|
Author
|
Topic: 45% May Not Be Able To Enjoy 3-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted February 15, 2016 01:29 AM
Those who are interested would profit from reading The Theory of Stereoscopic Transmission by Raymond Spottiswoode and Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema by Lenny Lipton, both available for free download as PDF files online.
It should be noted that every English-language 3-D feature from 1952 to 1955 was meant for polarized projection, not anaglyph (complementary colors). Anaglyphic transmission is always rife with ghosting, which often prevents clear, comfortable viewing even for those with perfect binocular vision.
Varying interpupillary distances in spectators is not thought to pose a serious problem when it comes to stereo fusion, so long as parallax values in a stereo movie are kept to reasonable limits. One commonly asserted view (though by no means the only view) is that homologous image points onscreen ought never be separated by more than about 65 millimeters, the average eye separation in adults. Believe it or not, this amount of parallax is quite achievable even with camera systems with wide lens separations, so long as certain other requirements are met with regard to subject distance and lens focal length. To cite one example, House of Wax (1953) is widely regarded as a visually beautiful 3-D film, but the lenses of the NaturalVision camera rig used to film it were something like 3.5 inches apart.
Some vision problems won't prevent comfortable viewing of stereoscopic imagery at all. To cite myself as a case in point, I am nearsighted, more so in my left eye than in my right, but I watch and enjoy two or three 3-D films a week. I also shoot my own stereographs.
It is obvious that many people are unable to enjoy viewing stereoscopic imagery. Some experience eyestrain, headaches and nausea. I'm not sure that any definitive explanation has been offered that covers all such cases, but there are many, many people who simply do not (or cannot) use their eyes as a tandem pair in their daily lives. Viewing stereoscopic movies compels them to exercise physiological systems that are typically nearly dormant, which causes strain and fatigue.
Incredible though it may seem, stereoscopic imagery can have a diagnostic and therapeutic value for many people, though perhaps not all. As has been mentioned above, some people learn they have deficient binocular vision when they cannot perceive the illusion of stereoscopic depth in a motion picture. Still others have had their eyesight strengthened through the use of stereoscopes and, yes, even 3-D movies.
Although it is quite clear that stereoscopic 3-D will not appeal to one hundred percent of the moviegoing public, 3-D movies have been part of the motion picture scene in one way or another since 1915. Three-D has a legitimate place in the art, the technology, and the history of movies. I hope those of you who do not prefer 3-D will still count yourselves well wishers of those of us who do. :-)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted February 15, 2016 04:20 PM
Brian, you are quite right that large interaxial distances can give stereo effigies the appearance of smaller scale. I did not mention this in my previous post because I did not wish to confuse the issue of interaxial distance (camera lens separation) and interocular distance (human eye separation, also known as interpupillary distance).
On the issue of the film of the River Thames, if the film in question happens to have been Royal River (1951), that was shot using two three-strip Technicolor cameras mounted side by side. The lens separation was nine inches on that behemoth! Questionnaires were circulated to the audience to gauge whether any of them perceived a difference in visual scale. Some did, others did not. Very curious.
But the strategy you mentioned-- offsetting a single lateral tracking shot to play slightly out of sync in both eyes-- has been employed successfully elsewhere. John Rupkalvis, one of the great living cinema stereographers, speaks proudly of the time he grabbed a gorgeous shot of an alpine forest vista in much this same way, and on 65 millimeter film!
One last thing I'd like to mention: Those who are interested would do well to look into the forthcoming Blu-Ray release of Gog (1954). Its restoration really qualifies as a bit of a miracle, as the only-- underscore, the only surviving left eye element is a single, faded projection print obtained from a private collector in Atlanta. My friends Bob Furmanek and Greg Kintz are the ones behind this remarkable feat of restoration. Here's a link to a fascinating short sample of the restoration work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS4ugGmU15Y
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
