Amused by the title: “Real or Fake 3D?”. You might also have titles: “Real or Fake Movies”, “Real or Fake Sound”, etc. All of these are, of course, both real and fake, simultaneously, depending on how you would like to define it. The very first stereoscopic images viewed in hand held stereoscopes were three dimensional drawings, made before the invention of photography itself. Would those be called real or fake? Almost all of the productions listed as real have parts that are CG, and some have parts that are converted as well (what is known as the hybrid approach), something that I advocated about 30 years ago when we were shooting on film and I was rotoscoping stereoscopic segments of elements on the Oxberry as well as shooting original camera 3D footage with StereoVision lenses. It is the end result that is important, not the particular methodology use to attain it.
Did you miss our post, REAL OR FAKE 3D? Read here.
Given that it is our brain that creates an image with the depiction of space from our two eyes – in effect creating imagery in our mind’s eye that isn’t “real”, I’d say everything we see isn’t real. It is our brain’s interpretation of the data coming in from the optic nerves along with other clues that influence the “image” that our brain presents to our conscious mind. There are numerous things that influence how and what our brain chooses to cook up for our conscious mind to “see”. That’s what makes 3D so controversial – it isn’t interpreted the same way by everyone’s brain. Each person has their own physiology and life experience that influences how the brain assembles and creates a perceived image with the depiction of space, depth and texture. Sadly, few in the industry appreciate the insane complexity of this. To them, 3D is a visual effect that adds value and profit. Overly simplistic views never pan out in the long run.