In a way true, holographic 3D might be even worse. All the artifacts of
recreating 3D in 2D (a frame, focus, etc.) are also things used to direct
the audience's attention and shape their experience. It would be somewhere
between a play and a movie. The frame would be more like a proscenium,
and the composition would be different depending on where you are sitting in
the theater. Off screen for people on the left won't be off screen for the
people on the right. Brings a whole new meaning to "action safe"
Holographic 3D would be neat, but it would cease to be a motion "picture".
It would be a whole new medium, and probably go through a stage where people
try to make it a 3D Motion Picture the same way film started out as a new
way to present plays.
From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Terence Curren
Well, to play devil's advocate...
One could argue that the same could be said of cinema when it all but
replaced Stage productions and burlesque. However, and this is why I have
been saying this is just another semi-decade flash of the 3D fad, 3D isn't
really true 3D. It is a facsimile presented in a 2D environment. When you
have true 3D, like princess Leia in the original StarWars, then you might
have a true paradigm change that is worthy of reinventing storytelling.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment