Don't call him a 3D-expert. It's just a coincidence he started working in 3D, and now knows something about it. He really isn’t some kind of freak who sits down for hours reading books about it; only when it's really necessary does he pore over it. Despite that, Mick van Rossum is becoming ever more associated with 3D in the Dutch film world. When camera rental company Camalot started investing in 3D-equipment, they asked him to be an advisor. He receives many requests from post-production companies that want to make 3D-movies. And he is regularly invited for 3D-projects. Mick: ‘”I think it's just a phase.”

"Amphibious"

When did you first start filming in 3D?

“Stereographic film is probably a better term. By this I mean that depth is introduced with glasses. The term 3D, however, is often associated with computer graphics. Two years ago I was approached by director Mathijs Geijskes and producer Ivo Broekhuizen of the production company, “A Million Dreams”. Geijskes and Broekhuizen wanted to make a 3D-movie themselves, to be shown at amusement parks. They personally invested money in Boat Trip 3D; a short film about a boy on a boat who is being chased. At first, cameraman Rolf Dekens was approached for this job, but he had to withdraw in order to shoot the motion picture Spion van Oranje. And then they asked me. There was still nobody experienced in 3D, we had to re-invent the wheel. We did not have a budget and had to improvise, also because we started shooting on a boat with a very small crew. Everything had to be done using batteries and generators. I didn´t have an assistant or even lighting. The homemade rig we borrowed from the French 3D-guru Alain Derobe weighed 40 kilos, so changing the setting was difficult. Even just changing the lens takes a lot of time with 3D; the lenses need to be adjusted to each other after changing, because otherwise the stereo-effect does not function properly. In short, it was all a big hassle, but a nice one.”


What about the 3D-film in The Netherlands?

“America, Japan and South Korea have already released 3D-films, soon Germany will release two films, one by Wim Wenders. France already made some and England has surely shot a movie by now. Anyway, they also make 3D television. In The Netherlands the first 3D motion picture Amphibious, which I worked on at the end of 2009, will be released this year. It's an Indonesian-Dutch co-production, directed by Brian Yuzna, an American horror veteran (amongst others Re-Animator), who's been living in Jakarta for years. The Dutch contribution was made by producer San Fu Maltha, line producer Niko Post and myself. The rest of the crew came from Indonesia, the cast was a mix of American, Indonesian, English, Dutch and Singaporese.
So compared to other countries, The Netherlands definitely is not lagging behind. However, The Netherlands still has little experience with stereographic film. I think only the eighties saw a 3D film, by the Gasunie. It has long been the field of amateurs. And although very few people know how to do it, there are indeed many different opinions about how to best film using three dimensions. There's not many disciplines in the film world that see as much difference of opinion as with filming in 3D.”

Why is that?

“I think it has something to do with the difficulty of scientifically demonstrating the exact functioning of 3D. Therefore it is difficult to objectively determine good 3D, or how this can be improved. There's a couple of patterns defining how it works, which are related to the process of your eyes transmitting ‘messages’ to your brain and how the eyes then interpret the information. The way those messages are picked up differs by person. A certain percentage of the world population, I think four or five percent, is not able to watch 3D, they can't see it. There's also people who can't handle it; they suffer from watering eyes, nausea and headache. So there's a great number of variables, which is part of what makes it so debatable.
There have been very few good 3D films made. The IBC (International Broadcasting Convention, trade show in the field of media, video and broadcasting, on a yearly basis in the RAI, AV.) only saw a few stands with properly applied 3D. Not surprisingly, those were the most-experienced companies in the realm of 3D. Of course it is hype at the moment, everybody wants to be involved. And the audience is still not used to it and easily likes it.”

"Amphibious" set

Where did you get your knowledge about stereography?

“I really learned by experiment. Now I think I get it, but it took me the experience of making an entire motion picture first. One really needs to train oneself in watching 3D. I also learned a lot from the stereographs I worked with, although they frequently disagreed amongst themselves. Furthermore, I have read some texts about the subject, like 3D Movie Making by Bernard Mendiburu and the books of Lenny Lipton. And I attended a stereography course by Florian Maire in Munich. Moreover, an online stereography course has also been released on FXPHD, so for those who are interested…”

What's your way of working when filming in 3D?

“You need two cameras whose mutual distance can be varied. Because the cameras are physically too large and the lenses cannot be placed close enough to each other, a reflector rig is used. This enables you to slide images over each other. The images must be able to slide exactly on top of each other in all three axes, so the adjustment requires precision. The stereographer needs time for this; each lens change takes in between five and twenty minutes. Sometimes this is an argument to not change the lens, but this is obviously a concession to the way you want to work.
A reflector rig has more disadvantages. The mirror can receive much more light than you are used to with your normal lens and it's much more difficult to flag down. And if one camera observes a flare and the other one doesn't, there's a problem, because only one eye will see that. This is difficult to solve in the post-production. Moreover, mirrors are more sensitive to scratches and dust and the images see a color displacement and an exposure difference in both images because the semi-opaque mirrors always have a deviation.
For large totals it is necessary to place the cameras further apart than is possible with a reflector rig. In this case a side-by-side rig is required. Altering from one rig to another takes a lot of time. Using very small cameras and a relatively small optical distance one is most flexible, but on the other hand those have different disadvantages.”

"Amphibious"


What other limitations do you see?

“3D is expensive, I think easily 40 percent more expensive than a 2D film. Two cameras and lens sets are used which must be identical. For example, when shooting Amphibious we realized that the Zeiss Ultra Primes - although optically matched - had different focus calibrations... Moreover, renting a good rig is expensive, and difficult, since there's only a few of them in Europe.
It also takes more time to shoot in 3D. This is due to the lens change, the stereography, the focusing of the cameras and unexpected practical problems. I actually wanted to shoot Amphibious on the SI2K, because of the format, but the 3D version was still far from ready. So I chose Red, because I know the system well and the cameras were easily connected with an USB cable. There were also some downsides. The poor field of depth of the S35 chip of the Red, normally an advantage, sometimes works against you in 3D, especially with very close shots. And the enormous dimensions - including all batteries, cables and remote engines this is a monster of 70 x 70 x 50 centimeter - and the weight of 45 kilos limited my camera movements. Even the heaviest O’ Connor tripod couldn't handle this. Ideally you use an Arrihead or something, but my operator was not experienced in this. For Boattrip we once hung the rig from a Weaver Steadmanhead. This worked perfectly, but it was not available in Indonesia. When I started the preparations, only the reflector rig of P+S-Technik was available and this was actually too light for the cameras. As a result the rig sometimes twisted when making a tilt, and the 3D setting at the beginning of a shot was different from the end. All those things make you work very slow. The favorite joke of the director therefore was: “What does 3D stand for? Three damned shots a day!!!”

Another difficulty is that you need to know the size of the screen the film will be shown on before you begin. You see, the 3D setting is different for a motion picture than it is for a 40 inch television or a 20 inch computer screen. In general, the bigger the screen you are projecting on, the smaller the 3D effect when you watch the movie on a smaller screen. Therefore, motion pictures are not optimized for smaller screens. This actually requires a different version.”

"Amphibious" set

In what way does 3D really make a difference for you as a cameraman?

“As a cameraman you really need to take a step backwards; your camerawork is serving 3D. This also applies to editing, light, etc. You need to provide your image information in different ways, I think that's a challenge. You need to shoot slower, using wider lenses, which provide more entourage and depth cues and therefore they work better than long lenses, that easily give the audience the feeling they're watching cut cardboard characters. And, for example, with image transitions the speed at which eyes are able to cumulate should be considered, because it does take eyes one and a half seconds to do that.”

It seems like you need to be constantly checking everything all at the same time?

“Yes, that´s why you need to consider your chosen framework all the time. 3D only works well as an effect when the subjects are not cut. Otherwise it may seem like someone is jumping through a window, but a part of the body remains behind the groove, for example. Therefore a stereographer is always necessary on the set. Someone who continuously keeps an eye on the 3D effect and advises the cameraman. Like: ‘The distance between the cameras must now be such, because as far as the effect we want more to enter or come out of the screen.’ The stereographer must also be present during the editing. Because when you suddenly have a depth experience at the left and then you cut to something much more close on the right, for example, the viewer needs to switch too quickly and can get sick. A stereographer prevents this from happening.”

Does the post-production have sufficient possibilities?

“Yes, I receive a lot of questions from post-production companies that want to make 3D films. The funny thing is that the post is maybe the easiest part; almost each post-production package can handle 3D. The post-production for my last project was  accommodated with Crabsalad. They work with Speedgrade of Iridas, currently with one of the better 3D post-production tools. Amphibious is posted with Galaxy in Brussels and graded by Floor Bos on Baselight, which in the meantime also has the tools to properly assess 3D images.”

In which ways can we watch 3D?

“A poor man´s solution is watching in anaglyph, using glasses with a red and a cyan glass. You miss out on a lot of image information, but it's the only way to watch 3D on your own computer or television without needing any hardware. The systems we use to watch 3D in the cinema -IMAX 3D, RealD and XPanD 3D- use polarization glasses.”

3D tends to be associated with only actiona and horror movies and image experiences. Do you think that's a shame?

“Yes, 3D is associated with nerds, or with making money and putting on a show. During my last movie I got in a fight with the producers, who said, ‘”I want something to come from the screen towards the audience in every minute of the movie.” I think that's more like chocolate sauce on a chocolate cake. But that's the thing with all new techniques: first the sensational part is emphasized and it's like some sort of fairground attraction. Then it becomes normal and it's given its added value.”

What do you think is the added value of that third dimension?

“Good 3D makes you believe you're actually there. But at the moment the added value is given by the novelty. First we were able to see moving images in black and white, then in color. Editing was an important step as well. This way we can see more bigger and smaller developments. And now we have 3D. It gives you a wow!-experience and that's fun and stimulating. As a result you keep on watching a relatively boring image for a longer time. The past decades saw an enormous image inflation; as a viewer you're not surprised by anything anymore. 3D adds something, as long as it lasts.”

What are the most recent developments in the field of 3D?

“What can be seen now, with Avatar, but also with A Christmas Carol, is a combination of live action and 3D. With the use of motion capturing the computer characters have been ‘humanized, and there's still some possibilities for adjustment in post-production. That's a big step, made by Cameron; he was able to make a 3D film as we are used to in 2D. Namely: place the camera wherever you want, make the camera movement you want and define the stereo effect later on.”

Will the 2D film become a thing of the past?

“No, but I do think 3D is just a phase. It will indeed persist, but I do think it remains a niche market of about five to ten percent. The peak is expected around 2011, 2012, because everything that is made now, will be released about then. But after that the audience has seen the trick. And then it becomes interesting, because then we get a way of storytelling where 3D has something to add. For example, I would love to make a social drama in 3D light, where you do indeed see depth, but where you are not treated by the makers to an hysterical rollercoaster ride.”

Go to Mick's NSC profile page

Go to "Amphibious" website