Re: SFX in 3D movies

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> True enough.  But my point was, that there are a lot of effects that
> are used routinely in modern films that would be useless in stereo,
> because they depend on being able to 'fool' the single-camera 'eye',
> like forced-perspective shots and even matte paintings do.  Hardly
> a film is made these days without one or more matte shots to establish
> a (non-existant) location or to create a fantasy background behind a
> 'real' set.  None of this would be possible in stereo; the matte
> illusion doesn't work. 

While of course matte shots, glass shots and other perspective tricks would not
work in 3D, I think you are placing far too much emphasis and rigidity on such
shots. While they are sometimes used for establishing shots, movie special
effects are infinitely broader and richer than just matte shots. (The 3D movies
of the '50s survived without them, and matte shots were much more common in
movies in that backlot era than they are today.) The scenes at the church in
"Primal Fear," for instance, involve a whole "3D" (in the computer sense) church
matted into the scene (because real churches forbade shooting due to an
anti-religious story element). The building was constructed as a
computer-generated "3D" image so that it could be seen from many angles, and
even in trucking shots. Using such technology, it would perhaps not be "easy,"
but certainly do-able to generate stereo pairs for a 3D film. As I commented
earlier, some of the 3D films of the '50s and many of the ones in the '80s
utilized fairly complex and sophisticated special effects, and with the common
use of computerized imaging today, 3D special effects in a new 3D film would be
a comparative breeze.


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