Is 3D Back? - Complications Ensue
Complications Ensue:
The Crafty TV and Screenwriting Blog




Baby Name Voyager graphs baby name frequency by decade.

Social Security Administration: Most popular names by year.

Name Trends: Uniquely popular names by year.

Reverse Dictionary Search: "What's that word that means....?"

Facebook Name Trees Match first names with last names.


Archives

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

 

Friday, June 29, 2007



Before I left for the City, and then the Country, I attended an industry screening of a 3D short of a local spectacle which is a sort of Cirque du Soleil with spectacularly trained horses and riders.

After the showing, we all talked about 3D, and the producer who invited me said all the studios are shooting in 3D now. Which was something I had not heard before. (Have you?)

Is 3D back? It was big in the 50's for a few years when studios were trying to figure out what they could offer the audience that TV couldn't. Unlike Techniscope and Cinemascope, 3D didn't stick. It came back in the '70's and 80's (Jaws 3D!) but it has never stuck.

Now the studios are worried about DVDs and illegal downloading. What can they offer that viewers can't get at home? 3D rears its head again. (See this post about Disney offering Meet the Robinsons in 3D for a premium price.)

I thought this show was interesting because one of the problems of watching acrobats in a recorded medium is that we're so used to seeing spectacular things on the screen. To see an actor or horse rider perform something astounding in person is breathtaking, but on screen it becomes just another stunt. I wondered if the 3D experience might help convince the audience of the reality of what they're seeing; at least until we get used to seeing Die Hard movies in 3D, that is.

I did notice that the 3D effect was similar to the Imax effect in that the very short film seemed satisfying in its length. A 40 minute Imax film doesn't seem too short, because of the awesome amount of information on the screen.

I was not completely convinced, in the end. Movies don't feel flat to me; I'm used to interpreting them as visions of 3D worlds anyway. Even without stereoscopic vision, I have perspective to rely on, and depth of field, and occasionally smoke and fog. I know how far away things are.

On the other hand my mom told me that when she saw black and white films as a girl, she felt she saw them in color. She was used to adding the color back in, just as I'm used to adding the depth back in. Now that we're used to color, we don't add the color back into black and white. If we got used to seeing movies in 3D, would we lose the muscle that adds the third dimension to our viewing experience.

I'm not sure what the third dimension adds. Color really does add more information, and makes what we're seeing seem more real. Watching a movie in 3D just felt odd.

Maybe the problem is technical. Depending on where you are in the cinema, you'll experience a different degree of stereo separation. There is one spot in the cinema that gives a "normal" stereo view -- I'm told it is as far from the screen as the diagonal drawn from corner to corner of the screen. Everything else is out of kilter a bit. You might wind up with too much stereo separation, which makes everyone onscreen look fake, like a doll rather than a person. The only way to solve that would be to give every viewer VR goggles to view the movie in, and that's prohibitively expensive as yet.

But maybe the problem is that we really don't need 3D that much when we're sitting watching something. Sure, when we're catching a ball, we need stereo vision. But watching a story unfold -- I just don't know what it gives us. Probably someone will come up with some clever unexpected way to trick our stereoscopic vision for some artistic effect. But will anything solid and lasting come of it?

What do you think?

Labels: ,

7 Comments:

I'm with you here, Alex...never quite 'got' anything extra out of something in 3D. Let's see what James Cameron does with it I guess.

By Blogger wcdixon, at 2:14 AM  

The only director I can think of who ever "got" 3D as something more than a gimmick was Alfred Hitchcock. Watching Dial M For Murder in 3D at the Film Forum was a revelatory experience for me. The way he manipulated space to create or increase moments of tension was subtle and extraordinary. It really showed that 3D could enrich the experience in a less obvious way than throwing stuff at the screen.

By Blogger Anthony, at 11:16 AM  

3D is back.

That's all I'm saying...

By Blogger Bill Cunningham, at 1:21 PM  

When the film industry was competing with TV, 3D came and went away.

Now the film industry is competing with the internet. 3D will come and go away again.

Though, it might be possible to fix the "woozy when off-center" effect by using a special screen coating to get something that looks a bit like a hologram.

By Blogger Elver, at 4:25 PM  

It doesn't do much for me. To get the big experience, I went to Superman Returns in an IMAX theatre with a mix of 2D and 3D footage.

The 3D material did look cool but in gimmicky way that was even further removed from real than the sharper and less artifacted 2D footage.

I'll put my vote in for very clean 4K digital projection from a high end 4K camera as being more immersive and realistic than 3D right now.

This will change of course, there will come a time when we will have trouble telling if we are looking out a big window or if it is a movie. That time isn't here yet, it is just a desperate attempt to stave off the threat of home theatres and pirating.

By Blogger Clint Johnson, at 1:49 AM  

how on earth did you miss this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-241532803911842846

By Blogger gezgin, at 4:43 PM  

I've always thought the resurgance of 3D was simply another fad, but I haven't seen the new technology to judge for myself. However, 3D tech has one awesome, and as yet unseen, application—watching live sports in 3D at a movie theatre.
And there must be something worthwhile about 3D if James Cameron is using it.

Great blog!

By Blogger Ross Pruden, at 3:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.



This page is powered by Blogger.