P3D SI - the review pt. 1

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Hello everyone,

I've been out of the loop a couple of days, as my Powermac had a power
supply blow up last weekend. In the end, I think it was a good thing, that
this development prevented me from immediately posting a critical review of
the SI swimsuit issue, as promised last week.  After thinking about it a
lot (constantly!), talking with the various principals in the project (that
I could reach: Labbe and Golden), my inclination to really criticize the
issue (as doing a disservice to 3-d) has faded a bit.  It's true what they
say, don't post when you have a splitting headache.

I'll make some of today's general remarks in reference to Ron Labbe's very
informative post almost a week ago, that I just read.  Thanks to Ron for
being so open with us!

>From: "ron labbe" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
>Dave Klutho, a staff photographer for Sports Illustrated, had been shooting
>stereoscopically for about a year when he visited Studio 3D in March of
...
>the issue.  It was decided to be too cost prohibitive to run the regular
>sports issue in 3D, but the editor of the swimsuit issue thought it would
>perfect since they can always use an edge in an ever increasingly
>competitive market.  Their budget could handle the extra cost.

When I read Ron's preamble, I could not help but think about Klutho's
sports pics.  I've heard somewhere that Klutho is the best hockey
photographer in the world.  In talking to him on rare occasion over the
past 18 months, I know he pursues sports photography (and 3-d sports
photography) with almost a religious zeal, a passion!  It is evident in the
images he captures.

At Green Bay last year I joked with him about how SI should do a swimsuit
issue in 3-d (and let me shoot it, of course), and his response was
telling.  He said that would be absolutely no fun at all.  Dealing with the
models, the art directors, the egos, the makeup, the whole production, etc.
etc. would be a total pain.  Notwithstanding my own interest in
photographing women, I definitely "heard" him.  Really, he was absolutely
right, and knew what he was talking about.  Ironic, how he ended up having
to deal with all that after all... and that his experiences (and those
related by Labbe) since have proved his prophesy.

Klutho spent two years shooting the best stereo sports shots the world has
ever seen.  From thousands of images, he culled the best couple of dozen
(my guess) to present to his superiors at the magazine.  And the images are
STUNNING.  Here was an application of 3-d I had not even considered, and
Klutho showed me how perfectly 3-d could enhance sports imagery: distilling
the clutter of flying ice particles, puck, and players in a hockey goal
shot; showing the wetness of the water embracing a swimmer, etc.

The sad thing, overall, for 3-d is this: the decision makers at SI were
presented with a sports issue already done!  A fait accompli.  All they
needed to do was add some text! Klutho had already done the photographic
layout, including advertising!  So what was decided?  To throw out the
cream of two years worth of stereo photography and careful preparations,
and then spend two hurried months to shoot totally new material: a swimsuit
issue in 3-d.  The result is as can be expected.

And their readers are sports fans!  This is the crux of my disappointment.
The audience of that magazine would have been far better served, had they
simply published Klutho's already existing photography.  God, can you
imagine the excitement that would have generated!?

Let's look at some specific advertising that Ron Labbe mentioned.

>Jim Beam set up a shoot specifically for 3D.  Unfortunately, it was set up
>in a bar with extremely high contrast and quite a bit of depth.  An RBT S-1
>camera was used for the shoot -- the image was very good, but the high
>contrast produced a ghosty image.  On top of that, the image was set in a

I think the stereo picture in this ad is very well done.  The depth is
strong, yes, but as most of the interest is near to the camera, this is not
bad.  There appears to have been some image post processing done, to push
back the stage... is that correct, Ron?  Anyway, stereophotographically it
is arguably the best of the advertising images - good depth, good stereo
interest (look, glass shoes!).

To me the ghosting in this ad appears bad because of incorrect color
conversion to CMYK, which produced a weak and rather dull blue.  As a
result, all the ghosting is in the left eye (red lens).  And it is pretty
bad.  It _is_ possible to reproduce high contrast 3-d imagery with far less
ghosting than is seen in this ad, as is evident elsewhere in the issue.
Too bad the excellent 3-d picture loses its effect due to lack of expertise
somewhere in pre-press.

>I tried to convince Universal Studios to use already created stereo images
>from their theme park rides, Spiderman and Terminator 2 3D.  They had no
>license to use the image of Schwarzenegger, and they had already created an
>ad that was running and other publications.  Studio 3D converted that ad to
>3D: luckily they provided the bottom strip in layers or it would have been
>many times more difficult.

I really like this conversion.  The 3-d along the bottom is very good, and
helps sort out an otherwise cluttered visual field.

>Wolverine Boots decided to shoot their ad in 3D.  It was going to be a
>vertical ad, so we decided to shoot it with my vertical Konica 35mm rig.  I
>worked with the agency's photographer, who shot the pictures under my
...
>but I did not get paid for my work or cameras. He did the re-shoot with a
>pair of his own Nikons and a bar from Jasper Engineering. In any case, the

I don't know how you could stand for not getting paid!?  Do you know what
the page rate is for the swimsuit issue? (the price to place the ad)

I don't like the use of the long lens in this ad.  They may have actually
used stereo photography, but this is not evident from the ad - it looks
converted.  The 3-d effect is weak and cardboardy.  This image, like many
in the magazine, is an example of lost opportunity.  With a situation like
this, set in water, one can imagine all sorts of interesting 3-d images
available to the photographer, playing with the transparency/reflectivity
of water.

>The Lexus ad is disappointing because the image that they provided would
>simply not translate well to 3D.

Ron, I somewhat disagree.  Actually, I like the 3-d better in this ad than
in the Celica ad.  It seems more realistic.  But here is another lost
opportunity:  that big totally flat rear window would have been great in
3-d, had you been able to add an interior to the car behind the glass.  It
would have been a lot of work, though, as we discussed.   And you may not
have had the time, to suggest this to the agency.  I fully understand that.

>Unfortunately, the Toyota ad -- which is a two-page spread -- was totally
...
>who had not done much 3D -- but there are quite a few errors which cause the
>image to be uncomfortable to view..

Bad ghosting in top half of ad completely destroys the three dimensionality
of the rainforest (assuming there is any, I just can't tell).  Again the
result of poor conversion to CMYK process colors.  The truck at bottom is
nicely three dimensional, at least.

>The editors at Sports Illustrated also wanted to do a short history of 3D,
...
>additions and changes, but he would not change the line about 3D glasses
>causing splitting headaches.  I could not fathom wide a wanted to include

Where is my Tylenol!  Hey, how about getting Tylenol to run a 3-d ad in the
next SI!?

>Personally, I'm not crazy about the cover they came up with -- nor the
>graphics used to promote the 3D content.

I totally agree here.  Another lost opportunity (certainly for ME).  My
fine art anaglyph work has concentrated on devising a style that looks good
flat as well as 3-d.  Covers are an obvious commercial application.  Why
not promote the 3-d issue with appropriate graphics?  Are they embarrassed?
Not a good sign.

>Overall, however, I think an incredible amount of work went into this major
>stereoscopic milestone.  David Klutho's contribution cannot be
>overemphasized.  The man did an incredible amount of preparation: he
>researched, sought the best equipment available, trained hard and -- like a
>true professional -- made every effort to insure that this would be the best
>possible showcase for the art of stereoscopy.  He shot, he scored!

I disagree, Ron.  In fact, your closing statement here is somewhat
paradoxical.  True, Klutho spent incredible time and energy shooting,
learning, preparing - indeed "made every effort to insure that this would
be the best
possible showcase for the art of stereoscopy."  But I think Klutho has LOST
two years of creative stereoscopic work and preparation, precisely because
his fantastic sports images did not get published, precisely because the
decision makers did not learn what 3-d is really good for (pt. 2 of my
review will deal more with this).




...
>From: Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re:  3D Headaches and Ambitions
...
>So to further break the ice, I'll admit I am leery of the rather obvious
>and "cute" decision to do the swimsuit issue for a first outing.  Klutho's
>stop-action sports stereography is where the real excitement lies - he
>certainly doesn't need help from a bunch of soggy super-models to pop your
>eyes open - so SI's decision seems to smack of a one-shot gimmick, at
>least until we see where this leads.  If stereo cheesecake is the goal, we
>should get Boris to coordinate a phantogram centerfold for "Playboy".
>Now *that* would be an instant collectible!

Indeed.

>Subject matter that the public will consider "serious".  Not just friendly
>anatomy lessons on the beach, as enjoyable as they may be.

Serious is all well and good.  Fun can be good too.  The important thing is
to apply 3-d appropriately.  Get close to the subject, assuming it has
inherently good 3-d qualities.  If not, then shoot subject with good 3-d
"props," or in good 3-d situations.  Above all, get the viewing geometry
right.  Is that so hard?

> Interesting questions, very worth a good airing on P3D.  But none of
>these questions should diminish the successful effort - a coup really -
>that David has made, and the contributions from apparently many people in
>that effort.  This is a community project after all - congratulations to
>each of you!

Let's hear from you again, Bruce, after you've had a look at the issue.


>From: "ron labbe" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
>Surprised that the recent major 3D event (6.5 million issues of Sports
>Illustrated 3D Swimsuit edition) is not generating more discussion.
>

They say that no news is good news.  Don't believe it.

Boris



- Science is the part of culture that rubs against the world.
-
-                                     Stanislaw Lem, _His Master's Voice_

Boris Starosta                        boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Stereoscopic Art & 3-D Photography    http://www.starosta.com
usa - 804 979 3930                    http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase