Re: In defence of cheesey 3-D

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 11 May 1997
>Lincoln Kamm writes:
>
>I felt quite insulted, as a 3-D lover and creator, by the entertainmentless
>segments of "In your face" 3-D.  But, in defense for ONLY the part that had
>people shoving things at the camera, not the lame improptu acting:
>
>I have pitched commercial 3-D projects to a few companies, and in EVERY
>SITUATION I showed some of my work, and they ALWAYS said, "If you do the
>project for us, you can make more stuff flying out of the image, right?
>
>So, I have figured out that often if you want to get 3-D out to the masses,
>you may not have any other choices than to poke all the people in the eyes,
>or stay out of work.  If at some point I finally break through and get to do
>some commercial 3-D thing, I will fight to not break to many stereo rules,
>but when it comes down to it, whoever pays me will have the final decision.
>

***** Would that it were so. The audience pays. They pay with their
anticipation, curiosity and interest in 3D. They pay while driving around
picking up the glasses. They pay with their time parked in front of a
machine waiting for the promised entertainment. They pay by waiting through
the interminable commercials, and finally here's the show, except there
wasn't much of one to be had, as far as the promised 3D is concerned. Sure,
the networks paid the producers and the advertisers pay the network. If it
weren't for the audience who goes shopping with brand names fresh in their
minds, neither the networks nor the advertisers would exist or have a
purpose in existing. 

Events like this prove that if 3D is to succeed in mass media, the money
bags will have to step aside and let folk who understand the medium do their
work. That's what all other professionals insist upon. If they value the
investment they are making, they should be willing to let those who know 3D
do what they can do best instead of ruining it, and their investment, by
their own outdated and incorrect notions. It's sad that some with lots of 3D
experience could still carry those same notions around as if they were the
only way to do things. There is no single best way, but the old way that
didn't quite work still isn't working.

Sure I understand their request for an exagerated 3D effect. Probably most
of the audience wants something exagerated. I find it hard to stomach the
idea that 10 or 20 seconds of disconnected exageration constitutes the
effect the audience really wants. If that isn't what the audience wants, why
is so much money being spent on doing the job wrong? I would expect the
executives in charge to prefer that it be done right, with the intention of
satisfying the audience as much as possible. Stimulate the audience to want
more and help them understand what's available. A 3D knowledgable producer
should understand variables in the medium and be able to provide exageration
from a variety of sources, used appropriately within the constraints of each
show. Humor, camp, sillyness, seriousness, it can all be done in 3D. They
didn't do the things they knew how to do. Is that the voice of experience?
3D is NOT a substitute for all other production values. And it has impact on
each of the skills involved, not just the camera operator. It requires
thinking in 3D all the way through and letting each skill be practiced at
it's best.

Working commercially in 3D isn't about trying *not to break* the rules of
stereo. The rules are guidelines, not the script. Commercial 3D is about
delivering something impressive through a relatively new medium. It's
obvious that in some circles, 3D isn't well understood. That's why they pay
for expertise. If you have the knowledge but don't use it in your work, how
does that serve the purposes of money paid for your expert services? 

Larry Berlin

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


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