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

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rory Hinnen" <Rory.Hinnen@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] House of Wax / why 3d


> William Gartin wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > 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.

I also agree.  However, we should not be misled as to the purpose of 3-D.

Someone (I don't recall if it was on this thread) said that content was more
important than 3-D.  Actually comparing 3-D to the subject (or content) is
not a real comparison.  This would be like saying that a house is better
than the coat of paint on it.  Of course it is.  But, doesn't the coat of
paint make it better?

Content can be flat, or black & white, or still, or not even have any images
at all (radio).  And, for some applications, this, or any of these
combinations may be all that is necessary to get the idea across.

This does not mean that PROPERLY APPLIED, any of these "enhancements",
INCLUDING 3-D could not make for an even better, more enjoyable production,
with less ambiguity.

There are snobs who say that the only thing worth watching is a perfect full
color 3-D presentation with perfect stereophonic sound.  They refer to it as
the "legitimate" theater: a stage play (thus implying that all other forms,
especially the motion picture, are "illegitimate").

At the other end of the spectrum are those snobs who insist that only flat
black & white movies are worth watching.

Several years ago, I had the unexpected pleasure of attending a luncheon,
where the late Orson Welles was present.  I had a newspaper clipping with
me, where a famous critic of the time (I don't remember who, maybe someone
else recalls it) had written a column expounding on how "Citizen Kane" was
such a great picture because it was in black & white.

I showed it to Mr. Welles.  I cannot quote his exact words from memory, but
his comment very close to this:  "Bull S***!   I did Kane in black & white
only because I could not afford color.  At the time, Technicolor was the
only real game in town, and it was way beyond my budget, or the budgets of
most others (producers) as well.  Had I had the money, it would have been in
color and 3-D with Fantasound (Disney's four channel sound system used in
the original Fantasia)".

Anyway, my own opinion runs somewhere between these.  I feel that all art
forms are viable.  But, given the option, I feel that PROPERLY DONE, any
film could be potentially better in 3-D.

JR


 

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