P3D Why 3-d? / marketing 3-d.

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Friends (and Ed, whose questions to me inspired this note):

I just viewed an old print of "Dial M for Murder" here at the Virginia Film
Festival, and couldn't help but catching one other audience member's
impression on the film, which was: "no wonder 3-d movies died out."
Unfortunately, due to the crowding, I was unable to follow up with that
person on their thoughts.  Although not perfect, from a technical
standpoint the film was well presented, and the 3-d effect was pretty good.

Some have said this is such a great 3-d movie, because it doesn't take
excessive advantage of 3-d, it doesn't force excessive 3-d down the
viewer's throat.  Now that I have finally seen it, I agree.  Not much of
the visual content in the film took advantage of the third dimension, or
could even much benefit from the third dimension.

But that begs the question: why shoot it in 3-d in the first place?  It's a
perfectly good film shown flat!  And given the potential distractions of
stereo misalignments, ghosting, etc., chances are that on any given
occasion, it is a better film shown flat.

In contemplating my own stereophotographic work, I have of course spent
plenty of time thinking: why shoot anything in 3-d?  WHAT should I shoot in
3-d?  And not least: what can I sell in 3-d?  Although I have developed an
artistic mission with my stereo photography, I also have my expenses, a
family and a mortgage.  Finding what may sell in 3-d is at least somewhat
important to my continued involvement in the genre.

So WHY shoot 3d?  My experience and observations with commercial uses of
3-d indicate that currently the popular value of 3-d is still primarily in
its novelty effect.  (In industry or academia/research one does see 3-d
used successfully for its value in better imparting complex visual
information.)

In advertising, 3-d stands out (pardon the pun) and differentiates your
image from all the other flat pictures.  So it helps to impress that
particular image in the reader/viewer's mind because of the novelty impact,
the novelty value.  But the added cost of 3-d has to be balanced against
that value.

Same effect holds true for the use of 3-d in theme park rides.  Such rides
attract customers for the novelty experience: either through motion
sensations, visual impact, or stereoscopic sensations, or all three
together.  But few go on any given ride over and over again, because once
you've experienced the ride, by definition the novelty is gone, and often
there is no _other_ experiential or intellectual content to bring people
back.

As much as novelty may be of value, I think stereo is sadly underutilized
in some areas, where I think the value goes far beyond novelty - what I
would call "super-novelty" value.

Advertising - or even more pertinent: catalog photography - presents images
that are very carefully inspected by potential purchasers of the pictured
products.  Increasing the informational content through stereo (or other
3-d type formats, like Quicktime-VR) should marginally improve the chances
of sale.  Certainly, a vendor that uses such imaging to present products is
providing an enhanced service to the customer and can expect a payoff in
increased traffic.  The newly heightened interest in using VR formats to
present products on the web is only the beginning of what I believe will be
a major revival of stereoscopic imaging.

Klutho's sports photography is another good example of super-novelty 3-d.
Here is an image type that both gains a substantial benefit from stereo
presentation - the sometimes complex and bewildering sports images become
clearer and more comprehensible - and contains information of great and
continued interest to many people.

Certainly my own efforts with nude/erotic photography are at least in part
inspired by the belief that here is a subject matter perfectly suited to
3-d.  Naturally, this subject has been of interest to many since the
beginnings of art - and the imagery typically encourages close inspection.
Curiosity about the sexual self and about others, voyeurism if you will,
play a huge role in the genre.  For the voyeur, increased image quality,
visual intensity, and realism are of paramount importance - qualities more
easily obtained in stereo photography.

Other "perfect" applications surely exist in the popular realm.  Family
portraits come to mind...  The question nagging us is this: why has stereo
not caught on in these areas?  Are the technical hurdles still too high to
effectively present 3-d to the masses?  Is there, or has there been too
much "bad" 3-d in the marketplace?  Are the connotations of cheapness or
marginality through "novelty" use blocking a more serious appraisal of
stereoscopic imaging by the media giants?  Are there simply too many
different and competing stereo imaging formats, resulting in confusion
among potential producers and consumers?

If you know the answers to these questions, give me a call... we've got
work to do!

Sometimes, good candid shots require careful posing.
        - Roy Hensel, SSA 2x2 folio.

Boris Starosta            boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
                          http://www.starosta.com
usa 804 979 3930          http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase