Re: "Every type of 3D..."

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

Dan Shelly writes:

>I have said it before and will say it again, "Any and all stereo 3D, 
>correctly presented, is a good thing." There are far too few of us in 
>the 3D world, why not hope that the marketing that does exist might 
>expand our ranks?

Since bad 3-d movies is what prompted my comments, I am tempted to ask 
if these movies, the ones that turned Allan Carrano off the 3-d theaters 
and many people off 3-d in general, are still a good thing just because 
they are stereo 3D correctly presented (but bad movies.)

Dan, I agree that what I called "gimmicks" and "fake 3D" is a good thing 
because of the chance that they might generate some interest for 3D from 
the general population.  That's true at the present time.  But what 
happens next?  What happens after we overcome the initial excitement 
from the novelty of 3-d?  This has been a concern of mine for some time 
now and I think it is tied to the future of 3-d.  

In order to be successful, 3-d must be combined with good content.  For 
example, 3-d alone is not enough to make good stereo photography.  We 
must have good photography in the first place.  The same for 3-d movies.  
Good cinematography comes first.  3-d by itself is exciting until the 
novelty wears out.  I do not hear any "wow's" for seeing the world with 
two eyes in real life.  That's because most of us always had two healthy 
eyes.  

Greg Wageman gave us a very nice and convincing description of the 
benefits of a new wave of popularity for 3-d.  I fully agree with him.  
The prospect of new cameras to last for the next 50 years is exciting.  
His posting made me realize that I owe my present involvement with 
stereo photography to the 50s that made all these stereo cameras and 
accessories available.

However, going beyond the initial excitement requires work.  3-d by 
itself will not sustain interest for too long.  We need good content.  
Good photography, good cinematography.  Let's admit it.  2-d is much 
easier to do than 3-d.  3-d must always justify the extra effort 
involved, compared to 2-d.  Introducing people to 3-d is the first step 
for making 3-d more popular.  Improving our own work and presenting it 
to the public is the second step.

I look forward to the slide shows in Rochester this week to enjoy good 
stereo work.  These shows are an incredible source of inspiration for 
me.  They remind me of the reason that I got into 3-d in the first 
place.  People who put those shows together (Jon Golden and Ron Labbe 
from photo-3d come in mind) are in the right track in making 3-d popular 
by showing the beauty of good 3-d to the public.

Greetings,  George Themelis


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