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

[William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>]

on 2/21/01 10:33 PM, boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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.
> 
I think I know why. For most scenes, the depth information is already there
in 2D, precisely because things are moving. The brain easily decodes the
spatial relationships by differences in the way objects move around the
screen. 3D may be overkill, because it really isn't necessary, unless it's
the "star" of the film.

Still images are quite another matter, where all the depth information must
be deciphered from relative size, height and density (or the amount of
"atmosphere" in front of objects, like a series of mountains.) Skilled
photographers make this easier, bad ones can make it quite hard. In either
case 3D fills in the information lost when motion is stripped away from the
image.

A good example is an image from the Stereoscopic Society's 2001 Awards -
Category B Honourable Mention: Brian Temple "Briksdal Glacier" at:
http://www.stereoscopicsociety.org.uk/Pages/Slides_B.htm
Take a moment to examine either of the 2D views before freeviewing them.
Taken alone, I'd consider these a pair of somewhat messy and visually
confusing photos. The clothing the man is wearing almost blends into the
glacier, making it more difficult to get any sense of scale or depth. Add 3D
and suddenly it makes sense. Meanwhile, Fly-Agaric and many of the other
award winners are interesting photos in either 2D or 3D.

My personal feeling is that each side of the stereo pair should be good
images in 2D, or 3D becomes the gimmick which "saves" an otherwise mediocre
photo. 3D should no more be the "subject" of a photo than the name on the
camera or the brand of film used.
 -- 
$.02 from William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>

(Still waiting for Quadrascopic films for eyeglass wearers  ;-)



 

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