Re: New 3D Movies

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>George T. Writes:
>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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Of course it isn't simple. However, my analogy is appropriate
because Star Wars made use of essentially a new means of presentation. It
wasn't the subject of the movies that made as much difference as the new
methods and special effects. It just happens that science fiction as a
subject has the greatest potential use for the new special effects.
Likewise, 3D presentation has the potential for really astounding special
effects and improved presentations for all sorts of entertainment and
educational information. Those potentials will never be reached with antique
stereo cameras with fixed base lenses and the cost and limitations that are
a part of film processing. It's great for hobbyists and those interested in
stereo imaging for themselves and a few friends but until we upgrade our
stereo technology to correspond to our other technological advances, and
make it easily available to a much wider audience it will only remain an
expensive hobby.

Sure, 3D was popular in the 50's and failed. There are traceable reasons for
that market failure. I suppose the members of this group may hold many
differing opinions on what those reasons were. Many feel that a big part of
the drop in popularity has to do with an inadequate system for viewing and
presenting stereo 3D images. Many don't like wearing glasses, especially the
red/blue kind. Despite the fact that polarized type of projection is better
overall, the additional cost caused most presentations to go with the lesser
quality of red/blue.  Despite a few special effects in the movies that did
get made, none of them really used 3D to the potential that it inherently
provides. None of the 3D movies from that time were high quality productions
to begin with. Star Wars represented a quantum leap in movie presentation.
3D used to it's best advantage with digital image composition and special
effects can go where other efforts in 3D haven't gone before. Trying to do
all that just with a good camera doesn't make it. Digital image processing
is the only way to provide what the future can bring to 3D presentations. It
has the potential to reduce the cost factors dramatically and make the
presentations more available. The scaricity and high cost of IMAX theaters
equipped with 3D isn't the way to make 3D take off in popularity or
availability even if it does represent perhaps the best quaility
presentation of 3D currently.

While I enjoy occasionally seeing some of the old 3D movies and images for
old times sake, I'm far more interested in what the future holds for 3D and
that will hinge largely on whether a new market develops to support the
better technology. If we make use of the current explosion of technical
know-how, there is no reason to believe that 3D could not become so common
in use that it becomes a standard display medium that will never go away to
the same degree as it has in the past. Along with such a new interest and
use will come a growing expertise in using 3D as a medium of expression. It
will require retraining of the production teams but so does any other good
new medium. I think it's long overdue.

>From comments that a few lucky ones on this list have made about audience
reactions in IMAX 3D presentations, I believe that good presentations would
easily prove themselves in a broader distribution. This is currently not
possible. The only reason it isn't already the standard is that the decision
hasn't been made to move seriously in that direction. The inventors of this
age have proven over and over again that if we set out to do something it
can be done. Regular space shuttle flights are but one out of thousands of
examples. 

I'm glad that 3D is special and I want it always to be special, but until it
becomes more widely used and popular there are a lot of disadvantages that
will continue to exist. I know they don't have to be that way so I look to
the improving technology and decreasing cost to play a major role in opening
opportunities for those with serious interest in the future of 3D to do new
special presentations that will be high quality and very worthwhile to
experience.

P3D Gregory J. Wageman's comments parallel my thoughts on what potential
benefits could be to new popularity. I long for better stereo cameras that
are fully adjustable and provide digital images ready to be digitally
processed and enhanced. I expect computers and specialized digital
processing to play a major role in how the new 3D presentations are put
together. Computer compilation reduces the technical demand on the
individual shot and makes possible effects that you can't get with just a
camera. These are the areas that the future will demonstrate best.

So, until that future gets here, lets keep talking and shooting great 3D.
Many in this group will be ready when the demand picks up for really great
3D stuff. We may even be able to influence the development of that new
technology. As long as I have two eyes to see with I will prefer good 3D
presentations over ordinary 2D ones.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/


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