How's the 3D in 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier'?

Background

This April, Captain America: The Winter Soldier kicked off the 'Summer' movie-going season early. Its over-sized box-office takings match the muscle and reputation of the hero himself, and critics were quick to praise the film too. He's the linchpin for Marvel's Cinematic Universe, which is why it's the fourth time we've seen Cap in 3D. Is this the definitive Steve Rogers story? How does the 3D fare in comparison to the post-converted likes of Iron Man Three or The Avengers? Join us for this in-depth review of the film's stereo effects, and let us know if we've missed anything!

Post-Converted 3D

Marvel makes bold bets on its directors. In retrospect, many of their choices often made total sense; Shakespearean-influenced Kenneth Brannagh was well matched with Thor, as was the wise-cracking Iron Man helmer Jon Favreau. While some of their directors had previously made big-budget films, none had ever made a 3D movie. We assume that's why the studio's 3D output to date has largely been post-converted; why make a nervous director's job harder than it needs to be on set? The technology improves every day, but filming in native 3D remains a challenge for even the most experienced of directors. Captain America: The Winter Soldier was not filmed by the likes of Peter Jackson or James Cameron. It was filmed by the directors of TV's Arrested Development, Anthony & Joe Russo. As best as we can tell, Marvel never divulged the reason they chose to post-convert this movie, but we assume the directors' green-ness to big-budget movie-making contributed to the decision.

As a result, the task of manually post-converting this behemoth of a movie fell to Stereo D and lead stereographer Anjel Alcaraz. We've covered their work before. They do a fine job of subtly enhancing 2D footage. 3Defence takes the view that Stereo D are a reliable shop, generally churning out quality work that is worthy of your attention. Indeed, they won a 3D industry award for their work on The Avengers, and we expect they'll be seeking recognition for their efforts here on Captain America: The Winter Soldier too.

How's The Depth of the 3D?

Captain America can't fly like Iron Man. He can't soar through the air like Thor and his hammer. He is basically human-sized, unlike Hulk. He doesn't web-sling, use magic, and he's not even a pint-sized gun-toting racoon. His buddies in this movie are all human too: Black Widow, Nick Fury and The Winter Soldier himself. To put it bluntly; stories about Steve Rogers don't necessarily call for depth imbalances in the way that his Marvel buddies' movies do.

Without a depth imbalance based on character size itself, usually 3D movies convey depth by relying on an arresting visual. For example, a character overlooking a large vista (say Sandara Bullock's space-faring character in Gravity), or one placed atop of a large structure (say Will Smith on the Apollo mission's launch pad in Men In Black 3). For much of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, this type of 'imbalance' is not achieved. The nearby landscape - low-rise Washington DC - is neither spectacular or noteworthy. The foes are identifiably human-sized, and generally fighting in close proximity. Indeed, the film is purposefully shot in a way that invokes the memory of paranoid and close-quarters 70s thrillers like All The President's Men. Much of the movie is also shot in a traditional way; a blurry object is in the deep foreground, while a mid-ground character commands a sharp focus against a blurry background.

 
There's an interesting opening set-piece, set on the decks of a boat. It's closest 3D peer is Life Of Pi's shipwreck scene. There, Ang Lee shot the action from close angles, as if the camera operator were in the same predicament as the protagonist. Captain America's seafaring battle is similarly chaotic, but is filmed more objectively. The film-makers are unafraid to pull back a long way, to show the full speed and agility of their hero. It's an interesting touch, especially in light of how few film-makers have filmed superheros this way recently. The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Superman, Thor, Iron Man and a myriad of others have often been filmed 'just over the shoulder' in a way that makes the action seem more immediate, but also makes their heroes appear more human. There were moments in the opening battle where distance and depth helped convey how powerful Steve Rogers is, and how superhuman his abilities are.

Where the film really comes alive though, from a depth perspective, is its last half-hour. Set high in the air courtesy of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s helicarriers and accompanied by a flying Falcon, the super-sized action allows for an explosive finale. Still, there's nothing in this sequence that comes close to Iron Man Three's airplane freefall or even the skyscraper-soaring conclusion to The Avengers. The action here is also shot largely in the traditional modern superhero style of 'just over the shoulder', so you'll be disappointed if you're looking for new bench-marks in depth here.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

While objects don't fly out into the audience, objects like Captain America's shield regularly fly from the background right up to the edge of the screen. You won't spend much of the movie ducking for cover.

Did it make sense to add 3D?

Dark, gritty, political thrillers are not a natural fit with 3D. We weren't particularly blown away by the post-conversion used in this film's predecessor (Captain America: The First Avenger) either. Thankfully, someone in charge of The Winter Soldier made sure they catered many of the film's set-pieces with 3D in mind: the biggest action sequences all happen in broad daylight. Sunlight helps provide clear and crisp images to a glasses-wearing audience. By setting their fast-paced fight scenes in the afternoon the Russo Brothers made 3D easy on the eyes. We thank them!

The film itself

This is the easiest section to write for this review: it's a great movie. At the time of writing, it's firmly placed in the IMDb Top 250. The film's best watched with some beginner's knowledge of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's definitely easy to keep up with for outsiders. Chris Evans nails his part, and Scarlett Johansson continues to play Black Widow with a surprising intensity (though we'd like her part more if she were filmed from the same distance as her male peers and if there were more meaningful female characters for her to talk to). The Winter Soldier himself is a meaningful 'bad guy' (particularly if you've seen The First Avenger) and his relationship with Captain America is pivotal to the story. You couldn't ask for a better comic book movie this early in 2014.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

We hope this review of Captain America: The Winter Soldier's 3D has been regarded as largely positive. If anything, we at 3Defence are 'lukewarm' on the conversion. We're going to side with the 2D version. There's nothing to 'dislike' here, and 3D haters would struggle to point at anything that detracts from the movie-going experience. However, 3D enthusiasts would also struggle to find much that radically improves the movie-going experience in stereo. This is about as middle-of-the-road as it gets.

How's the 3D in 'Iron Man 3'?

Background

Obviously the third film in the series, Iron Man 3 is actually the fifth time we've seen Robert Downey Jr. play the role of Tony Stark. It's also the second time he's collaborated with the film's director, Shane Black. For the latest Stark instalment, the pair have conspired to chop the titular hero's ego down to size, perhaps hoping to provide a more likeable character arc than what Iron Man 2 offered us. We'll discuss plot points later though, for now, let's have a look at the third film's usage of 3D! How was it? Should you see it in 2D or 3D? We'll investigate below in our usual template-driven style, in the hopes you'll be able to make an informed movie-going decision.

Post-Converted 3D

Like The Avengers and Thor before it, Iron Man 3 was shot digitally, and post-converted into 3D. 3Defence's view of The Avengers was that the film greatly benefited from an extra dimension, and the movie-going public appeared to agree. Have you ever wondered why Disney & Marvel have been so gung-ho to post-convert their films to 3D? Maybe it's because they're hiring directors like Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon; veterans, but rusty or inexperienced when it comes to helming A-list, tent-pole, action blockbusters. In Shane Black's case, his sophomore directing gig is also the follow-up to the third biggest film ever! To make the film's production relatively smooth-sailing, we can understand why you'd want to film in 2D. The firm StereoD was brought in to pick up the slack.

StereoD are quickly carving out a reputation as the 'benchmark' firm when it comes to post-conversion. They've handled other well-respected conversions like the ones from The Avengers and Titanic 3D, and they no doubt put in a lot of effort to the work done for Iron Man 3. We've had uncharacteristically bad luck when it comes to researching the "hows" and "whys" the production took for the 3D used, so we're left to suppose a bit of conjecture here. Perhaps Mavel/Disney still think that post-conversion is frowned upon by audiences, and were loathe to reveal how the 3D was added afterwards? Is it possible they're burying news of post-conversions? That's definitely speculation, but the total radio silence on this conversion rang alarm bells for us.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

As is becoming a theme for superhero films, 'noise elements' like dust, snow, debris and sparks happily fly out of the screen. There's a lot of holographic images that buzz around the screen too. Characters don't break this 'fifth wall' of the screen though, they stay safely behind it. The mantra in Hollywood continues to be "classy" instead of using overt 3D effects on actors.

If I had a dollar for every comic franchise to use holographic 3D effects...

How's the depth of the 3D?

Iron Man 3 shines when it comes to depth. By far the most effective 3D sequence is a prolonged aerial free-fall, where Stark attempts to save several people plummeting to earth. Thanks to the stunning usage of stereo depth employed, we're constantly aware of how fast the ground is approaching. This sense of impending doom heightens (pun intended) the tension of the scene significantly, and will likely give viewers a real sense of vertigo. It probably helps that, for this scene at least, the crew filmed dozens of real-life skydiving jumps to capture the kinetic feeling of a free-fall. The 3D effects added in post-production enhance the feelings of immediacy for the viewer, so we'd consider them worthwhile and consistent with the story being told. It's a stunning piece of action, and fantastic 3D cinema.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Iron Man 3?

Superheroes and 3D generally seem a natural fit. Iron Man 3 is no Man Of Steel though. Take a look at the posters: they're set at nightfall, grimly lit and generally projecting more darkness than we'd like from a 3D film. Indeed, most of the pivotal action scenes are set at night or indoors, in dull offices and neutral corridors. The film's villain, The Mandarin, is lit and dressed like an Al Qaeda-issued video: shot in a cave, wearing camouflaged clothing - hardly the type of footage we'd normally advocate for in a 3D film. Even Iron Man's various Mark suits have had their colour vibrancy dialled down, and that's before 3D glasses added another 'muting' layer! The final image is muddy and, it would seem, poorly conceived for the 3D medium.

Dimly lit, boring background, neutral colours... not a good 3D mix

The film itself

Make no mistake about it: Iron Man 3 is a muddled mess. The first two acts are great fun, while the third act is a hastened and bombastic explosion of nonsense. The stakes are significantly lowered by the reveal that Stark owns autonomous suits that can do his bidding. This has the same effect that the droid army did in the Star Wars prequels - we have no emotional investment in the robots, so our engagement is significantly dialled back. To some extent, Marvel has been guilty of this for some time. They've regularly provided literal cannon fodder for their heroes and villains to dispatch without requiring a harsher rating. The Chitauri, the Frost Giants, the HYDRA agents, and now the spare suits of Tony Stark... all relatively faceless fodder for CGI-laden battles.

I have no idea what's going on here, even in 2D

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

In this case, we're going to side with the 2D. With glasses on, you'll spend much of the last act wondering what the hell is going on. There's so many dark-coloured suits flying around, at night-time, for some reason in a shipyard, that your eyes will struggle to decipher meaning from the noise. Save some money and save your eyes the effort.

How's the 3D in 'Man Of Steel'?

Background:

To date, despite owning DC Comics' entire catalogue of superheroes, Warner Brothers have taken a small-scale - or at least self-contained - approach to their big-screen adaptations. Certainly their DC films have not been as far-reaching or synergistic as anything from Disney's Marvel-verse. Warners, seeing Marvel's successes - and perhaps fearing a time when The Hobbit can't be split into any further films - promptly commissioned another blockbuster series from Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight team. Taking on the Man Of Steel himself is no small challenge. The brief Warners likely gave was that the film needed to broadly introduce aliens to Earth, show Superman punching bad guys, and earn big Dark Knight-sized blockbuster grosses. Some challenge! Nolan promptly recruited 300 and Watchmen "visionary" director Zack Snyder to helm the mayhem. The resulting film was released yesterday and 3Defence was there in a packed auditorium on opening night. How'd they do? How was Man Of Steel's 3D? Should you see it in 3D or 2D? Read on for the answer!

Post-Converted 3D:

Here's the thing with a tent-pole superhero film these days; unless it's directed by the 3D-averse Christopher Nolan, you'd best believe it will be released in 3D somehow. That's one cinematic trend you can literally bank on for the next few years, especially after the 3D-grosses were tallied up for The Avengers. Why then is Man Of Steel - from Nolan himself - being released with a post-converted 3D option? If they had to release the film in 3D at all, you'd think the picky creative team would've preferred to go 'all in' with a native-3D shoot, right?

In fact, they originally wanted to do just that. In an interview with Collider Snyder said, "we spent quite a while talking about shooting the movie in [native] 3D and we tested a bunch of rigs.  I said, 'Look, the movie’s handheld.  If you guys can give me a handheld grade that I think is viable, I’m happy to talk about it.' No one could find me a rig." Essentially, the shoot could take much longer than planned, or Snyder would have to film on a tripod; a total change of the visual language he needed for this fast-paced film. It's an interesting conundrum, that we've not heard articulated by other A-list directors yet. So, Man Of Steel is post-converted into 3D because native-3D rigs weren't ready yet to accommodate this particular director's pace. Adding to the intrigue, Snyder eventually shot on film - remember 35mm?

Does the 3D pop?

If anything comes beyond the confides of the screen in Man Of Steel, it's a few 'noise' elements; stuff like debris, sparks, steam and flames. Interestingly, we didn't notice the effect's absence while watching the film. Historically, we've criticised some superhero films (looking at you The Amazing Spider-Man) for being too timid with their usage of 3D's most outrageous effect. Man Of Steel though is no ordinary superhero film; it's borderline apocalyptic in tone. With the fate of multiple worlds at stake, and villains who can move at supersonic speeds, we're actually appreciative there's a clearly defined boundary between 'the film' and 'the audience'. The action on offer is laden with such an overwhelming surplus of visual information too much immersion would have been a bad thing!

How's the depth of the 3D?

Stunning. The depth effects used on Man Of Steel work on two levels (pun intended). On the one hand, the depth of the background adds visual clarity to the viewer. Because of the way the parallax effects are used, we're able to see how insanely fast Superman is moving, and how that might contrast to the speed of his adversaries. On the other hand, and in open contradiction to our earlier point, the depth employed adds a ton of chaos to the action. This chaos is consistent with the film's plot though and, we would argue, assists the audience's comprehension of the ridiculously high-stakes at play throughout the movie. You'll see vistas stretch into the distant horizon, and then be blasted to the limits of that horizon  in seconds, before being catapulted into space, and then back down into a suburban diner and then back into the skies again. This is easily the fastest-paced superhero film we've ever seen, and the depth added by the 3D here left us, entirely appropriately, reeling.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Man Of Steel?

Superman, brightly-coloured boy scout that he is, is a natural hero to cast in a 3D film. He's certainly not the brooding and nocturnal type that Batman is. So, on the surface, Man Of Steel's a dictionary-definition of a "3D appropriate" movie. However... 3Defence had a concern: all that motion-blur, and that aforementioned handheld camera. 3D films have yet to overcome the historic associations with nausea and headaches that were often caused by an unsteady stereoscopic image. Seemingly aware of this, the post-conversion team dial back the 3D effects frequently, to give your eyes a 'breather' in the more unruly scenes. There are broad stretches where you could take your glasses off without missing anything. This is one of the most focused and sensitive conversions we've ever seen, precisely because the handheld camera work was not an issue at all. The team involved has proven 3D projection is ready for any visual challenge.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 3D or the 2D?

From our perspective, Man Of Steel's 3D version is the definitive version. It's refreshing to say that too, because we've favoured the 2D version in several recent 3D films (so don't be accusing of bias, yo). Man Of Steel is a ground-breaking step forward for the movie business, seemingly decades ahead of 2005's staid and plodding Superman Returns. The flight scenes, with Superman soaring over Africa and the Arctic, are superbly executed and are light-years beyond anything offered from Marvel's stable. The fact the post-conversion team handled the handheld camera work so well is a giant evolutionary step forward for the 3D effects industry, and this arguably makes the film a landmark work in its own right. If you watch Man Of Steel in 2D, you're missing out on a chance to see history in the making.

The film itself

There's a funny critical reaction to this movie. The sort of reaction that is common when two generations are divided. If you grew up reading Silver Age Superman comics, or if your only memory of the hero is the Christopher Reeve movies, then you're going to be surprised by the angry Man Of Steel offered here. If you read the comics from the 80s onwards though, you know Supes is capable of being a Big-Brother-esque government lackie, or a vengeful God ready to wreak havoc if it suits his dogmatic needs. Hell, he even surrendered his American citizenship recently; he's not exactly the jingoistic patriot he once was. Man Of Steel embraces this newer, more nuanced, version of DC Comics' flagship character. 

This isn't a mid-20th Century version of a superhero film. This is a film that fully embraces the genre's Roman and Greek roots: when Gods and Earth mix, the results can be disastrous. The collateral damage is enormous. We at 3Defence have clamoured for years to see the full extent of Superman's powers on-screen and, for better or worse, Zack Snyder has delivered that with Man Of Steel. This is a case where fans should be careful what they wish for though, because the resulting film is essentially a chaotically paced and very long fight scene. There's not much room for character development. So, if you're pining for a world-leading Christopher Reeve-styled Superman, you'll be bitterly disappointed by the worldly and weary version Snyder has cooked up for you. Even if that's your take on the film though, you might forgive Man Of Steel's flaws, given its absurdly gigantic scope and ambition.

Looked at as a late-comer to the big-screen comic-book adaptation game, Man Of Steel could be described as a mash-up. It combines Batman Begins' franchise foundations, Iron Man's handheld effects and Thor's intergalactic derring-do. Cynics might go further, saying Man Of Steel feels like the dregs of those films, swilled together in a putrid and overblown mess. Our opinion though? Man Of Steel wildly exceeds the type of fight-scenes any child has ever dreamed up while clutching a Superman figurine. The film treats its modern comic-book fans with respect, and forces a different era of Superman fans to come to terms with a God who is capable of vast collateral damage if you get in his way. Man Of Steel delivers a full-on bombast unlike any other film ever made and, given the titular character's super-sized abilities, that seems entirely appropriate.

Great list of the best 3D moments in 'The Avengers'

Regular reader 'Andy' submitted this story for us: The Top 10 Most Thrilling 3D Moments In The Avengers. Check it out, it's a great list. Useful follow-up to our story from a few days ago on the great conversion work Joss Whedon coaxed out of his team.

10 million Americans watched a 3D film this weekend

BoxOfficeGuru revealed that, because of The Avengers' monstrous opening, 10 million Americans watched a 3D film this weekend. By my estimates, that's the most for a single film ever, in that timeframe. Big news! It also validates my earlier theory that the 3D version is of historic importance.

Now the question is... will its 3D attendance beat Avatar?

How Good Is The 3D In The Avengers?

If the estimates hold true, half of the people likely to see The Avengers already have, and the other half are about to see it in the next 48 hours. It's an event film like no other before it; five films of build-up, followed by a massive pay-off. The Avengers has the world captivated, and there's hundreds of reviews out there that can help you interpret the narrative, its plot and its worthiness as 'one of the best superhero films of all time'. Today's post asks "should I see The Avengers in 3D?" and "How Good Is The 3D In The Avengers?"

Conversion:

The Avengers was shot in 2D, and converted in post-production. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, as of April 2012, the gold standard in this process belonged to Titanic 3D. That film had a few awkward moments where some characters' eye-lines gazed in a different direction than you'd expect, but most of the time the work was flawless. Using Titanic as a yardstick, how does The Avengers fare? It's brilliantly well done. Having seen it twice now, I can confidently say this is the 'silver standard' in post-production 3D conversion. According to Marvel, despite being shot in 2D, "every shot was framed and designed to be able to accentuate the 3D process" that would be dovetailed in at the end. The basic approach seems to have been '20 minutes of high depth, followed by 20 minutes of low depth, followed by 20 minutes of high depth' etc. The technicians behind this are literally kind on your eyes, making sure they dial up the conversion only when it's absolutely vital to do so. Cynics may regard this as a money-grabbing ploy I suppose, but I prefer to think of the 3D application in The Avengers as they themselves think of The Hulk; a weapon capable of great impact, to be deployed rarely lest it runs away from your control.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

Rarely, if ever. By and large, it feels like Joss Whedon and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey treat the screen as an unbreakable wall. Given the film was shot in 2D, this seems wise. Whenever the 'pop' effect was used in the recent conversion of Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, the background had to be warped in the background to fill the rest of the frame, and whatever was being stretched into the audience in the foreground had a graininess to it that felt like they'd zoomed too far. The Avengers resists this temptation, so if you're only keen on seeing shields and hammers coming out of the screen, perhaps you should save the money for Piranha 3DD.

How's the depth of the 3D?

Vertigo inducing. Seeing the 3D in The Avengers makes me wish Brad Bird would use the same team to go back and convert Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol; the techniques applied here redefine the sensation one imagine you'd feel hanging off a building, surrounded by bad guys. Much of the last half hour is set in central Manhattan, reeling from one skyscraper to the next. The 3D effect is the most noticeable in this section, because the action is staged in four tiers. There is the ground-based human team, covered by the sentry team several floors above, with everything fenced in by the aerial weaponry of Iron Man, and then there's the Stark Tower far in the distance opening a portal into deep (literally) space. In a stroke of genius, this is all staged in bright daylight, so we can see everything going on in each of these tiers at all times. The camerawork here is top-notch, and each shot seems to show off depth of a different kind, be that on a horizontal plane looking down a New York avenue, or the more obvious vertical plane looking down at the ground many stories below you.

Does it make sense to add 3D to this film?

Yes. The way the 3D has been used in The Avengers calls to mind the way depth has been used in the comic book medium for decades. Obviously it's impossible to make something literally pop out of a 2D piece of paper, but it's definitely possible to make each frame have something in the extreme foreground, stretching into the distant background to represent depth. In the case of this movie, the backgrounds are well rendered, and the characters (which are often front and centre, as they should be with this line-up of heroes) are all brightly lit, and at times it's like 'seeing' a living breathing comic.

If we had to archive only one version, should we save the 3D or the 2D?

The 3D, but - interestingly - for historical reasons. There's a good chance this film will have the largest opening of any film at the US box-office in history, and there's a good chance that audiences are going to collectively lose their minds for this film. Exhibitors are pushing the 3D prints much harder than they are the 2D ones, and as such it's probable that 80% of its audience in the next week will be watching The Avengers while wearing glasses. It's a great film, and as such it may have a 'halo effect' in restoring the community's confidence in both the concept of 2D->3D conversions and the 3D technique as a whole. There's also the argument that Marvel always intended for the film to be converted in post-production, so the 3D version's got to be considered the 'definitive' one.