|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 3D already dying?
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-19-2010 03:16 AM
quote:
Well, not if the trailers is any indication...There was hardly any 3D in it at all,
Mike, you are confusing 3D depth perception (stereo vision) with 3D in-your-face effects. Big difference.
In a 3D movie when the stereoscopic process is used properly, the 3D depth is there throughout the entire film and not a single object need be thrown at the audience to appreciated the dimentional depth effect, just like you don't need to have a recording of a ping-pong game to appreciate the depth of stereo sound.
When a filmmaker has nothing to say except, "here, duck because we are hurling car parts at you and they are on fire," then 3D won't save his film, and worse that than, he will give 3D a bad name. You don't need to have things throw at you in order to appreciate 3D depth; in fact, I am afraid that was exactly what was off-putting for most people years past; 9 times out of 10 those exagerated 3D "effects" don't advance the story, they are contrived and intrusive and after the first few objects come flying at you, those boring 3D effects simply become annoying. I came to see a MOVIE, not to dodge a 90 minute rock slide.
GOOD 3D is a natural with the gentle feeling of space and depth of stereoscopic vision, just like you have with your everyday natural stereo sight. You don't need to have chairs and baseballs and knives hurling at you to appreciate seeing in 3D; we see in stereo every day of our lives and can go for weeks and months without ever having to duck.
3D films full of 3D effects and nothing else was the biggest complaint the other two times 3D surfaced....and faded just as quickly as it came. Wise filmmakers won't make that mistake a third time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 08-19-2010 07:10 AM
I agree, very well said, Frank. It's stunning how many times I hear or read people complaining that a 3D movie "only had a few 3D scenes." Of course, they're talking about the gimmicky stuff. Even Roger Ebert believes that's how 3D is always presented:
"There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground."
He is an entertaining writer, isn't he? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But the greatest quality of 3D to me is the immediacy from the sense of sharing space with the onscreen action. It makes the experience more entertaining and enjoyable.
EDIT: Mike, I was writing this before your post. I'm not impying your experience with the TRON trailer is an example of those people I mention above. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler
Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-19-2010 11:32 AM
quote: Don Furr
Frank is absolutely right. I think the best example of 3D done right is "Dial M For Murder". Nothing in your face but great 3D.
Don,
There is an "in your face" moment in DMFM. It's when the inspector pulls the key out from the stair and turns to show it "out" to the audience/Ray Milland. I'm willing to bet the only reason Hitchcock shot this in 3-D was studio pressure and the ability to do this one gag. Which stands out in the film, since it's the only time in the movie that something goes negative X.
I would also note that, while we always have stereoscopic vision, our brains don't always process the information in a 3-D space. The brain frequently goes into what is called a "low-resolution" or 2-D mode when depth isn't important. Once your brain has acquired enough information to establish the relative positions of the trunk and appendages, it's no longer necessary to process three dimensional information -- assuming the body or another object doesn't move in such a way that the brain is kicked into 3-D evaluation again.
For that reason, any 3-D film is actually a non-natural way of seeing the world. Because an artificial 3-D set of coordinates is being created within our natural 3-D space (e.g. the auditorium), the brain is forced to constantly process information that it would normally ignore. That's why 3-D can be stressful (headaches, anxiety, etc.) for some people watching 3-D.
-David
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-20-2010 12:40 AM
quote: David E. Nedrow
Because an artificial 3-D set of coordinates is being created within our natural 3-D space (e.g. the auditorium), the brain is forced to constantly process information that it would normally ignore.
Our brains are quite capable of that and lots more. Think of all the unnatural 2D material we watch where all the cues are from forced perspective, all the while our eyes are focused on a single flat surface at a fixed distance. Wouldn't the opposite be true there -- the brain trying to gather depth information that simply isn't there? Or the very unnatural persistance of vision -- how unnatural is that, watching an image for two hours plus that is flickering at 24fps....where do the eyes and brain have THAT to deal with in real life? Why do we not stress out and have nervous break downs from that? We don't.
Think of all the high speed car chases and super quick cutting amid dizzying motion that you would never see in real life, yet we have adapted petty well to all those artificial 2D visuals quite unscathed. The brain can learn. I think some of the grave concern about detrimental effects of watching a 3D movie, at least for healthy normal people, is very exagerated by "the sky is falling" crowd who start worrying with every new technology. Just like when the first motor cars were introduced -- there was quite a popular idea going around that it would be a terrible danger to move a human body at any speeds exceeding 20mph (and I am sure some people did get stressed and anxious on their first car ride), but the resiliency of the human mind and body is quite extraordinary. It will survive the stresses of watching a 3D movie, unnatural as it may be.
quote: David E. Nedrow
3-D can be stressful (headaches, anxiety, etc.) for some people watching 3-D.
Wusses. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic