I am not saying that I agree with everything that is being said in this post by Darren Ruecker on “We Got This Covered.com“. But he does make some good points.
I am re-posting this to get a conversation going with all of you reading this.
How much do you agree with and how much do you think is BS?
- Making an audience of people wear glasses is dumb
- It can make the image appear dimmer
- It can be an eyesore
- It’s used as an excuse to charge more for a ticket
- It encourages vapid gimmickry
I’ve decided I’m a 3D optimist. Ultimately, I think the format is going to improve in the hands of skilled filmmakers and technicians with able hands and keen eyes and will be as much an institution of the moving image as color is today. If the type of people who currently say 3D is a gimmick won the argument back in the day when color film was becoming popular, we’d be watching G.I. Joe in black and white. It seems inevitable that the technology has such tremendous potential that to abandon it because of a few—ok, quite a number of hiccups would be totally shortsighted. Keep reading…
Source: We Got This Covered
Have a question for the 3DGuy?
Please leave a comment and we will reply to you.
Copyright ©2013 Al Caudullo All rights reserved. The content and photos within may not be distributed electronically or copied mechanically without specific written permission. The content within is based upon information provided to the editor, which is believed to be reliable. Data within is subject to change. Al Caudullo is not responsible for errors or omissions.
There are those who have had a bad experience with 3D, sad but true, just as people have had bad experiences with sound (think feedback screeches, distortion, distracting noises). This does not invalidate the entire premise in either case. Let’s evaluate the comments:
1. Making an audience of people wear glasses is dumb
No one is forced to wear glasses. 3D movies are normally available in 2D as well. At today’s state of the technology, the glasses-based systems still provide the highest image quality from all points of view. Most people do not object to the wearing of glasses, as evidenced by the huge number of people who wear sunglasses. I went to the beach, and saw no one who was not wearing them. On the Freeway on a sunny day, try and find a driver who is not wearing them.
If you like the concept of 3D without special viewing glasses, you might like the Dolby 4K autostereo monitor, by Dimenco. Dolby recently showed this at the NAB convention, and we have one of the monitors here at StereoScope.
2. It can make the image appear dimmer
Not necessarily. Even back in the 1950’s, dual projection 3D with white flame carbon arcs put 16 ft.Lamberts on the screen, as opposed to the typical 3 or 4 ft.Lamberts today. But, the present situation is going to change. I saw 3D projected in a theater with the Christie laser projection system, and it was at 14 ft. Lamberts, almost as bright as 3D in the 1950’s. And, unlike the 20 ft. screens typical back then, this was on a 65 ft. screen.
3. It can be an eyesore
Anything can be an eyesore. If you are speaking aesthetically, grafetti is often considered an eyesore, as is some of the imagery seen in 2D movies. Physically, soreness is caused by dust or other particulate matter, unlikely in the theater, and even more unlikely while wearing 3D glasses, which tend to shield and protect the eyes.
4. It’s used as an excuse to charge more for a ticket
There were no surcharges in the 1950’s, but no way to underwrite the costs involved. The present surcharges came into place because of the cost of installing digital projection equipment, which is used for 2D movies as well, although, perhaps unfairly, 2D patrons are not required to pay their fair share. It is, however, a business model that has proven sustainable, and also is proof that people will pay extra to see 3D.
5. It encourages vapid gimmickry
Actually, the lack of 3D in 2D movies encourages vapid gimmickry in those productions, as the makers attempt to delineate depth in a distorted, flat medium. This results in such gimmicks as putting large parts of the image out of focus in a usually unsuccessful attempt to separate the foreground and background from the subject. These fuzzy images can result in a really uncomfortable viewing situation, as the eyes and brain struggle to resolve details that are not capable of being resolved. Much more skilled people used to use very effective lighting to do this in a comfortable-to-view manner years ago. With 3D, blurry images are no longer necessary.
Keep in mind that normal human vision is in stereoscopic 3D. Any flat 2D representation is a distortion of real life. Compressing a scene to zero along the Z axis is a severe distortion.