Re: 3D Movies

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

Allan Carrano responding to Larry's posting:

>I saw all the 3D movies that were shown that next year or so...
>Then, the novelty started to wear.  I got selective.  

This applies to someone's personal stereo photography as well, as I tried 
to describe in an earlier posting.  When we first start to take stereo
pictures, every picture is great.  100 films later we become selective. 
Not every 3D picture is a good one.  There is good, average and bad 3D.

And this applies not only to individual pictures but also to subjects,
techniques and means of presentation.  

I am seeing a lot of excitement about various forms of 3-d in this list.  
Every little thing, toy, gadget, gimmick, or whatever, that has some remote
connection to 3-d is being greeted with cheers.  I hope that we can go
beyond our 3D-addiction and differentiate between good, average and fake.

I have been accused of being biased.  I would like to believe that I am
biased towards GOOD 3-d.  I am not going to support any form of 3-D or
semi-3D just because it is 3-D but no better than 2-D.  Gone are the days
when everything in 3-D was exciting.  For me today 3-D must look good to
the eyes and feel good to the soul.

So, if 3-D is going to make the great comeback, as some people in this list
are convinced, it better be not just 3-d, but GOOD-DDD!

George Themelis


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