Daniel Jircik schrieb: > Actually yes more yields more. Years ago I used to do 3d stuff with dual 35mm > slr shooting slide film. We used polarized glasses/projectors and pin > registered glass projection mounts. I had a bracket with cameras side by > side. It looked great evan with fairly big horizontal mis alignment. It's > really a forgiving medium....
Hi Daniel, its unnecessary to tell me how 3D works! Trust me, since 20 years, every newcomer tells me these fairy tales, with shining eyes: "Wow 3d works almost everytime. It is so simple...." Of course, it "looks great" -- and then?? Does it also "look great" when you sit in the second row in front of a large projection screen? Where do you want to go when the novelty of the mere effect wears out? Fact is, indeed, a real 3D enthusiast can see almost "everything" in 3D, be it even cross eyed. Just the problem is: this enthusiasm doesn't carry over to the normal viewer, who does not "buy into" 3D automatically (and this is good so). Basically its the same as when you get hands on a video cam for the first time. You're almost bound to be "flashed" and find everything you shot just wow-wow-wow. Professionalism then starts with learning what actually does not work.... To my experience, things get even worse (for the effect on the medium) when professionals trained with 2D enter the 3D field. Because, to actually create anything of significance in 3D, you really have to un-learn most of your viewing habits. And the "camera look" is often very deeply rooted for a professional, often trained up to the point of getting subconscious. In the last century, we had several 3D "waves", and each of those faded out into oblivion. If you look at the films and images of those days (I mean those things created by professionals), you'll notice the same misconceptions again and again: - thinking that 3D should be noticeable and striking - relying on a 2D image composition and then "adding depth" - employing an editing and narrative mode that builds on "connection of visual ideas" (e.g. intercutting) - using the same pace as if it was 2D (which might actually work on a small monitor, but doesn't on a large screen) - not accounting for the changed "look" of things in 3D, e.g. selecting actors because they are photogenic (have you ever seen the 3D images of Monroe or Bogart? they look strikingly average and un-grippy) The combination of those effectively kills any possibility of creating that subtle immersion, which might be one of the new possibilities of 3D. What remains is a catchy and somewhat half-baked and immature "effect", which can't be seen by at least 5%-10% of the visitors and creates headaches and pain for -- say -- a third of the remaining public. No wonder 3D gets abandoned and forgotten soon.... Maybe we could be more wise this time :-D Cheers, Hermann V. _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
