In Support of 3D?

In a recent post I Don’t Hate Stereoscopic Films, Alexis Van Hurkman makea an interesting defense of 3D films. Firstly, he takes apart the argument that 3D adds nothing to narrative story telling by wondering what cinemascope adds to narrative:
Now, I’m not saying there aren’t cinematic advantages to be mined from the different shot compositions that widescreen allows. However, plenty of spectacular films have been made without it...
Then acknowledging there are good examples (Hugo) and bad (Clash of the Titans) of 3D, he also lists the drawbacks:
I’ll be the first to say that the reduced light output in projected 3D venues is depressing, and the reduced and shifted color that results saddens my colorist’s eye. Similarly, I don’t wear glasses in my everyday life, and I’m not terribly thrilled at having something sitting on the bridge of my nose in the theater.
But then he gets to the most interesting argument:
Rudolph Arnheim, an early film critic and theorist, was a well-documented opponent of synchronized sound/dialog in film, believing it to push cinema towards an undesirable level of realism, defeating the symbolism that a more purely visual cinema manifested.
He goes on to argue that other film technologies, including sound and color, had their neigh-syers too (and look how wrong they were.)

There's nothing worse than being wrong in the face of advancing technology, and who among us hasn't thought or said some new gadget or technology would never be popular, only to be proved wrong? But - and this may be surprising - I wasn't around when sound and color were introduced, yet while I'm sure there were those who questioned these advances, was the public as ambivalent about "the Talkies" as they seem to be about 3D? And don't forget that 3D is currently on it's third revival; I don't think they brought out sound in movies, didn't get it quite right, and tried again twenty years later.

So I'm not convinced by stories of those that questioned sound and color. I am moved by his anecdote about an 11 year-old that saw the movie "Up" in 3D, then in 2D, and then in 3D again:
At the first and third showing, she was so emotionally involved that she cried. At the second, while she still enjoyed the film, she didn’t.
If 3D creates a heightened emotional experience for viewers, then it will be a success. Oddly, this is the first time I've heard someone suggest that it can. I have heard before that younger audiences seem to be more enamored with 3D than older viewers. So perhaps I can't really even judge the effectiveness of 3D.

If you're interested in 3D production, check out this article (listed in the comments section of Alexis' article) Cutting in the Third Dimension by Gordon Burkell of MasteringFilm.com


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sony GV-D200 review

Image
Sony GV-D200 I've been using a Sony GV-D200 deck to transfer old Video8 and Hi8 tapes. Some of these tapes are over twenty years old, and no longer having a Hi8 camcorder that worked I was concerned that if I didn't do something about transferring them to a more modern format soon, I might never be able to. While Sony no longer make camcorders that use these tapes - that I know of - Sony does still sell the GV-D200 deck (or Video Walkman, as it's sometimes labelled.) They also offer the GV-D800, which is almost identical but adds a small LCD screen for about $120 more. I didn't think I'd need a screen since I was using this to capture to the computer, but you will need an external monitor when you first set it up. Physically, the device is small. At 5 7/8" wide, 5 3/8" deep and 2" high, it's the smallest video deck I've encountered. I used to have a Video8 deck that I thought was small; and it was twice as deep and twice as high. The t...
Read more

Response: Which iPhone to Get?

Image
In response to my iPhone musings, I got the following reader email which actually sums up a lot of my second and third thoughts too: You might have a point about the fancier camera, but otherwise I would buy the smaller model. Its screen is about the same size as that of my Nexus 4, and I don't feel at all like it limits me with a too-small screen. But I do sometimes stretch to get my thumb the reach to the other corner of the screen. It is plenty big for a phone. A phone is a pocket thing. (Well, in my case it lives an ancient REI soft sunglasses case that I have on my belt.) Ubiquitous, handy, convenient, almost always with me. Small is crucial for all of that. Certainly a large screen is cool, but you need a place to put it: don't break a fundamental feature of a pocket phone by getting too big. That is what your small tablet is for. I have my phone with me almost always. I have my Nexus 7 tablet with me nearly as much. The bigger screen is great, yet it fits in some...
Read more

Should you buy the Sony NEX-FS100 Kit Lens?

Image
The Sony NEX-FS100 is available in two configurations: B & H : NEX-FS100U Camcorder only $4,999 B & H : NEX-FS100U (with 18-200mm lens) $5,599 But what does that extra $600 get you? It get's you this: Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens for NEX Camera This lens is also available separately for $799.99, so at $200 off you'd think everyone would be jumping on it. But not so fast... In his article about switching from the Canon 5D Mark II to the Sony NEX-FS100 , Paul Antico  at Need Creative says of the kit lens: 7) Its 18-200 F3.6-6.3 kit lens absolutely sucks and should be avoided (thankfully, you can order it without one) [ 1 ] But is it that bad? At B & H 's site, 43 reviews give it an average of 4.6 out of 5 stars. That's not a bad rating, though many of these people are using it for stills, and the most common complaint noted is how large and heavy it is. Of course this feeling of size would be exacerbated when you put it on a tiny camera ...
Read more