[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]
Well, I haven't actually seen any of these new 3D movies. I just want to get that out of the way before I go on.
To me, I don't know...saying that 3D is a fad is almost like saying that higher definition is a fad...except that higher definition doesn't cause eye strain or anything. That's part of the reason why I said in an earlier post that I don't think the tech is where it needs to be yet.
You're right though. The way it is used is important, because it has to actually look natural and not just have stuff turned 3D almost as an afterthought in post-production or something. The display needs to look like something would if you were standing where the camera was. I think there is probably another issue with this, and I'm not sure if anyone is really addressing this issue, but that is that when a person views something normally, they focus on that, and everything else at different distances will be out of focus. I wonder if these movies are letting the eyes focus on different objects at different distances, or if that is even doable with the current technology. (It seems like it wouldn't be, but maybe I'm missing something.) At any rate, the content creator has to make sure that the different views that they eyes are getting actually make sense, at least as much as they can within the limits of the technology.
Not that it really matters, but as it stands, I'm actually more interested in 3D for games than I am movies.
MrGeezer
Higher definition WAS a fad. Go back and look at the early buyers of HDTV, who bought their HDTVs back when there was hardly any HD shows on TV. At that point, having a television set which which let you watch TV in high definition was ABSOLUTELY a fad for a hell of a lot of people. Not so much the case now, but it was definitely a valid statement earlier on.
And that's the thing about 3D televisions...sure they'll let you watch 3D blu-ray discs and such. And maybe 3D games. But even if we ignore the price factor and the convenience factor, there is still this...a common criticism about 3D in movie cinemas is that it sucks. It CAN be done well...just look at the glowing praise for Avatar. But it's usually NOT done well. It's usually done as an afterthought, and provides little or nothing to the viewing experience (if not actually making the viewing experience WORSE). And I see absolutely no reason why it would be any different with 3D televisions.
3D in itself is nice technology, just as how I'm sure that some people's chainsaws and power drills and cameras are amazing technological marvels. But the point remains...until talented and highly skilled people are ready and able to realize the full potential of those tools, it's just a waste of money. It's just like buying a high end jigsaw and having nothing to cut.
Side anecdote: I work at a restaurant, and one of the chefs found out that I do photography. And he was like, "man, that's pretty cool. I can't believe I didn't know that about you." But then he went on to ask me what cameras I use, and said something like, "it's all about having the right camera." And I'm like, "no. It's really not. That's not the case at all."
It's like this...are there things you can do with a high end camera that you can't do with a cheap piece of ****? Absolutely. Same as how 3D has the potential to provide an experience that can't be had with 2D, same as how a chef can do things with rare and exotic ingredients that he can't do with **** that he bought off the shelf at Wal-Mart.
But that ALWAYS comes secondary to the skill and artistry of the artist. Give a person the best power drill on the planet, and they won't be able to do **** with it if they don't know what they're doing. Give someone an insanely expensive camera, and their pictures will all suck if they are no good at photography. Give a random nobody the finest ingredients on the planet, and they'll create an awful meal for you if they haven't learned how to use those ingredients.
Meanwhile, give a great chef half an hour to shop at Wal-Mart, and he'll take random ordinary ingredients and turn them into magic. THAT'S the point here. 2D is like flour or sugar. It's so freaking common that EVERYONE should be expected to learn how to work in 2D. While 3D is like some recently discovered exotic truffle from God-knows-where. Fewer people know what to do with THAT, since that's new. But you wouldn't expect every chef to start using that truffle in their meal creations. You'd expect to let them decide when and where it is best to use it.
The recent 3D fad is exactly doing it ass backwards. The way that so many movies are being FORCED to be released in 3D when the director isn't ready to use it and when it doesn't fit the material in the first place. As someone else said, who the hell wants to watch Larry King Live in 3D?
And I see the push towards 3D televisions as being an extension of that. The drive to have everyone get a 3D TV, when there are still so few artists realizing the potential of 3D. The technology itself isn't a fad, that's just tech. What makes it a fad is that we're all supposed to buy into 3D before being given any real reason to do so.
Well, okay, when I see people say something is a fad, to me that means that eventually it's going to go away and there's never going to be a time when it sticks around for long, so mostly I just didn't know what you meant.As far as people needing to learn to work in 2D before 3D, I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that sort of argument comes from the perspective of 3D being a novelty, which is sort of what it is right now, rather than the perspective of it just being the normal thing that nobody really thinks about, which is what I assume it will eventually be. Maybe not with the current technology, but eventually.
Once the tech actually makes sense for it, I don't think that, "Why is this in 3D?" will be a very valid question. I think that "Why is this not in 3D?" is the question one would have to ask. Rather than asking what 3D adds to something, I'd be inclined to ask what not having it NOT be shot in 3D adds to it. Of course, in some cases it will make sense as an artistic choice, but generally speaking, there won't be any real reason for a new movie or show not to be 3D. Will it be in the next decade? I really don't know the answer to that.
Log in to comment