Re: Serious 3D

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Wolfie! writes:

>It seems to me that a lot of 3D is too "gimmicky"
>there's a lot of "WOW... LOOK AT THAT!" stuff out there but
>I haven't seen any really serious use, although IMAX 3D sounds great.
>I've seen regular Imax and that alone is brilliant. :)

I certainly have to agree with that.  It seems that in every stereo
movie ever filmed, the director/studio could not resist having something
thrown at the camera.  When have you ever seen a flattie picture where
something was deliberately thrown at the camera?  In most films, if an
actor even *looks* at the camera, the take is considered a loss, whereas
in a 3D film they not only look at it, they throw things at it.

>it's a bit like colour TV in the 70's...
>remember how things were always "In living colour"
>and it's a bit like how at computer clubs how people go on endlesly about
>their computer, but don't really have anything interesting on the things.

I think the problem is that Hollywood never got past the point of 3D
being a novelty; they never settled down to simply using it as a normal
part of the filmmaking process.  As you point out, sound and then color
were both exploited in the same ways when they first appeared.  No
filmmaker in their right mind would consider drawing attention to the
sound track or color photography today just to say, "Hey, look!  I've got
synched sound and color!".  But they still do that with stereo.

>If 3D is to be accepted, then do it by it's inclusion in everyday life.
>don't pile it away and make it elitist.

It's more complicated than that.  Normal people see in stereo in everyday
life.  Those same people are quite content to watch films and television
that are flat.  Look at television: it got stereo sound long before it
will ever get a stereo picture, if it ever does (I'm guessing there will
be a totally new process before television as we know it goes routinely
stereoscopic).

The majority of people today are content to watch lousy video (snowy,
ghosty and if resolution were *really* an issue, no one would have *ever*
bought VHS).  So what incentive is there for anyone (Hollywood/network
television) to promote high-quality stereo video?  They know they can
sell tickets by putting Bruce Willis or Ah-nold and $50 million worth
of pyrotechnics on a screen, so why bother with stereo, requiring either
twice the film or effectively halving the resolution; complicating the
entire filming, editting and post-production process; requiring special
projection equipment that almost no-one has; and making the audience wear
uncomfortable glasses that have to periodically be replaced at a
not-insignificant cost?  Where's the incentive?  It certainly isn't going
to come from the theatre owners, who would bear at least half of these
costs, meaning higher ticket prices.  And the public certainly isn't
clamoring for it.

Maybe some clever marketing mogul will re-name it "Cine VR" or something,
and stir up some attention by linking it to the "total immersion" virtual
reality craze, but until and unless it is perceived as more than just
a gimmick it will never stay around.  All IMO, of course.

	-Greg


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