Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: SFX in 3D movies


  • From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: SFX in 3D movies
  • Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:16:29 -0700

Marvin Jones writes:

>But even the older films were not totally without special effects. It
>Came From Outer Space incorporated a number of clever split screen shots
>(remember the doubles of the cast members in the cave?).

True, opticals like this wouldn't have a problem.

>And several of the 3D films of the 1980s, whatever you think of their
>quality, utilized fairly spectacular special effects. The Man Who Wasn't
>There had a lot of "invisible man" gimmicks, and "Metalstorm," "Spacehunter"
>and "Jaws 3D" all had fairly extensive special effects (as did
>"Amityville 3D" I understand--I haven't seen that one).

I've seen both Metalstorm and Spacehunter as flat films, and neither
film can be considered an "effects" film of the style that is being
produced today.  And neither of these films could use models or mattes
(for the reasons I've already mentioned), meaning that settings either
required sets to be built full-size (which costs $$$), or location shots.
To save money, the sets are comparatively small, which makes the films
somewhat claustrophobic.  Most of the effects I recall were pyrotechnics
or makeup effects, which again have no problem in 3D, but are hardly
state-of-the-art.

>3D complicates special effects, of course, but hardly to the point of
>requiring a apocalyptic revision of everything that has been developed.

As I've said all along, certain classes of effects work just fine.  But
isn't it funny that even though these two SF films were made almost ten
years after Star Wars, they don't come anywhere close to creating the
imaginary world that Star Wars depicted, because Star Wars relied so
heavily on matte shots, composited motion-controlled models and even
rotoscoping (for example to remove the wheels from under Luke's land
speeder in the scenes where they couldn't use the one on a boom).  If
you want a challenge, try getting a rotoscoped scene to look right in
3D!

Anyway, the point I'm making is that the odds are stacked against 3D
films for more reasons than just the added expense and complexity of
two synchronized cameras/projectors.

        -Greg


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