Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Open Forum › I don’t get it, what does 3D has? › ‘A good question, ‘Sargehe
‘A good question, ‘Sargehero’ and one which I have often asked myself, although I have every intention of trying it when time permits, to try and ascertain what all the fuss is about. As one correspondent pointed out it is twice as much of everything, time, cost, trouble and general angst, so why bother for the sake of fleeting novelty? It has all been tried before and ‘bombed’, and here’s the reason why, I feel.
Whatwe demand of the ways we fill our leisure-time, is to be entertained, not ‘novelty’ per se. It may be a sobering thought, but a film which is a ‘bummer’, which is to say falls below a benchmark which across the industry is not as high as it ought to be, isin no way enhanced by presentation in 3D. The novelty quickly fades, and having done so, if the video/film is not worth the trouble of viewing anyway, then there is nothing worthwhile that3D brings to the equation. I detest the 4:3 format, have since the early 1970’s when I began shooting with anamorphics on 8 and 16mm film-stock, but I would rather watch an outstanding film in the 4:3 format (with the classics, there is usually no option), than a glitzy and totally contrived, animated waste-of-time which most people currently equate with ‘3D’. What is coming from the major studios, especially in the US, is NOT 3D as I conceive it; it is acomputer-generated pastiche, landscapes packed with cutesy, wisecracking and rather irritating small furry animals. These are the modern-day equivalent of yesterday’s ‘cartoons’ courtesy of ever more sophisticated computer-generated on-screen objects and techniques. All very clever on a superficial level, and possibly a genre inits ownright, but 3D worthy of being taken seriously, I think not. ‘REAL’ 3D filmed by two camcorders/cameras side-by-side, might well be worth viewing for more than the ephemeral novelty of the experience, but only if the production also satisfies certain criteria as ‘eetertainment’ as well.
There should be no particular sympathy felt towards the manufacturers and aggressive promoters of such equipment, (which is bound to be expensive), just to entice users, once again, into yet another cycle of’buying-and-replacement’. It will, however, appeal, I would say, to those who have an ‘image’ to project to the rest of humanity, and especially life’s ‘have-nots’. What I have seen of 3D during in-store demos, has failed to move me, I am afraid. Everything hard-edged, right into the far-distance with no differential focus, is a ‘turn-off’ in any medium. I’d need more than that, in order topersuade me to part with my hard-earned ‘dollar’.