Re: SFX in 3D movies

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>P3D Gregory J. Wageman comments:
>Again, my point is that when making a film in 3D you're forcing the film-
>makers to exclude a whole plethora of F/X processes from the film.  This is
>not unlike asking an artist to paint without using any reds or purples,
>or asking a composer to refrain from using woodwinds and strings.  Yes,
>it is still possible to do it, and maybe even to do it well, but the
>results will be *different* than if the whole gamut were available.  An
>average movie-goer might not know what was missing, but an educated
>movie-goer will realize that the sort of expansive matte shots so commonly
>used in flat films are entirely missing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>  This supposed exclusion of special effects is only an
exclusion of using them in the fashion of a 2D film where the purpose is to
resemble 3D which isn't really present. The same effects still work very
effectively with each eye and when composed as stereo imagery/effects all or
most of the  F/X currently used can still be used in a 3D film. Perhaps this
hasn't been done but it can be done and eventually will happen. It isn't a
limiting of the "whole gamut" but an expanding of it. Yes, that does make it
"different". If there wasn't a difference in 3D, very few of us would have
such a strong interest in it.

It's NOT at all like asking the artist to paint without certain essential
colors. It's more like asking the artist to paint using many new colors with
a whole set of new brushes and to paint on many levels instead of a flat
canvas. The biggest problem is that the trained artists aren't used to
thinking in 3D so have no inner concept from which to proceed. Artists need
to have a certain amount of inner vision that provides direction in their
produced work. If they have only learned and worked with 2D techniques, they
simply don't have the 3D inner vision available. This lack of training and
experience doesn't mean that the effects and possibilities don't exist or
don't work. There are artists and photographers who do have 3D "vision"
(philosophical vision) but they so far haven't had the opportunity to apply
their unique skills to the special effects for the 3D arena. Movie making is
still the province of well financed 2D production efforts, even when they
use 3D processes during their production.

>P3D Gregory J. Wageman comments:
>After you eliminate all the common processes that don't work,
>the computer is about the only thing left to replace them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  My point is that there is too much elimination going on
with the assumption these F/X don't work in 3D. Most if not all of them do
work in 3D and it is the computer that helps to make it easier to make use
of them. They are still the same effects, just easier to realize with the
versatility of the computer. 

The only thing that's obvious in previous 3D movies is that the producers
didn't know how to work with 3D, as is illustrated in another of Greg's
comments:
> The filmmakers didn't come up with a
>*substitute*, though, did they?  They just chose to eliminate such
>shots and hope that nobody'd notice.

I refuse to let their lack of know-how or lack of willingness to do what's
needed define what works or doesn't work. Such people are always the ones
surprised when someone else comes along and does what they couldn't figure
out how to do because they didn't try.

Larry Berlin

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


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