[photo-3d] House of Wax / why 3d

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Thanks to all the response to my initial posting on 3d and movies.

Well understood, that the picture I saw, and that the older pictures in
general, may not have such great 3d simply for technical reasons - and
mediocre 3d is definitely distracting!

>   From: "Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
>Did not someone once say, "The medium is the message"?
...
>those messages.  Conventional story telling may not be 3D's destiny.
>Then what besides that?  I don't have the answer.  All I can say is that
>it needs to be something that truly justifies the inconveniences 3D
>imposes on its audience.  And that would most likely be something
>inherent to 3D, not to cinema in general.

Oleg's comment is right on the mark of what I wanted to say.  Essentially,
in the conventional motion picture aesthetic, either 3D is distracting from
the storytelling or 3D is unobtrusive/nonfunctional.

3D is so VISUALLY COMPELLING, that it may best be confined to purely visual
media - still photography/imagery - or motion pictures that are
predominantly visual: Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, Kubrick's 2001,
Bladerunner, The Fifth Element, etc.

Hmmm.... maybe the old movies are not so great in 3d (to us moderns)
because they were never written for the intense visual experience that the
modern audience craves?  The more modern flick, with its high tech visuals
and special effects might be better able to handle the 3d visual boost.

Also, maybe newsreels will be a good application for 3d.  People love to
WATCH the news pictures/clips  (you know, fires, crashes, floods, etc.).  I
am reminded of the recently posted (on the anaglyph list) 3d picture
showing a TV crew about to be swamped by a tidal wave!


Boris



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/