Re: Why 3D

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the question was asked about film (motion pictures) and not still
photography.  IMO, it makes a difference.  Still photography is for me
PAINFULY flat and stereo is a tremendous improvement.

On the other hand, in motion pictures we have motion parallax which is a very
powerful monocular cue of depth.  

I have only watched one 3d movie, the classic "House of Wax" in Atlanta.
I found that at times I did not care for the stereo effect, especially when
people were in rooms and I could see their heads being in front of the
walls.  I did not need 3d to tell me that.  Hours and hours of flat motion
pictures have conditioned me to expect the bodies and be closer to the
walls.  I found the depth to be a bit too much (maybe that was due to the
stretch since I was sitting in the back row).

There were however scenes in the movie that were wonderful in 3d.  One
scene is etched in my mind.  I don't remember the specifics but someone was
running in the streets.  The camera pointed in this long street, it was
late, and haze, I felt like being there!  It was exciting!

I ofen wondered if we need the entire movie to be in 3d or just segments of
it or perhaps a short run film and not a 2 hour production.  Perhaps 2
hours of 3d is too much.

Also, I think that good use of the stereo window is good for stereo.  Do
not through every darn object through the window but do use the special
effects that have made 3d popular.

-- George Themelis


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