5 ms·
Adding sound isn't anywhere near the same as adding crappy pseudo-3d effects.
by axod 16y ago
Adding sound isn't anywhere near the same as adding crappy pseudo-3d effects.
- jokermatt999 16y agoMost films don't use the 3d well though. It's like if sound was added, but instead of using it give viewers dialogue with inflection, directors mostly used it to add in wacky sound effects for slapstick comedy. However, the fact that it's generally abused now doesn't mean it won't be used well later.
- axod 16y agoIf you can't notice the 3d, what's the point. If you can notice it, it distracts from what is going on. It's a no-win situation. Of course it's a win-win situation for the studios selling people 3d.
- chc 16y agoYou're conflating a lot of issues here. This "If you can notice it, it distracts…" is a lot like the objections to talkie cinema. 3D you can notice isn't inherently any more distracting than any other element of the feature, including sound, color and texture. But equating "noticeable 3D effects" with "crappy pseudo-3D" is not valid.
- axod 16y agoThe comparison isn't even worth bringing up. Talkies = NO SOUND vs SOUND. It's binary. 3D = "20 visual cues about 3D" vs "19 visual cues about 3D" We already see movies in 3D without adding the rather crude stereoscopy effect.
- vacri 16y agoSure it is - it can enhance immersion. Imagine being able to control scent in a movie, so that you get the smell of the scene. If done badly, yes, it can overpower the experience of the film, but done well, it would significantly enhance the immersion of a film, despite "not noticing it"/not specifically drawing your attention.
- axod 16y agoThat's a better comparison. 3D is like smell-o-vision would be - a gimmick, distracting, and adding nothing to the story.
- wahnfrieden 16y agoThe only case of non-abuse I know of is Herzog's upcoming cave docu.
- jarek 16y agoHave you seen Coraline?