David
On Sep 19, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Ian Johnson wrote:
>
>
> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Jay Mahavier
>
> David's latest post appears to be a more reasonable argument. It makes a
> statement about something David thinks needs to be overcome. Now I'm not at
> all sure of what he means by "too literal". I mean I'm following what he's
> saying right up to that point and then I'm lost. The wine glass becomes too
> much like a wine glass? And once that wine glass is to much like a wine
> glass then it's not representative enough of a wine glass for the audience
> to believe that it's a wine glass?
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> I think what he says relates to what I was just saying about the advent of
> true, holographic 3D.
>
> At its birth, film was seen as a way to reproduce the experience of seeing a
> play, before it's unique abilities to tell stories in its own way were
> realized. Sound was a way to hear the real voices of the actors, color
> brought a realism that B&W couldn't achieve. Both of those could be used
> literally to show the way things look and sound in real life. Eventually
> they were used creatively, through sound design and grading, in ways that
> enhanced the story being told.
>
> Because 2D is not a true representation of real life, there is always a
> level of abstraction. Those abstract qualities can be shaped to guide the
> audience's experience. Whenever I see BTS footage of a movie scene being
> shot, even the most well acted studio features look a little silly to me.
> Those riveting performances turn into grownups playing make believe because
> the artifice has been stripped away and you are put into a more realistic
> perspective of an ordinary bystander, without the influence of music,
> framing, sound design and editing.
>
> I think David is saying that 3D is a step toward this kind of mundane
> realism, because it takes away some of the artifice that is usually
> manipulated to tell the story in a certain way. This might be a little bit
> like complaining that film is a poor way to stage a play because you lose
> some essentials of a live performance, like dimensionality and connection
> with the audience. You could complain that sound, and the ability to hear
> the voices, while enhancing realism became a crutch and diminished the art
> of telling stories visually. That is still a pitfall for show runners who
> get lazy and fall into producing "radio with pictures".
>
> The problem with 3D is that it is touted as a way to increase the realism of
> a film when for many stories, realism isn't something that should be
> desired. It is still artifice since it is representing 3D in a 2D space.
> Like the other artificial constructs of film it should be used creatively,
> and not realistically. I think it would be most effective if the things
> that make stereo unrealistic could be exploited in the same ways that DoF,
> color, framing, lighting, etc are, to shape the audience's experience and
> not simply make it more realistic. This might mean parts of the film have a
> slight or no stereoscopic effect (embossed?) and others are more pronounced.
>
> I think Harold and Kumar looks like a good example. It may be a gimmick,
> for the purpose of making fun of the gimmickry of 3D, but it is still a step
> toward using 3D to serve the film and not realism.
>
> All of this is of course depends on a kind of 3D that does not require
> glasses, cause headaches, and raise production costs. It probably won't
> happen this time around, but maybe in another 15 years there will be a
> version that is more like introducing Surround Sound to the world of LR
> Stereo.
>
> Ian
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
David Dodson
davidadodson@sbcglobal.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
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.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment