Broadly speaking, a stereographer is the 3D expert on a 3D film, or even fairly commonly, a 2D film that is going to be converted into 3D. But what does this really mean? What does a stereographer’s job entail? It varies greatly depending on the film. At worst, if the director doesn’t care about the 3D version of the film, the stereographer may be relegated to simply managing technical details related to 3D, and have no creative input whatsoever. But in the ideal scenario, the stereographer works in creative collaboration with the director and DP, having significant influence over the composition of shots. This is because 2D film rules and 3D film rules aren’t always the same, as some things that work in 2D might not work in 3D and vice versa. Therefore working in 3D often requires filmmakers to broaden their horizons and take on new approaches to tackle problems.

Positive and Negative Z Space

One of the most obvious differences to 3D film is the introduction of depth, or z space, into the consideration of composition. A stereographer must decide if an element should be behind the screen, in positive space, or in front of the screen, in negative space. Having things “pop out” of the screen may be what 3D is known for, but if it’s used too much it can be seen as gimmicky and can be distracting. The real merit of 3D comes from having a rich composition that extends into positive and negative space, that draws the audience into the film world and makes them feel like they’re a part of it. There should be interesting things at various points of depth, because the audience eyes are likely to explore the image more than they would in a regular film. If this level of immersion is achieved, audiences probably won’t even realize where the screen plane is. The relative center of the shot doesn’t necessarily have to be at the screen, it can easily be pushed forward or back depending on the desired emotional effect. For example, the same shot of someone reaching out a hand can have a different effect depending upon if they’re reaching out of the screen and into the audience, or reaching towards the screen but not quite touching it.

is she giving you the flower?

Atmospherics and Light

3D can allow filmmakers to do things that can’t be done in other mediums. My personal favorite of these is the use of atmospherics and light. Atmospherics are typically particles – dust, rain, mist – anything floating in the air that has collective volume. This can be used to enhance an existing scene, literally giving atmosphere to the environment, or can be the focus of the scene itself. A single shot of clouds or falling snow can be gorgeous in 3D, in a way that is almost entirely lost in 2D. It’s hard to put in to words really, but I genuinely think it’s the closest thing to magic a person can experience. Light too can take on a new – well, light – in 3D. Beams and rays of light actually have form and depth in 3D, almost making it into a kind of illusive shimmering object. Even reflections off of things can sometimes have this effect. When this is combined with atmospherics you can get a double whammy. This is one of these instances where negative space should be used liberally; having light and atmospherics pour out into the audience, blurring the boundary between fantasy and reality.

this is the ultimate aesthetic

Depth of Field

On the flip side, there are things that work in 2D but don’t work as well in 3D. One of the most oft complained about things by 3D critics is the restrictions on depth of field. Many filmmakers think of shallow depth of field as cinematic and soft focus can certainly look great in the right contexts. It’s just that 3D isn’t one of them, because 3D is trying to mimic the human eye, at least to a degree. Unless you’re like me and incredibly nearsighted, seeing most things out of focus is probably not your default state. Besides, what’s the point of making something stereoscopic if you can’t clearly see most of what’s in the frame? It doesn’t have to be as extreme as the composite shots in Citizen Kane, but that’s the kind of thing we’re going for. This isn’t to say you can never have anything be blurry, but you probably at least a few things in focus at multiple depths.

many shots in Citizen Kane used multiple focal lengths to achieve deep focus

Length of Shots

Have you ever watched an older movie or TV show and felt like it was really slow paced? That’s because over time, editing styles have been getting faster and shots have been getting shorter. Nowadays, the average shot length for a movie is about 3 to 5 seconds. This poses a problem for 3D because 3 to 5 seconds is also about the amount of time our brains take to recognize that an image is stereoscopic, so fast cuts might prevent us from seeing the shot in 3D all together. Furthermore, our eyes actually work slightly differently when watching a 3D movie. Normally, our eyes accommodate (focus) and converge (turn in) onto the same point, but when looking at a stereoscopic image, our eyes are accommodating on the screen, but converging on wherever we think the 3D subject is, even though it’s not technically there. This isn’t bad for our eyes per se; it’s just not really what we’re used to. The problem comes when the place we’re convergence on keeps changing, which is what happens in a 3D movie. This creates a convergence-accommodation conflict, where the two functions are no longer working in unison. This can be in part mitigated by maintaining similar convergence points from shot to shot, but overall 3D shots should be less fast paced so audiences don’t have to constantly adjust, and so the eye has time to explore the imagery.

Potential Problems

In addition to all these creative decisions, stereographers have many technical considerations to take into account. Experienced stereographer have trained their eye to be able to perceive problems in stereoscopic footage, such as if there are any major discrepancies between the two images (retinal rivalry), if the images have somehow been reversed (inverted stereo), are too far apart to be comfortable (divergence), or if the images are misaligned, out of sync, or out of phase. Catching and telling the difference between these problems isn’t always easy (is this vertical or rotational misalignment?), but its important work. Any of these problems could be physically painful to look at, so stereographers have a duty of care to their audience. This isn’t to say that other filmmakers don’t – even something as simple as flashing lights could be dangerous to some audience members – it’s just that stereographers have to be more cognizant of it. 3D already has a bad reputation to begin with, so hurting your audience doesn’t help matters. That being said most 3D films are actually good about this, and if a 3D movie is too painful to look at, it’s usually a sign that the stereographer wasn’t allowed to do their job.

I hope this article helps you better understand the breadth of things a stereographer considers when working on a 3D movie. If you aren’t intending on working with 3D yourself, at least this might help you understand and appreciate those who do. But maybe you came here knowing all this stuff already, and what you really want to know is how to get a job as a stereographer. I’m actually still working on that myself. I’ll let you know once I figure it out. In the mean time, if you really want to be a stereographer, do your own research. This site is just the tip of the iceberg. Read 3D websites and books, watch 3D film, and make 3D stuff just for the fun of it. Play around, experiment. Learn the rules, and then break them. Talk to other stereographers if you can, see what they have to say about your work. If you do all that, I think you’re probably on track to becoming a great stereographer.

And if you already work in 3D, I’d love to hear your thoughts. What do you think it takes to be a good stereographer?

(Photos by Pawel Szvmanski, Lina Trochez, Kristine Weilert on Unsplash)