestite Dil in The Crying

Game (1992) is masculine, and because she sings the title song in a feminine manner, we assume

the character is female until a full frontal shot informs us otherwise.

Because he describes himself as a nebbishy, nerdy character while narrating the story of The Usual

Suspects (1995), we don't know that the small-time hood Verbal is actually the arch-criminal

Keyser Soze. Sunset Boulevard (1950) is narrated by the film's hero. However, we don't learn until

the end of the film that he is telling the story from beyond the grave. Narration can reflect a film's

meaning in other ways. For example, documentaries have traditionally been narrated by male

voices, suggesting that history is essentially a masculine domain.

LIMITATIONS OF DSLRS

While the benefit of a large variety of lenses is tempting, there are still limitations to using DSLRs.

More specifically there are three on my list: maximum record time, manual zoom control, and

lack of good audio recording control.

While the benefit of a large variety of lenses is tempting, there are still limitations to using DSLRs.

More specifically there are three on my list: maximum record time, manual zoom control, and lack

of good audio recording control. Starting with record time, you can get up to about 29 minutes at

the highest 1080 resolution, depending on the DSLR manufacturer. This is a self-imposed DSLR

limitation which could take another blog just to get into the reasons why! Traditional HD

camcorders don’t have this limitation, with record times of about 2 hours, depending on the HD

record quality, and the media storage used. For example, my 1- year old Sony 3D TD10 camcorder

can record over 2 hours continuously at the highest resolution on a 32GB SDHC card! The same

record time can be had for all other standard HD camcorders as well. Zooming for all of us

camcorder enthusiasts is a feature we take for granted. It’s there when we need it, but always

automatic, usually with variable control on speed. Unfortunately, when shooting with a DSLR,

only manual zoom control is generally available. Many of you might be able to zoom manually,

but it does take considerable practice before that zoom is smooth with no stop and start bumps.

Manual audio control is a must-have feature for traditional videographers. However on many

DSLRS that feature is either not available, or it’s got clumsy controls. Better DSLRs offer a

stepped audio setting that achieves better results.

OR

1. No Viewfinder: When in video mode you need to use your LCD screen instead of viewfinder,

(viewfinder image will be blocked since the mirror is up). This could be tricky; bright light

conditions often make it very difficult to see the LCD clearly.

2. Shaky Footage: The compact size of the DSLR could also work against it, also it does not

feature a handle so unless you use some sort of stabilization solution, videos shot with DSLRs will

end up as shaky footage. Use a tripod, shoulder stabilizer or even better a steady cam rig for better

results. These rigs aver­age around $500 with the higher quality ones around $2,000. You can do

what some peo­ple do and build your own rig or order the com­po­nents separately and assemble

it yourself.

3. No Auto Focus: In video mode there is no auto focus available, DSLRs require you to manually

pull focus; for people who are accustomed to auto focus video cameras this could be a big turn off.

4. Poor Audio Quality: The audio recording qualities of DSLRs are pathetic and it is completely

unusable for any professional use. If you need decent audio quality along with your high definition

video you need to invest in some independent audio solutions to capture audio. Because the DSLR

has poor audio capa­bil­i­ties, what most peo­ple do is buy a portable audio recorder to cap­ture

audio sep­a­rately from the cam­era. You plug your mic in use that to dig­i­tally record your audio.

That’s a great way to get high qual­ity audio, the prob­lem is, since the video and audio are not

being recorded by the same device, you’ll need to sync these in post. You can do this man­u­ally

using the a clap­per or snap etc. but there is a much sim­pler solu­tion which is a pro­gram called

plural eyes. Plural eyes will auto­mat­i­cally sync your video to your audio in your time­line. It

does this by lin­ing up the sep­a­rately recorded audio wave­forms to the audio wave­forms

recorded by your low qual­ity built in cam­era mic. It’s not always per­fect but if you’re get­ting

decent audio from your cam­era then it works quickly and effec­tively. There’s also a sis­ter

pro­gram called dual eyes that will automatically sync all the video files to all the audio files

out­side of your edit­ing application.

5. Very Short Clip Limits: DSLRs have very short clip limits you will only be able to shoot

somewhere about 15 minutes or so before your camera heats up, shooting times vary depending

on your camera make and model.

6. Lens use: Most DSLRs don't tend to use prime lenses, as prime lenses tend to be really

expensive. But filmmaking pretty much needs prime lenses. Yes, you can work around it, but

prime is better.

7. DSLRs are built for still photography and only recently started offering video. This means

that they have crude audio capabilities. No man­ual audio gain controls without hacks or patches,

no xlr (high quality audio input), the built in mic is too low qual­ity to use, also it’s small and

without a han­dle so it’s difficult to operate smoothly and it doesn’t have a controlled zoom.

DTH as a medium to release films

In reality, there are two types of independent or low budget filmmakers. There's either a) the type

who lurk in anonymity because they are so indie that they don't even tap into the small audience

of “mainstream” independent filmmakers or b) mainstream independent filmmakers waiting for

their big break. In this scenario, the common denominator is that they're both waiting for the man

to make their next move.

Twenty years ago, this would have been an acceptable end to the story. We'd all throw up our

hands and admit that life is tough. But there's no excuse now. I'm referring to the revolution of

digital distribution. While it's known for catering to the generation of “right here, right now,” it is

actually an extraordinary opportunity for independent filmmakers. It puts a considerable amount

of control back into the hands of the filmmakers because as you well know by now, making your

film is really only half the journey. Is a great film really great if no one sees it? You can push up

your horn-rimmed glasses and stick up for indie values with the rest of the sub-culture , but we all

know the answer is a resound no.

Advantages:

Money: Traditional distribution is expensive and often doesn't receive a lot of gain. If films do get

picked up, they do so in a small number of theatres, receive too little attention to marketing and

are generally not accessible to a majority of the general public. Taking control with digital

distribution ensures some money back into the independent filmmaker's pocket. Oftentimes, the

money will be vastly more than most filmmakers would make in a small theatrical release.

Range: In limited releases, it's difficult to reach a wide array of audiences. There's no telling that

in these small releases that your film will even find the target audience. Digital distribution

eliminates this worry. By submitting your film online for viewing, you allow your audience to find

you. If you've sufficiently and effectively marketed your film online, your tech saavy audience

will have no trouble finding you online. Between two clicks your film will not only be viewed, but

also shared among their communities.

Keeping up with Technology: It would seem that the internet were a lurking demon in the film

industry. There's a nearly obsessive fear of films leaking online or being spoiled by bloggers.

Digital distribution is a way of fighting back. Online distribution takes a jab at these would-be

pirates by making their services irrelevant and redundant. It recognizes the format the audience

wishes to view films and how – free, in their personal space and whenever it suits them. Digital

distribution is certainly miles away from eliminating piracy but it does pose a valiant threat. Your

audience is certainly busy and you have plenty of competition for their attention, but you can't win

if you're not in the fight.

Disadvantages:

Money: Let's think in realistic terms. Digital distribution might make you money, but it won't make

you much. Filmmakers including documentarian Morgan Spurlock have spoken loudly about how

unprofitable the medium is today, but have also spoken promise about its future delivery. The

method (as an exclusive means of distribution) is still new and untraversed. Audiences are still

having to adapt their mindset of the internet being a free service to paying for online content. For

films especially, it is not popular to pay for a film online when there is so much free content. It

will get there, but it's certainly not there now.

Marketing: Marketing in digital distribution is as, if not more, important than marketing for

traditional distribution. The online world is extremely competitive and, as they say in the biz,

noisy. There are multiple interferences between your film and its viewer related and unrelated—

it's overwhelming to try and consider it all. A strong marketing strategy has to accompany any

digital distribution strategy. In fact, the two should parallel. This doesn't necessarily mean shelling

out the big bucks, but it does mean being creative with your resources (i.e. money and film

content). Your audience will find you, but they have to know to look for you.

Destroying Art: Depending on how loyal you are to the idealized art form of film, digital

distribution can be seen as contributive to the slow death of theater-style viewing. Audiences are

preferring to see films on their computers, on their ipods while they're on the go and to an extent,

on their televisions. If people are willing to pay for films, they aren't willing to pay for the

inconvenience of going out to the theater to do it. Digital distribution plays right into this hand and

exclusive use of it actively condones this behavior. It's not a problem if you're not too attached to

the traditional cinematic experience. If you are, then I suppose it's all down from here and you

can't beat the good ol' days.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DTH could be the next big driver of film revenues but players will have to find

the right formula to make the paradigm a success in India

(2009 article written)

New technologies, especially digital platforms, are completely revolutionising the face of the

entertainment industry and Hindi films are no exception.

There was a time when the box office only the benchmark. Now, revenue streams such as direct-

to-home (DTH) TV are being exploited by film-makers as extended revenue sources. So, while

theatrical revenue still accounts for the largest chunk of profits, home entertainment options are

playing catch-up.

Thanks to digitisation, which is taking place at almost 40 per cent annually, players like Tata Sky,

Dish TV, Sun TV Direct, BIG TV and Bharti Airtel DTH, have jumped onto the bandwagon. DTH

operators offer a bouquet of pay-per-view channels that air films across various languages and

genres, most of them contemporary titles.

At present, only a miniscule 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of a film’s revenue comes from the DTH

platform. But, if a film premieres on DTH as well as on the big screen, it could boost revenues for

both the producer as well as DTH player.

The Indian film industry churns out the largest number of films produced annually for any movie

industry the world over, and it is estimated to have grown at a compounded annual growth rate

(CAGR) of 17.7 per cent over the last three years.

In 2008 alone it registered revenues of around Rs 109.3 billion, a growth rate of 13.4 per cent over

2007. With the growth rate pegged at a CAGR of 9.1 per cent over the next five years, it is expected

to account for Rs 168.6 billion in revenues by 2013.

Piracy, on the other hand, punches a Rs 600-crore hole in revenues every year, something that can

be curbed to some extent by releasing a film simultaneously on DTH and on the big screen.

UTV released Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye! on DTH pay-per-view within 17 days of the film’s

theatrical release. The production house also released the Mithun Chakraborty-Dimple Kapadia

starrer Phir Kabhi directly on home video and pay-per-view DTH, simultaneously.

UTV Motion Pictures Vice-President, International Distribution and Syndication, Amrita Pandey

says, “It is a little speculative to predict the kind of monies production houses would make if there

was a simultaneous release of a film on DTH and in theatres as it has never been done in India.

“While, today, the contribution of DTH to a film’s revenue may be as little as 1 per cent, it may

grow to almost 10 per cent within a year. The model has been successful in other countries. It also

boosts the film’s marketing and promotion,” says Pandey.

While Oye Lucky was priced at Rs 99, other films such as Kaminey, Agyaat and Aage Se Right,

which worked well on DTH, were priced at Rs 75 and Rs 50, respectively.

There’s another sunny side to DTH. Due to the multiplex-producers strike, Eros International’s Aa

Dekhen Zara suffered losses at the box office. The producers had spent close to Rs 3.5 crore on

marketing the film but the strike put paid to their efforts.

They then released the film on DTH platforms like Dish TV within two weeks of the film’s release.

Salil Kapoor, Chief Operating Officer, Dish TV, had said at the time, “We are delighted by the

subscribers’ response to new and recent films released on our movie on-demand channel and this

could form a growing revenue stream for us going forward.”

And it doesn’t cost much for a DTH player much to promote a new title. Amrita Pandey of UTV

says, “Most DTH players try to acquire contemporary titles so the marketing is undertaken mainly

by the production houses.” While DTH players like Dish TV use SMS as a medium of publicity,

BIG TV uses the print media and leaflets extensively.

India has 135 million television households. Of these, 97 million are connected with cable and

satellite (C&S), growing at 25-30 per cent annually. In contrast, the DTH market currently boasts

around 15 million subscribers, and is expected to be pegged at 35-40 million by 2012. In fact,

industry experts see the DTH segment capturing 40 per cent of the C&S market by 2015.

According to a study by Hong Kong-based Media Partners Asia, released earlier this year, India’s

pay-per-view segment is estimated to grow at 16 per cent annually and to log revenues of $11.3

billion by 2012. It is expected to emerge as a key driver of this business in Asia.

Smita Jha, Associate Director, Media and Entertainment Practice, Price Waterhouse Coopers, says,

“The DTH market is yet to mature in India. DTH came in at a time when CAS implementation had

not succeeded and as a second entrant to the television market. When cable had already witnessed

its bloodbath, DTH players had a tough time sustaining themselves. Their profits are bleeding still

with high taxes on set-top boxes.”

Jha feels there are both pros and cons to releasing a film simultaneously on DTH and in

multiplexes. “This trend may have a negative impact on a film’s box office collections. This trend

is popular in the US, where the box office is not the main driver of revenues.”

Globally, the number of pay-per-view customers is over 20 million, up from 6 million in 1989.

Combined pay-per-view sales total approximately 20 per cent of theatrical revenues.

At present, markets like Korea and China are leaders in the pay-per-view segment. But India has

a massive emerging middle-class and is poised to be a driver of the pay-per-view market in the

not-so-distant future.

Experts point out that factors such as price points, target audience, economic backgrounds

determine the impact of value-added and interactive services like video-on-demand and pay-per-

view.

Though B and C cities account for almost three-quarters of DTH consumers, it’s the metro cities

like Mumbai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Pune and Bangalore that patronize interactive features.

Sugato Banerji, Chief Marketing Officer, DTH, Bharti Airtel TV, remarks, “Services like pay-per-

view have found great appeal among the affluent. But DTH players also believe that regional TV

viewers will be the biggest growth drivers of the market as almost 70 per cent of DTH sales take

place in smaller towns and cities.”

Sun Direct has a subscriber base of four million and is yet to make a foray into the pay-per-view

segment. Tony D Silva, Chief Operating Officer, Sun Direct, says, “We will soon be offering

movie-on-demand as we have the largest South Indian movie library.”

Choice of titles is another key factor. Jha points out, “For every 1,000 films released a year, only

250 are in Hindi. So the potential of regional films on DTH is much higher.”

DTH players also feel that Hindi films are in greater demand than Hollywood movies on the DTH

platform. Tata Sky had aired Slumdog Millionaire for as little as Rs 25 in February this year. Tata

Sky and Bharti Airtel had also aired films like Hannah Montana and The Curious Case of Benjamin

Button but they found few takers.

Here’s another view. “DTH players across the country are making losses mainly on set-top

boxes. So the money spent on pay-per-view and marketing isn’t much,” says another DTH

player.

He explains that taxes shave off huge margins on monthly packs. In fact, some states levy a

whopping 25 per cent in entertainment tax on the monthly tariff, plus a 10 per cent license fee and

an additional 10 per cent on service tax. All this eats into a DTH player’s profits.

Strategy-wise, what is the future of DTH? Technology, good content and services, say DTH

players. Banerji says, “Strategic tie-ups with production houses to air a film only by a given DTH

player will amplify profits.”

It’s early days yet and DTH players are still feeling their way through the multitude of factors that

could make DTH the next big thing in the film entertainment industry.

The Basic Camera Moves

Tilt: Moving the cameras lens up or down while keeping its horizontal axis constant. Nod your

head up and down - this is tilting.

Pan: Moving the camera lens to one side or another. Look to your left, then look to your right -

that's panning. A pan shot is made when you rotate camera to the left or right, at the same time,

the camera mount remains still. A pan shot is especially good at:

Revealing an entire environment

Revealing the spatial relation between character and environment

Introducing multi objects in close up

Simulating subjective view

Zoom: Zooming is one camera move that most people are probably familiar with. It involves

changing the focal length of the lens to make the subject appear closer or further away in the frame.

Most video cameras today have built-in zoom features. Some have manual zooms as well, and

many have several zoom speeds. Zooming is one of the most frequently-used camera moves and

one of the most overused. Use it carefully.

Pedestal: Moving the camera up or down without changing its vertical or horizontal axis. A

camera operator can do two types of pedestals: pedestal up means "move the camera up;" pedestal

down means "move the camera down." You are not tilting the lens up, rather you are moving the

entire camera up. Imagine your camera is on a tripod and you're raising or lowering the tripod head

(this is exactly where the term comes from).

Dolly: Motion towards or motion from. The name comes from the old "dolly tracks" that used to

be laid down for the heavy camera to move along - very much like railroad tracks - in the days

before Steadicams got so popular. The phrase dolly-in means step towards the subject with the

camera, while dolly-out means to step backwards with the camera, keeping the zoom the same.

Zooming the camera changes the focal length of the lens, which can introduce wide-angle

distortion or changes in the apparent depth of field. For this reason, it's sometimes preferable to

dolly than zoom.

Truck: Trucking is like dollying, but it involves motion left or right. Truck left means "move the

camera physically to the left while maintaining its perpendicular relationship." This is not to be

confused with a pan, where the camera remains firmly on its axis while the lens turns to one

direction or the other. You might truck left to stay with a pedestrian as she walks down a street.

Q. Difference between zoom in and a track in shot.

Zoom: Despite a common misconception, the terms “zoom” and “dolly” are not interchangeable.

With dollies, the camera is being moved in a physical space. With zooms, the camera remains at a

constant position, but the lens magnify or minimize the size of the subject.

Zooms happen at the push of a button. Zoom in refers to seemingly “approaching” the subject,

thus making it look bigger in the frame. Zoom out refers to seemingly “distancing” the subject,

thus making it look smaller.

Note that zooms change focal length, thus affecting depth of field. Zoom in transforms the lens

into telephoto, while zoom out changes it into wide-angle. Zooming is considered amateurish and

is not preferred by professional. An interesting exception is the opening shot of The Conversation

(1974), in which Francis Ford Coppola elects zoom to articulate the film’s themes of espionage or

voyeurism.

Magnify or reduce subject by changing lens focal length. In general, you can’t use zoom to

simulate subjective view. But it’s perfectly OK to use it in these situations:

You are not telling a story. For instance, in a corporate video, you can certainly zoom in

to a product to introduce it in more details.

Simulate a psychological process. In a love story, a shot zooming in to a girl’s face reflects

her partner’s mental desire, but not necessarily means he actually moves towards her.

Track: Tracking is similar to dolling. The main difference being that in dollies the camera is

moved toward or away from the subject, whereas in a track shot, the camera is moved sideways,

parallel to an object.

A tracking shot is made when you move the whole camera physically:

• When the camera moves towards the subject, we call it track in.

• When the camera moves away from the subject, we call it track out.

• When the camera moves to the left or right, we call it a crab.

A standard tracking shot, as it was devised in the Classical Studio filmmaking, consisted in placing

the camera on a wheeled support called a dolly, and moving it along rails or tracks to ensure the

smoothness of movement associated with the continuity editing style. As cameras became lighter

and steadier, tracking shots became more flexible and creative: bicycles, wheelchairs, roller skates,

and many ingenious wheeled artifacts augmented the range of movement of tracking shots.

The first is a classic tracking shot, with the camera on rails sideways to the character that is moving,

following the child as the trains departs. The second uses the train as a dolly, as it moves away

from the running child. Indeed, tracking shots are one of the most suggestive and creative camera

movements, one that can be accomplished in a number of clever ways. Not surprisingly, some

auteurs like Max Ophuls or Orson Welles made virtuosistic tracking shots a staple of their films,

often in conjuntion with long takes.

Q. How is the Hitchcock Zoom or the Vertigo Shot (Effect) achieved?

A Hitchcock zoom is a cinematic technique in which the camera moves closer or further from the

subject while simultaneously adjusting the zoom angle to keep the subject the same size in the

frame. The Hitchcock zoom is also known as: Dolly zoom, Vertigo zoom or vertigo effect, Jaws

shot, Trombone shot, Zolly or zido, Telescoping, Contra-zoom, Reverse tracking, Zoom in/dolly

out (or vice versa).

The effect is that the subject appears stationary while the background size changes (this is called

perspective distortion). When the camera is positioned close to the subject, the lens is zoomed out

but when the camera is several metres further back and the lens is zoomed in. The dolly zoom

effect is an unsettling in-camera special effect that appears to undermine normal visual perception

in film.

The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view while the

camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject

the same size in the frame throughout. In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject

whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective

distortion, the most directly noticeable feature being that the background appears to change size

relative to the subject.

As the human visual system uses both size and perspective cues to judge the relative sizes of

objects, seeing a perspective change without a size change is a highly unsettling effect, and the

emotional impact of this effect is greater than the description above can suggest. The visual

appearance for the viewer is that either the background suddenly grows in size or detail

overwhelming the foreground; or the foreground becomes immense and dominates its previous

setting, depending on which way the dolly zoom is executed.

The effect was first developed by Irmin Roberts, a Paramount second-unit cameraman, and was

famously used by Alfred Hitchcock in his film Vertigo. (Vertigo being the best-known example),

and was used by Steven Spielberg in Jaws and ET. Many other directors have used the technique,

which brings us to an important warning.

Mathematics

To achieve the effect the camera needs to be positioned at a certain distance from the object that

is supposed to remain still during the dolly zoom. The distance depends on how wide the scene is

to be filmed, and on the field of view (FOV) of the camera lens. Before calculating the distances

needed at the different field of views, the constant width of the scene has to be calculated. For

example, a FOV of 90° and a distance of two meters yield a constant width of four meters, allowing

a four-meter-wide object to remain still inside the frame during the effect.

The Effect

1. Dolly zooms create an unnatural effect — this is something your eyes would never

normally see. Many people comment on the shot after seeing it for the first time, e.g. “That

was weird” or “What just happened there?”

2. The exact effect depends on the direction of camera movement. If the camera moves closer,

the background seems to grow and become dominant. If the camera moves further away,

the foreground subject is emphasized and becomes dominant.

3. The effect is quite emotional and is often used to convey sudden realisation, reaction to a

dramatic event, etc.

4. The vertigo effect has influenced lot of directors and films. Dolly Zoom shot examples:

Jaws, Poltergeist, Goodfellas, and The Fellowship of the Ring.

Purpose of the effect: The dolly zoom is commonly used by filmmakers to represent the

sensation of vertigo, a "falling-away-from-oneself feeling" or a feeling of unreality, or to suggest

that a character is undergoing a realization that causes him or her to reassess everything he or she

had previously believed. After Hitchcock popularized the effect (he used it again for a climactic

revelation in Marnie), the technique was used by many other filmmakers, and eventually became

regarded as a gimmick or cliché. This was especially true after director Steven Spielberg

repopularized the effect in his highly regarded film Jaws, in a memorable shot of a dolly zoom into

Police Chief Brody's (Roy Scheider) stunned reaction at the climax of a shark attack on a beach

(after a suspenseful build-up).

Uses in other films: In Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the dolly zoom is used

immediately after the main character loses £500,000 in a hand of poker.

It was also used in Michael Jackson's video Thriller, when we first see him transformed into a

zombie. The dolly zoom can be combined with computer graphics. One example of this is the Neo

flight scene in The Matrix Reloaded. The effect has also been simulated in animation in The

Simpsons, and in The Lion King, by altering the relative sizes of the foreground characters and

background art.

The Transition from Black & White to Color

AKIE BERMISS: I’ve given up on trying to force people my age to watch classic films and

television shows. As soon as I turn the television on and they see a screen devoid of garish colors…

they immediately go for their smart-phones. Yeah, I know Black White is boring. It’s boring as

hell. It’s just a bunch of slow-moving, fast-talking shadows. In a world where everything is colors

and lights and fast-sequences of action waiting for some ancient actor to carefully register surprise

in a long close-up can be mind-numbingly dull. At least, when compared to the fast action, thrilling

3D special effects, and frantic scene-splicing, it can really seem that way.

I’m here to argue, however, that it’s really not that boring. And that those classic films are not a

lost cause. That, indeed, there will come a day when even the most forward thing technophile will

want to enjoy a good film. And for that reason, we must preserve our appreciation of the good

stuff.

Sometimes I think it’s like the Library at Alexandria. That’s where they kept all the records of all

the awesome ancient stuff! But also, probably, a lot of mediocre ancient stuff. So here we are in

the 21st century, not really knowing if the few Euripides plays we have are really what made him

such a sensation. It’s as if Euripides were Steven Spielberg, we could only be privy to Band of

Brothers and A.I. — both project that are fine, in and of themselves, but are not really indicators

of WHY Spielberg will always be a big name in the canon of Hollywood directors. Curious — and

yet, I digress.

The point is in the olden days of the 20th Century, there were lots of movies and many of them

were in black and white. That is, we’d not yet discovered the technology to allow us to capture

images in real-world color. And so, despite there being great actors and great writing and great

direction there are a large number of movies that are, by today’s standards, technically regressive.

Flawed, even. And so it can be easy to lump all black & white programs together regardless of

quality. It’s a shame because some of the finest films ever made were created before the advent of

color film.

I grew up appreciating old films with my parents. My parents had me watching Abbot & Costello

and Mickey Rooney and Sidney Poitier at the tender age of 9. So I find a sort of slow comfort in

watching a nicely paced classic film. Though I may watch them on DVDs these days, I still do it

right: I turn the lights down low, I sit on the couch with no other screens on, and I watch the movie

all the way through. At this point watching something like On The Waterfront is practically reading

a novel when compared to similar movies made today. Well it may make me seem stodgy and old

— but I know better: I like nice things. I like good films. I like to enjoy myself.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for the current generation who are grown up with

iPhones, iPods, computer screens, and 3D movies. When that’s your experience where visual

media is concerned, watching a black & white movie is probably like watching someone paint a

picture. Sure it may look nice in the end, but what is the lure to keep you watching while waiting

for that eventual gratification? In some ways, updating films may not be a bad idea. How do we

do that? I don’t know. I’m not saying we should try to make a 3D version of The Defiant Ones

(though I know I’d certainly watch it), but maybe there is some way we can all strive to bring the

arcane and flawed media of the past back into our lives, if only to briefly (but truly) appreciate

them for what they are.

I stand by those films. And you may call me old-fashioned, but if you’ve never seen National

Velvet or Night at the Opera or A Street Car Named Desire or Throne Of Blood… all I can say is:

What do you know?

HOWARD MEGDAL: I tend to agree with Akie on this one, though I think an important point is

missing: if a film is well-paced, well-written, and well-acted, it will hold your attention regardless

of the color (or lack thereof). And conversely, no amount of special effects can convince me that

I will enjoy two hours of poorly-acted, poorly-written tripe.

This is not to suggest that modern film or television is incapable of such things- quite the contrary.

Naturally, however, the converse is also true. Greatness is greatness because of the basic elements

of drama that stand the test of time. Avatar’s special effects will seem as quaint twenty years from

now as Star Wars does to us today.

That’s very telling, I believe. If one aspect of watching a film is constantly evolving, while the

other stays constant, which is the more important one? Yes, that is rhetorical.

And how will the story of Avatar stand up? Don’t know. Haven’t seen it. Heard it isn’t compelling,

though, and I’d rather see (ATTENTION: THE THIRD MAN SPOILER FOLLOWS!!!) Orson

Welles’ black-and-white face as he speaks to Joseph Cotten at the Ferris wheel during The Third

Man.

If you can’t be bothered to be moved by the sight of Alida Valli slowly walking from Harry Lime’s

funeral because it isn’t in color, let alone 3D, then you don’t deserve her any more than Harry did.

3-D films

The "golden era" (1952–1954)

What aficionados consider the "golden era" of 3D began in late 1952 with the release of the first

color stereoscopic feature, Bwana Devil, produced, written and directed by Arch Oboler. The film

was shot in Natural Vision, a process that was co-created and controlled by M. L. Gunzberg.

Gunzberg, who built the rig with his brother, Julian, and two other associates, shopped it without

success to various studios before Oboler used it for this feature, which went into production with

the title, The Lions of Gulu. The film starred Robert Stack, Barbara Britton and Nigel Bruce.

As with practically all of the features made during this boom, Bwana Devil was projected dual-

strip, with Polaroid filters. During the 1950s, the familiar disposable anaglyph glasses made of

cardboard were mainly used for comic books, two shorts by exploitation specialist Dan Sonney,

and three shorts produced by Lippert Productions. However, even the Lippert shorts were available

in the dual-strip format alternatively.

Because the features utilized two projectors, a capacity limit of film being loaded onto each

projector (about 6,000 feet (1,800 m), or an hour's worth of film) meant that an intermission was

necessary for every feature-length film. Quite often, intermission points were written into the script

at a major plot point.

During Christmas of 1952, producer Sol Lesser quickly premiered the dual-strip showcase called

Stereo Techniques in Chicago. Lesser acquired the rights to five dual-strip shorts. Two of them,

Now is the Time (to Put On Your Glasses) and Around is Around, were directed by Norman

McLaren in 1951 for the National Film Board of Canada. The other three films were produced in

Britain for Festival of Britain in 1951 by Raymond Spottiswoode. These were A Solid Explanation,

Royal River, and The Black Swan.

James Mage was also an early pioneer in the 3D craze. Using his 16 mm 3D Bolex system, he

premiered his Triorama program on February 10, 1953 with his four shorts: Sunday In Stereo,

Indian Summer, American Life, and This is Bolex Stereo.This show is considered lost.

Another early 3D film during the boom was the Lippert Productions short, A Day in the Country,

narrated by Joe Besser and composed mostly of test footage. Unlike all of the other Lippert shorts,

which were available in both dual-strip and anaglyph, this production was released in anaglyph

only.

April 1953 saw two groundbreaking features in 3D: Columbia's Man in the Dark and Warner Bros.

House of Wax, the first 3D feature with stereophonic sound. House of Wax, outside of Cinerama,

was the first time many American audiences heard recorded stereophonic sound. It was also the

film that typecast Vincent Price as a horror star as well as the "King of 3-D" after he became the

actor to star in the most 3D features (the others were The Mad Magician, Dangerous Mission, and

Son of Sinbad). The success of these two films proved that major studios now had a method of

getting moviegoers back into theaters and away from television sets, which were causing a steady

decline in attendance.

The Walt Disney Studios waded into 3D with its May 28, 1953 release of Melody, which

accompanied the first 3D western, Columbia's Fort Ti at its Los Angeles opening. It was later

shown at Disneyland's Fantasyland Theater in 1957 as part of a program with Disney's other short

Working for Peanuts, entitled, 3-D Jamboree. The show was hosted by the Mousketeers and was

in color.

Universal-International released their first 3D feature on May 27, 1953, It Came from Outer Space,

with stereophonic sound. Following that was Paramount's first feature, Sangaree with Fernando

Lamas and Arlene Dahl.

Columbia released several 3D westerns produced by Sam Katzman and directed by William

Castle. Castle would later specialize in various technical in-theater gimmicks for such Columbia

and Allied Artists features as 13 Ghosts, House on Haunted Hill, and The Tingler. Columbia also

produced the only slapstick comedies conceived for 3D. The Three Stooges starred in Spooks and

Pardon My Backfire; dialect comic Harry Mimmo starred in Down the Hatch. Producer Jules

White was optimistic about the possibilities of 3D as applied to slapstick (with pies and other

projectiles aimed at the audience), but only two of his stereoscopic shorts were shown in 3D. Down

the Hatch was released as a conventional, "flat" motion picture. (Columbia has since printed Down

the Hatch in 3D for film festivals.)

John Ireland, Joanne Dru and Macdonald Carey starred in the Jack Broder color production

Hannah Lee, which premiered June 19, 1953. The film was directed by Ireland, who sued Broder

for his salary. Broder counter-sued, claiming that Ireland went over production costs with the film.

Another famous entry in the golden era of 3D was the 3 Dimensional Pictures production of Robot

Monster. The film was allegedly scribed in an hour by screenwriter Wyott Ordung and filmed in a

period of two weeks on a shoestring budget. Despite these shortcomings and the fact that the crew

had no previous experience with the newly built camera rig, luck was on the cinematographer's

side, as many find the 3D photography in the film is well shot and aligned. Robot Monster also

has a notable score by then up-and-coming composer Elmer Bernstein. The film was released June

24, 1953 and went out with the short Stardust in Your Eyes, which starred nightclub comedian,

Slick Slavin.

0th Century Fox produced their only 3D feature, Inferno in 1953, starring Rhonda Fleming.

Fleming, who also starred in Those Redheads From Seattle, and Jivaro, shares the spot for being

the actress to appear in the most 3D features with Patricia Medina, who starred in Sangaree,

Phantom of the Rue Morgue and Drums of Tahiti. Darryl F. Zanuck expressed little interest in

stereoscopic systems, and at that point was preparing to premiere the new widescreen film system,

Cinemascope.

The first decline in the theatrical 3D craze started in August and September 1953. The factors

causing this decline were:

Two prints had to be projected simultaneously.

The prints had to remain exactly alike after repair, or synchronization would be lost.

It sometimes required two projectionists to keep sync working properly.

When either prints or shutters became out of sync, even for a single frame, the picture

became virtually unwatchable and accounted for headaches and eyestrain.

The necessary silver projection screen was very directional and caused sideline seating to

be unusable with both 3D and regular films, due to the angular darkening of these screens.

Later films that opened in wider-seated venues often premiered flat for that reason (such

as Kiss Me Kate at the Radio City Music Hall).

The few cartoons made in 3D had a "cardboard cutout" effect, where flat objects appeared

on different planes.

A mandatory intermission was needed to properly prepare the theater's projectors for the

showing of the second half of the film.

Because projection booth operators were at many times careless, even at preview

screenings of 3D films, trade and newspaper critics claimed that certain films were "hard

on the eyes."

Sol Lesser attempted to follow up Stereo Techniques with a new showcase, this time five shorts

that he himself produced. The project was to be called The 3-D Follies and was to be distributed

by RKO. Unfortunately, because of financial difficulties and the general loss of interest in 3D,

Lesser canceled the project during the summer of 1953, making it the first 3D film to be aborted

in production. Two of the three shorts were shot: Carmenesque, a burlesque number starring exotic

dancer Lili St. Cyr. and Fun in the Sun, a sports short directed by famed set designer/director

William Cameron Menzies, who also directed the 3D feature The Maze for Allied Artists.

Although it was more expensive to install, the major competing realism process was anamorphic,

first utilized by Fox with Cinemascope and its September premiere in The Robe. Anamorphic

features needed only a single print, so synchronization was not an issue. Cinerama was also a

competitor from the start and had better quality control than 3D because it was owned by one

company that focused on quality control. However, most of the 3D features past the summer of

1953 were released in the flat widescreen formats ranging from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. In early studio

advertisements and articles about widescreen and 3D formats, widescreen systems were referred

to as "3D", causing some confusion among scholars.

There was no single instance of combining Cinemascope with 3D until 1960, with a film called

September Storm, and even then, that was a blow-up from a non-anamorphic negative.[citation

needed] September Storm also went out with the last dual-strip short, Space Attack, which was

actually shot in 1954 under the title The Adventures of Sam Space.

In December 1953, 3D made a comeback with the release of several important 3D films, including

MGM's musical Kiss Me, Kate. Kate was the hill over which 3D had to pass to survive. MGM

tested it in six theaters: three in 3D and three flat. According to trade ads of the time, the 3D version

was so well-received that the film quickly went into a wide stereoscopic release.[citation needed]

However, most publications, including Kenneth Macgowan's classic film reference book Behind

the Screen, state that the film did much better as a "regular" release. The film, adapted from the

popular Cole Porter Broadway musical, starred the MGM songbird team of Howard Keel and

Kathryn Grayson as the leads, supported by Ann Miller, Keenan Wynn, Bobby Van, James

Whitmore, Kurt Kasznar and Tommy Rall. The film also prominently promoted its use of

stereophonic sound.

Several other features that helped put 3D back on the map that month were the John Wayne feature

Hondo (distributed by Warner Bros.), Columbia's Miss Sadie Thompson with Rita Hayworth, and

Paramount's Money From Home with Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. Paramount also released the

cartoon shorts Boo Moon with Casper, the Friendly Ghost and Popeye, Ace of Space with Popeye

the Sailor. Paramount Pictures released a 3D Korean War film Cease Fire filmed on actual Korean

locations in 1953.

Top Banana, based on the popular stage musical with Phil Silvers, was brought to the screen with

the original cast. Although it was merely a filmed stage production, the idea was that every

audience member would feel they would have the best seat in the house through color photography

and 3D. Although the film was shot and edited in 3D, United Artists, the distributor, felt the

production was uneconomical in stereoscopic form and released the film flat on January 27, 1954.

It remains one of two "Golden era" 3- D features, along with another United Artists feature,

Southwest Passage (with John Ireland and Joanne Dru), that are currently considered lost (although

flat versions survive).

A string of successful movies filmed in 3D followed the second wave, but many were widely or

exclusively shown flat. Some highlights are:

The French Line, starring Jane Russell and Gilbert Roland, a Howard Hughes/RKO production.

The film became notorious for being released without an MPAA seal of approval, after several

suggestive lyrics were included, as well as one of Ms. Russell's particularly revealing costumes.

Playing up her sex appeal, one tagline for the film was, "It'll knock both of your eyes out!" The

film was later cut and approved by the MPAA for a general flat release, despite having a wide and

profitable 3D release.

Taza, Son of Cochise, a sequel to 1950s Broken Arrow, which starred Rock Hudson in the title

role, Barbara Rush as the love interest, and Rex Reason (billed as Bart Roberts) as his renegade

brother. Originally released flat through Universal-International. It was directed by the great stylist

Douglas Sirk, and his striking visual sense made the film a huge success when it was "re-

premiered" in 3D in 2006 at the Second 3D Expo in Hollywood.

Two ape films: Phantom of the Rue Morgue, featuring Karl Malden and Patricia Medina, produced

by Warner Bros. and based on Edgar Allan Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", and Gorilla

at Large, a Panoramic Production starring Cameron Mitchell, distributed flat and 3D through Fox.

Creature from the Black Lagoon, starring Richard Carlson and Julie Adams, directed by Jack

Arnold. Although arguably the most famous 3D movie, it was typically seen in 3D only in large

urban theaters and shown flat in the many smaller neighborhood theaters. It was the only 3D

feature that spawned a 3D sequel, Revenge of the Creature, which was in turn followed by The

Creature Walks Among Us, shot flat.

Dial M for Murder, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Ray Milland, Robert Cummings,

and Grace Kelly, is considered by aficionados of 3D to be one of the best examples of the process.

Although available in 3D in 1954, there are no known playdates in 3D, since Warner Bros. had

just instated a simultaneous 3D/2D release policy. The film's screening in 3D in February 1980 at

the York Theater in San Francisco did so well that Warner Bros. re-released the film in 3D in

February 1982. The film is now available on 3D Bluray, marking the first time it was released on

home video in its 3D presentation.

Gog, the last episode in Ivan Tors' Office of Scientific Investigation (OSI) trilogy dealing with

realistic science fiction (following The Magnetic Monster and Riders to the Stars). Most theaters

showed it flat.

The Diamond (released in the United States as The Diamond Wizard), a 1954 British crime film

starring Dennis O'Keefe. The only stereoscopic feature shot in Britain, released flat in both the UK

and US.

Irwin Allen's Dangerous Mission released by RKO in 1954 featuring Allen's trademarks of an all-

star cast facing a disaster (a forest fire). Bosley Crowther's New York Times review mentions that

it was shown flat.

Son of Sinbad, another RKO/Howard Hughes production, starring Dale Robertson, Lili St. Cyr,

and Vincent Price. The film was shelved after Hughes ran into difficulty with The French Line,

and wasn't released until 1955, at which time it went out flat, converted to the SuperScope process.

3D's final decline was in the late spring of 1954, for the same reasons as the previous lull, as well

as the further success of widescreen formats with theater operators. Even though Polaroid had

created a well-designed "Tell-Tale Filter Kit" for the purpose of recognizing and adjusting out of

sync and phase 3D, exhibitors still felt uncomfortable with the system and turned their focus

instead to processes such as CinemaScope. The last 3D feature to be released in that format during

the "Golden era" was Revenge of the Creature, on February 23, 1955. Ironically, the film had a

wide release in 3D and was well received at the box office.

Revival (1960–1984) in single strip format

Stereoscopic films largely remained dormant for the first part of the 1960s, with those that were

released usually being anaglyph exploitation films. One film of notoriety was the Beaver-

Champion/Warner Bros. production, The Mask (1961). The film was shot in 2-D, but to enhance

the bizarre qualities of the dream-world that is induced when the main character puts on a cursed

tribal mask, these scenes went to anaglyph 3D. These scenes were printed by Technicolor on their

first run in red/green anaglyph.

Although 3D films appeared sparsely during the early 1960s, the true second wave of 3D cinema

was set into motion by Arch Oboler, the same producer who started the craze of the 1950s. Using

a new technology called Space-Vision 3D. The origin of "Space-Vision 3D" goes back to Colonel

Robert Vincent Bernier, a forgotten innovator in the history of stereoscopic motion pictures. His

Trioptiscope Space-Vision lens was the gold standard for the production and exhibition of 3-D

movies for nearly 30 years. "Space-Vision 3D" stereoscopic films were printed with two images,

one above the other, in a single academy ratio frame, on a single strip, and needed only one

projector fitted with a special lens. This so-called "over and under" technique eliminated the need

for dual projector set-ups, and produced widescreen, but darker, less vivid, polarized 3D images.

Unlike earlier dual system, it could stay in perfect synchronization, unless improperly spliced in

repair.

Arch Oboler once again had the vision for the system that no one else would touch, and put it to

use on his film entitled The Bubble, which starred Michael Cole, Deborah Walley, and Johnny

Desmond. As with Bwana Devil, the critics panned The Bubble, but audiences flocked to see it,

and it became financially sound enough to promote the use of the system to other studios,

particularly independents, who did not have the money for expensive dual-strip prints of their

productions.

In 1970, Stereovision, a new entity founded by director/inventor Allan Silliphant and optical

designer Chris Condon, developed a different 35 mm single-strip format, which printed two images

squeezed side-by-side and used an anamorphic lens to widen the pictures through Polaroid filters.

Louis K. Sher (Sherpix) and Stereovision released the softcore sex comedy The Stewardesses (self-

rated X, but later re-rated R by the MPAA). The film cost $100,000 USD to produce, and ran for

months in several markets.[citation needed] eventually earning $27 million in North America,

alone ($140 million in constant-2010 dollars) in fewer than 800 theaters, becoming the most

profitable 3-Dimensional film to date, and in purely relative terms, one of the most profitable films

ever. It was later released in 70 mm 3D. Some 36 films worldwide were made with Stereovision

over 25 years, using either a widescreen (above-below), anamorphic (side by side) or 70 mm 3D

formats. In 2009 The Stewardesses was remastered by Chris Condon and director Ed Meyer,

releasing it in XpanD 3D, RealD Cinema and Dolby 3D.

The quality of the 1970s 3D films was not much more inventive, as many were either softcore and

even hardcore adult films, horror films, or a combination of both. Paul Morrisey's Flesh For

Frankenstein (aka Andy Warhol's Frankenstein) was a superlative example of such a combination.

Between 1981 and 1983 there was a new Hollywood 3D craze started by the spaghetti western

Comin' at Ya!. When Parasite was released it was billed as the first horror film to come out in 3D

in over 20 years. Horror movies and reissues of 1950s 3D classics (such as Hitchcock's Dial M for

Murder) dominated the 3D releases that followed. The second sequel in the Friday the 13th series,

Friday the 13th Part III, was released very successfully. Apparently saying "part 3 in 3D" was

considered too cumbersome so it was shortened in the titles of Jaws 3-D and Amityville 3-D, which

emphasized the screen effects to the point of being annoying at times, especially when flashlights

were shone into the eyes of the audience.

The science fiction film Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone was the most expensive

3D movie made up to that point with production costs about the same as Star Wars but not nearly

the same box office success, causing the craze to fade quickly through spring 1983. Other sci-

fi/fantasy films were released as well including Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn and

Treasure of the Four Crowns, which was widely criticized for poor editing and plot holes, but did

feature some truly spectacular closeups.

3D releases after the second craze included The Man Who Wasn't There (1983), Silent Madness

and the 1985 animated film Starchaser: The Legend of Orin, whose plot seemed to borrow heavily

from Star Wars.

Only Comin' At Ya!, Parasite, and Friday the 13th Part III have been officially released on VHS

and/or DVD in 3D in the United States (although Amityville 3D has seen a 3D DVD release in the

United Kingdom). Most of the 1980s 3D movies and some of the classic 1950s movies such as

House of Wax were released on the now defunct Video Disc (VHD) format in Japan as part of a

system that used shutter glasses. Most of these have been unofficially transferred to DVD and are

available on the grey market through sites such as eBay.

Rebirth of 3D (1985–2003)

In the mid-1980s, IMAX began producing non-fiction films for its nascent 3D business, starting

with We Are Born of Stars (Roman Kroitor, 1985). A key point was that this production, as with

all subsequent IMAX productions, emphasized mathematical correctness of the 3D rendition and

thus largely eliminated the eye fatigue and pain that resulted from the approximate geometries of

previous 3D incarnations. In addition, and in contrast to previous 35mm based 3D presentations,

the very large field of view provided by IMAX allowed a much broader 3D "stage", arguably as

important in 3D film as it is theatre.

In 1986, The Walt Disney Company began more prominent use of 3D films in special venues to

impress audiences, Captain EO (Francis Ford Coppola, 1986) starring Michael Jackson, being a

very notable example. In the same year, the National Film Board of Canada production Transitions

(Colin Low), created for Expo 86 in Vancouver, was the first IMAX presentation using polarized

glasses. Echoes of the Sun (Roman Kroitor, 1990) was the first IMAX film to be presented using

alternate-eye shutterglass technology, a development required because the dome screen precluded

the use of polarized technology.

From 1990 onward, numerous films were produced by all three parties to satisfy the demands of

their various high-profile special attractions and IMAX's expanding 3D network. Films of special

note during this period include the extremely successful Into the Deep (Graeme Ferguson, 1995)

and the first IMAX 3D fiction film Wings of Courage (1996), by director Jean-Jacques Annaud,

about the pilot Henri Guillaumet.

Other stereoscopic films produced in this period include:

The Last Buffalo (Stephen Low, 1990)

Imagine (John Weiley, 1993)

Honey, I Shrunk the Audience (Daniel Rustuccio, 1994)

IMAX Nutcracker (1997)

The Hidden Dimension (1997)

Alien Adventure (Ben Stassen, 1999)

Ultimate G's (2000)

By 2004, 54% of IMAX theaters (133 of 248) were capable of showing 3D films.

Shortly thereafter, higher quality computer animation, competition from DVDs and other media,

digital projection, digital video capture, and the use of sophisticated IMAX 70mm film projectors,

created an opportunity for another wave of 3D films.

Mainstream resurgence (2003–present)

In 2003, Ghosts of the Abyss by James Cameron was released as the first full-length 3D IMAX

feature filmed with the Reality Camera System. This camera system used the latest HD video

cameras, not film, and was built for Cameron by Vince Pace, to his specifications. The same

camera system was used to film Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over (2003), Aliens of the Deep IMAX

(2005), and The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D (2005).

In 2004, Las Vegas Hilton released Star Trek: The Experience which included two films. One of

the films, Borg Invasion 4-D (Ty Granoroli), was in 3D. In August of the same year, rap group

Insane Clown Posse released their ninth studio album Hell's Pit. One of two versions of the album

contained a DVD featuring a 3D short film for the track "Bowling Balls", shot in high-definition

video.

Shooting of the film Hidden Universe 3D with IMAX camera.

In November 2004, The Polar Express was released as IMAX's first full-length, animated 3D

feature. It was released in 3,584 theaters in 2D, and only 66 IMAX locations. The return from

those few 3D theaters was about 25% of the total. The 3D version earned about 14 times as much

per screen as the 2D version. This pattern continued and prompted a greatly intensified interest in

3D and 3D presentation of animated films.

In June 2005, the Mann's Chinese 6 theatre in Hollywood became the first commercial movie

theatre to be equipped with the Digital 3D format. Both Singin' in the Rain and The Polar Express

were tested in the Digital 3D format over the course of several months. In November 2005, Walt

Disney Studio Entertainment released Chicken Little in digital 3D format.

The Butler's in Love, a short film directed by David Arquette and starring Elizabeth Berkley and

Thomas Jane was released on June 23, 2008. The film was shot at the former Industrial Light &

Magic studios using KernerFX's prototype Kernercam stereoscopic camera rig.

Ben Walters suggests that both filmmakers and film exhibitors regain interest in 3D film. There is

now more 3D exhibition equipment, and more dramatic films being shot in 3D format. One

incentive is that the technology is more mature. Shooting in 3D format is less limited, and the

result is more stable. Another incentive is the fact that while 2D ticket sales are in an overall state

of decline, revenues from 3D tickets continue to grow.

Through the entire history of 3D presentations, techniques to convert existing 2D images for 3D

presentation have existed. Few have been effective or survived. The combination of digital and

digitized source material with relatively cost-effective digital post-processing has spawned a new

wave of conversion products. In June 2006, IMAX and Warner Bros. released Superman Returns

including 20 minutes of 3D images converted from the 2D original digital footage. George Lucas

has announced that he will re-release his Star Wars films in 3D based on a conversion process

from the company In-Three. Later on in 2011, it was announced that Lucas was working with the

company Prime Focus on this conversion.

In late 2005, Steven Spielberg told the press he was involved in patenting a 3D cinema system that

does not need glasses, and which is based on plasma screens. A computer splits each film-frame,

and then projects the two split images onto the screen at differing angles, to be picked up by tiny

angled ridges on the screen.

Animated films Open Season, and The Ant Bully, were released in analog 3D in 2006. Monster

House and The Nightmare Before Christmas were released on XpanD 3D, RealD and Dolby 3D

systems in 2006.

On May 19, 2007 Scar3D opened at the Cannes Film Market. It was the first US-produced 3D full-

length feature film to be completed in Real D 3D. It has been the #1 film at the box office in several

countries around the world, including Russia where it opened in 3D on 295 screens.

On January 19, 2008 was released U2 3D; it was the first live-action digital 3D film. In the same

year others 3D films included Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert,

Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Bolt.

On January 16, 2009, Lionsgate released My Bloody Valentine 3D, the first horror film and first

R-rated film to be projected in Real D 3D. It was released to 1,033 3D screens, the most ever for

this format, and 1,501 regular screens. Another R-rated film, The Final Destination, was released

later that year (August 28) to even more screens. It was the first of its series to be released in HD

3D.

On May 7, 2009 the British Film Institute commissioned a 3D film installation. The film Radio

Mania: An Abandoned Work consists of two screens of stereoscopic 3D film with 3D Ambisonic

sound. It stars Kevin Eldon and is by British artists Iain Forsyth and Jane Pollard.

The first 3D webisode series was Horrorween starting September 1, 2009.

Major 3D films in 2009 included Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, Up, X Games 3D: The Movie,

The Final Destination, and Avatar. Avatar has gone on to be one of the most expensive films of

all time, with a budget at $237 million; it is also the highest-grossing film of all time. The main

technologies used to exhibit these films, and many others released around the time and up to the

present, are Real D 3D, Dolby 3D, XpanD 3D, MasterImage 3D, and IMAX 3D.

March and April 2010 saw three major 3D releases clustered together, with Alice in Wonderland

hitting US theaters on March 5, 2010, How to Train Your Dragon on March 26, 2010 and Clash

of the Titans on April 2, 2010. On May 13 of the same year, China's first IMAX 3D film started

shooting. The pre-production of the first 3D film shot in France, Derrière les murs, began in May

2010 and was released in mid-2011.

On October 1, 2010 Scar3D was the first-ever stereoscopic 3D Video-on-demand film released

through major cable broadcasters for 3D televisions in the United States. Released in the United

States on May 21, 2010, Shrek Forever After by DreamWorks Animation (Paramount Pictures)

used the Real D 3D system, also released in IMAX 3D.

World 3-D Expositions

In September 2003, Sabucat Productions organized the first World 3-D Exposition, celebrating the

50th anniversary of the original craze. The Expo was held at Grauman's Egyptian Theatre. During

the two-week festival, over 30 of the 50 "golden era" stereoscopic features (as well as shorts) were

screened, many coming from the collection of film historian and archivist Robert Furmanek, who

had spent the previous 15 years painstakingly tracking down and preserving each film to its

original glory. In attendance were many stars from each film, respectively, and some were moved

to tears by the sold-out seating with audiences of film buffs from all over the world who came to

remember their previous glories.

In May 2006, the second World 3-D Exposition was announced for September of that year,

presented by the 3-D Film Preservation Fund. Along with the favorites of the previous exposition

were newly discovered features and shorts, and like the previous Expo, guests from each film.

Expo II was announced as being the locale for the world premiere of several films never before

seen in 3D, including The Diamond Wizard and the Universal short, Hawaiian Nights with Mamie

Van Doren and Pinky Lee. Other "re-premieres" of films not seen since their original release in

stereoscopic form included Cease Fire!, Taza, Son of Cochise, Wings of the Hawk, and Those

Redheads From Seattle. Also shown were the long-lost shorts Carmenesque and A Day in the

Country (both 1953) and William Van Doren Kelley's two Plasticon shorts (1922 and 1923).

Reported audience decline

In the wake of its initial popularity and corresponding increase in the number of screens, more

films are being released in the 3D format. However, industry observers have noted that 2011

showed a considerable decline in audience interest. This is a notion that has been shared among

industry professionals as well as their audience. For instance, only 45% of the premiere weekend

box office earnings of Kung Fu Panda 2 came from 3D screenings as opposed to 60% for Shrek

Forever After in 2010. In addition, the premiere of Cars 2 opening weekend gross consisted of

only 37% from 3D theatres. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and Captain America:

The First Avenger were major releases that achieved similar percentages: 43% and 40%

respectively. In view of this trend, there has been box office analysis concluding the

implementation of 3D presentation is apparently backfiring by discouraging people from going to

movie theatres at all. As Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo notes, "In each case, 3D's more-money-

from-fewer-people approach has simply led to less money from even fewer people."

According to the Motion Picture Association of America, despite a record total of 47 3D movies

being released in 2011, the overall domestic box office receipts were down 18% to $1.8 billion

from $2.2 billion in 2010.Although revenues as a whole increased during 2012, the bulk has so far

come from 2D presentations as exemplified by little over 50% of moviegoers opting to see the

likes of The Avengers and 32% choosing Brave in their 3D versions. Conflicting reasons are

respectively offered by studios and exhibitors: whereas the former blame more expensive 3D ticket

prices, the latter argue that the quality of movies in general is at fault. However, despite the

perceived decline of 3D in the U.S. market, studio chiefs are optimistic of better receipts

internationally, where there still appears to be a strong appetite for the format.

Studios are also using 3D to generate additional income from films that are already commercially

successful. Such re-releases usually involve a conversion from 2D. For example, Disney has

reissued both The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, with plans to add some of its other well-

known titles. Titanic has also been modified for 3D, and there are also plans to similarly present

all six Star Wars films.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of the leading proponents of 3D film and the producer of some of the most

critically acclaimed films in this format, such as How to Train Your Dragon (RT 98%) and Kung

Fu Panda 2 (RT 82%), blames oversaturation of the market with inferior films, especially ones

photographed conventionally and then digitally processed in post-production. Examples include

The Last Airbender (RT 6%) and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore (RT 13%), which

have led audiences to conclude that the format is not worth the additional expense to see. Daniel

Engber, a columnist for Slate, comes to a similar conclusion: "What happened to 3-D? It may have

died from a case of acute septicemia—too much crap in the system." However, at the global box

office there are six films whose combined 2D and 3D versions achieved grosses of over $1 billion

each: three in 2011, two in 2010 and one in 2009.

Film critic Mark Kermode, a noted detractor of 3D, has surmised that there is an emerging policy

of distributors to limit the availability of 2D versions, thus "railroading" the 3D format into

cinemas whether the paying moviegoer likes it or not. This was especially prevalent during the

release of Prometheus in 2012, where only 30% of prints for theatrical exhibition (at least in the

UK) were in 2D. His suspicions were later reinforced by a substantial number of complaints about

Dredd from those who wished to see it in 2D but were denied the opportunity.