View Single Post
Old 12-05-2017, 05:36 PM   #22
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velusion View Post

I don't mind being challenged. I love defending my position, just make sure the thing you are challenging is real and not the product of not being able to read...ok?
Okay, I'll give it a try. I hope I meet your criteria for a real
challenge.

“One of the things I learned right away is that a majority of the people making 3D movie content did not understand what they were doing.”

I read this and reread it. My challenge to you isn't a comprehension
issue, (I am able to read) it's a different opinion. I believe that
the majority of people making 3D movies understand 3D very well.

“there is no difference between making a single 3D image and shooting 3D video”

The difference between a 3D photo and a 3D moving image
is vast. One can't just set up a “still frame” and have things
move around in it. Hitchcock did that in his one and only 3D
film and while the 3D was terrific, as a movie it didn't work.
One of his few failures. You have done both video and stills
– have you made a narrative film? Short or feature?

Just because some people experience eye strain doesn't mean
the filmmakers did not understand what they were doing. No
one looks at single 3D images for 90 to 120 minutes. I think
it could be argued that the movement (which is essential in
a motion picture) and the length of time viewing causes the
eye strain more than the filmmaker not understanding what
they were doing.

What did you think of Scorsese's “Hugo”? A very accomplished
filmmaker working with a very accomplished DP who both spent
a lot of time studying 3D before embarking on the movie.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote