P3D 3D Heresy

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What's going on here?  First DrT tells us that he prefers 2D
portrais over 3D portraits.  Now our resident stereo movie
expert, Marvin Jones, tells us that 3d movies are a fad?
This list is going down the hill!!!
    
>I know it's heresy, especially on the part of a rabid 3D movie fan like
>myself, but I actually believe that 3D movies can never be more than a fad.
>The general public will go to see one or two before the novelty wears off,
>and then they lose interest. So, one asks, why not make 3D movies that are
>more than just "novelty" movies? Because in movies, 3D will always be a
>novelty. There's no reason to make a movie in 3D unless it makes some kind
>of use of the depth, and there's few ways to do that that don't call
>attention to themselves, thus pigeonholing the movie as a "novelty" film.

I agree with Marvin... Stereo movies is something special and it 
should be treated as such.  I would rather see a few good short-length 
productions that take advantage of the medium than long full-length 
productions that could also work fine as 2d movies.

Still stereo photography is different.  In movies you have a very
strong motion paralax that gives you a good sense of depth.  In
still photography you do not...  Considering the considerable
complications introduced by shooting and presenting motion pictures
in 3d, why would anyone try to do it without some special reason?
The fact that we have two eyes is just not enough for me.

George Themelis


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2443
***************************