Re: New 3D Movies (long)

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was inspired by Larry Berlin's posting regarding new 3-d movies and
opportunities for 3-D...

>It's like science fiction was before Star Wars was released....

>Someday 3D will be a regular and very popular medium. 
>The ones who hold the purse strings simply
>aren't awake to that obvious (to us anyway) fact yet. It's good to hear
>rumblings of some of them waking up!!! It's likely to happen more by
>consumer demand rather than manufacturer supply of some new technology.

...to present my ideas about the present status and future of 3-d imaging.
Most of it has nothing to do with what Larry said, but here it goes anyways:

Larry, I don't think the situation is that simple.  Science fiction is 
just another subject for movies.  3-D is a means of presentation and 
much more.  3-D movies were tried in the 50s and failed.  Why did that 
happen?  And why shouldn't it happen again?

I have only watched one 3-d movie from the 50s, the House of Wax.  
There were a few scenes that looked great in 3-d.  I remember one in 
particular.  A scene in a dark street... Lots of depth and a great 
atmosphere.  It was worth seeing the movie just for this scene.  But 
there was much more where 3-d did not make any difference or was even 
annoying to watch.  Like dialogues inside rooms when you realize that 
people's heads are separated and at a considerable distance from the 
walls.  Yes, it's reality, but I don't need a 3-d movie to show me that.

I have come to the conclusion that 3-d is something special and should 
be treated with respect.  I would not like to see "ordinary" movies shot 
in 3-d.  Only special movies, shorter durations, special subjects.  Films 
created for 3-d, not 2-d movies "adapted" for 3-d because this is the 
latest fashion.

Then, there is the question of whether we really want 3-d to be popular 
again.  I personally do not want to see that happen.  We all know what 
happened in the 50s.  There was a moment in the US history that 
everything (photography, movies, TV, magazines) was turning 3-d and 
people felt that if they were not in, they would be left out.  3-D 
gained enormous popularity and then it collapsed.  We all suffer the 
consequence of the rise and fall of 3-d in the 50s, today.

The sales from the Realist camera jumped from under 10% to over 70% of 
the total sales for the David White company in just a few years and the 
company changed its name to Stereo Realist Inc.  When the market got 
saturated, the sales dropped to nil and the company was forced to close 
the stereo camera division.  If 3-d had not exploded in popularity, if 
the sales of the Realist camera were held at a constant 10%, we might 
still have this camera (or a modern variation) in production.  Why 
aren't any new stereo cameras being made today?  Because the large 
inventory of stereo cameras from the 50s is enough to satisfy the low 
demand.   The sudden rise and drop in popularity of 3-d is to blame for 
this and we are still suffering the consequences today.

Today 3-d photography is virtually unknown.  There is plenty of room 
for growth.  The last 10 years we have watched 3-d grow slowly in 
popularity.  That's great.  I wish it continues like that.  I do not 
want to see any explosions any more.  Short length 3-d movies in special 
places is fine by me.  Special 3-d theaters in larger cities is OK.  

Personally, I do not have a problem with the present status and future
prospects of 3-d photography.  Since I discovered 3-d I feel I am a 
member of a very special group.  A group of people who appreciate 3-d 
imaging.  I always look forward to getting my Stereo World and read
photo-3d.  Yes, it is a small group but it is made up of fine people 
and I like it this way.

Finally, stereo imaging, especially stereo photography, is not for 
everyone.  3-D photography and snapshooting with fully automatic cameras 
are not compatible.  It goes beyond good exposure and sharp focus. In 
3-d you have to think about 3-dimensional composition.  You can not leave 
objects at 1 ft (0.3 m) from the camera.  You cannot take close ups with 
total disregard for the distant objects.  And the camera cannot make 
those decisions for you.  If 3-d is not done right, it can be a 
disaster.  Painful.  Bad 3-d is bad 2-d in the third power and more!

So lets not wish for another wave of popularity.  Lets be content with 
what we see today, i.e. a constant growth and slow recognition of 3-d.  
Let's ask for a 3-D IMAX theater in our city but not ask for every 
ordinary movie to be shot in 3-d.  

And, very important, let's grab our stereo cameras and take more stereo 
pictures.  Show our best work around.  Get more people interested and 
involved by showing our work or by just showing our enthusiasm for this
hobby.  Let's work to increase the public's awareness and appreciation 
for this very special, unique and exciting form of art/entertainment/
science:  S T E R E O  I M A G I N G !

Lecturing from Cleveland OH -- George Themelis


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