Re: 3D TV thoughts

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 
>From: P3D John Ohrt writes:
>
>I think we should look at this demo as the first talkie.  First, the
>talkie was a novelty, then it was a fad.  After the Jazz Singer, there
>were two Hollywood classes, the believers and the bankrupt.

*******  If this were 20 to 50 years ago I could agree with that statement.
Unfortunately they've been through that cycle already as far as anaglyphic
imaging and TV is concerned. It's hard to cut them slack on something
already well known. They advertised heavily about upcoming shows in 3D,
meaning only a dumb sort of 3D tacky'd on to tiny pieces of the other
programming. If you want to relate this to the talkies, this was a talkie
where an announcer says, *welcome to the new talkies*, and the rest of the
movie goes by with no sound, while the actors contort their faces as if
talking the way a ventriloquist talks, combined with occasional scenes of a
speaker cone vibrating. Sure, there are technical problems with anaglyphic
(we know this because they did their testing a long time ago...) but that's
no excuse for such a botched up circus masquerading as 3DTV. One hopes that
they can optimize their signals and such for optimum performance, but
without anything worth looking at, it doesn't even matter.

They got script writing and all other production routines down a long time
ago too. This effort didn't make use of any existing production skills. They
literally threw out every guideline about scripting, story lines, plot, etc.
and made their little bit of 3D stand out like a sore thumb. What they
needed to do was simply shoot the shows in 3D and ignore the cameras, other
than carefully contrived stunts, once in a great while, blending in with the
show. Sure, the effect isn't perfect, but at least you would get the chance
to absorb the effect and optimize your interpretation of the 3D that it did
contain.

>
>Right now it is a novelty.  

******  If Popcorn were doled out two kernels at a time it would be a
novelty too. But that's not necessary, and neither was this fiasco.

>......................
>Given HDTV or computer displayed digital movies ie. via DVD technology,
>which is awesome and boardering on affordable, you might elivate 3D to a
>fad.

*****  That IS the good news!!!  I was reading some of the specs for the new
3DHDTV and it sounds positively wonderful. As long as the cyclopeians are
kept away from the controls it may provide interesting watchable 3D. The sad
thing, is that we could have regular 3D programs on current TV too, but we
don't. The networks really have no idea whether it would work or not, other
than if they do it the way ABC does it, it wouldn't last 1 week. Over and
over again, special programs have proven to have an audience, if the shows
are done with high production values. If they put out garbage, it remains
garbage. It's a big mistake to judge whether something will work by means of
these garbage examples.

>...............................
>We need an earth shattering equivalent for 3D.  Try to imagine a
>blockbuster like Alien scripted and shot in 3D rather than the tepid
>anaglyph horror movies of the 50s.
>

*******  The investors haven't figured out what the new technologies mean
yet. You are right, except that because of the lack of 3D equipped movie
theaters and the cost of such equipment, combined with the fact that most
homes are acquiring computers, the balance is shifting to the home theater.
Computers and Videos will go in advance of the movie theaters as far as 3D
content is concerned. Eventually the *pressure* of demand will persuade more
movie level productions to be made for 3D. Till then, the small production,
largely computer created/edited and released for home media, will have to
lead the way. Blockbusters in that category are a real possibility too. 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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