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

[William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>]

on 2/23/01 11:21 PM, John A. Rupkalvis wrote:
> 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.
> 
Agreed. My thinking on films is partly regarding what is required of the
audience, admittedly not that much, in order to view 3D films and images.
The "burden of viewing", if you will. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems
that no other form of enhancement requires the user to wear any kind of
extra equipment. Color does not require any special viewer... stereophonic
sound does not require headphones. In these cases, the burden is on the
providers. Only 3D requires the audience to do anything other than show up
and watch. I'm not saying this is bad, only that it makes 3D a somewhat
unique form of entertainment.

> 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.

Welles proved himself to be a master of whatever medium he happened to be
working in, but perhaps less so the politics of the medium. Too bad. I can
only imagine what he would have done with 3D, color and Dolby Surround
stereo. I'm sure it would have been amazing.


on 2/23/01 9:47 PM, Peter Davis wrote:
> I don't agree with this at all.  That's like saying that for a photograph
> to be successful in color, it must be successful in black & white.  Color
> adds a whole new set of parameters to the mix, and many *MANY* brilliant
> photographs are totally dependent on color for their effect.
> 
I'm going to have to ponder this a bit further. I've seen examples of
exactly what you are saying, and think it's a very valid point. I would also
point out that many photos are successful on both levels, as lighting and
texture is largely, but not completely, a function of luminance values, i.e.
black & white. 3D doesn't ride on top of the base image the same way that
color does, and may be more dependent on it than color. Or maybe not...
Obviously, I need to think about this for a while longer.


on 2/23/01 10:39 AM, Rory Hinnen wrote:
> If 3d ever takes off and becomes the primary means of viewing images
> (meaning good, cheap autostereoscopic display devices become
> ubiquitous), 3d would gain it's own aesthetic. Maybe the idea will be to
> dress everyone and the set in one color, so that the only way to
> differentiate objects is by 3d. Or tangled masses of trees will become
> popular images. Or 3d disappears as just another aspect that we take for
> granted, like color, and every so often you get an artist who
> capitalizes on the 3d effect (I'm trying to remember the name of a
> director, used to shoot very monochromatic movies, but the main subject
> would be a saturated color....oh well).
> 
I think that good, cheap autostereoscopic display is the key that will
change the world's view of 3D forever, by removing the "burden of viewing"
from the audience. To me, a really well done film is one which can totally
engross me to the point of not being conscious of lighting, color, sound,
editing, etc. The moment anyone of these becomes a focal point, it screams
"Hey look at me!", and reminds me that this is a movie, rather than an
experience. I'm a video editor, and tend to be hypercritical of bad or
mediocre editing, lighting and sound, so I tend not to go to movies as much
as I used to. For me, wearing 3D glasses is a constant reminder of the
medium, and I want a film to take me beyond the medium. I think 3D can be a
part of that, but as yet, not easily.

Once again, this list has given me a great deal to consider, and I've
enjoyed this thread immensely. Thanks for your feedback.
 -- 
William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>



 

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