P3D dial "M" for mercy

[Donna Keas <rondonna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Geee, I didn't mean to upset anyone about my opinion of 3-D movies that
don't come out into your face.  I agree that a suspense movie like dial
M for murder should not have its dramatic subtitles overplayed by crass
3-D effects, my point seems to have bee lost.  I think we all agree that
the magic of 3-D was abused in the 50's by low budget films, and who can
blame the producers for jumping on the band wagon. My point is that as a
child, I first fell in love with 3-D movies because of the magic of the
image filling the thin air of the theater.  The screen was infinity.
The camera was our eyes and when an object even as corny as a paddle
ball came within a foot of our face, it was because it came within a
foot of the camera.  When the stereo window, for whatever reason, is
such that the depth goes from the screen back instead of from the screen
forward, the illusion is no longer real to me because the 3-D stops at
the screen, and maybe I'm at the 30th row in the theater. The space
between me and the screen is then dead.
In other words, I want my eyes to be where the camera is in real space.
If done poorly, you all have reason to pretend to barf.  If Its done
responsibly, it become the kind of 3-D that I believe is the most
representational of real life.  The first 3-D experimental film I saw
was in a theater in 1953.  It was an underwater scene and if the fish
were photographed 100 feet away and you were sitting 100 feet from the
screen, they appeared to be 100 feet away.  If a fish was 2 feet away
from the camera, it appeared to be 2 feet from your face.  I remember
reaching out to touch what was not there.  This to me was the magic of
3-D movies, and just because some producers abused these effects,
doesn't make them bad.

Ron Keas
http://www.3dviewmax.com


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