Trendsurfing: The 3D revival (The Times)
By David Rowan
If this column were truly up with the trends, these words wouldn’t merely be nestling on glossy paper, they’d be jumping out at you, dancing teasingly before your eyes, and then kissing you sensuously on the lips to say thank you for reading. At least, that’s how a newspaper column ought to behave if it’s to keep up with a fashion that’s currently sweeping through visual media, from cinema to video games. After a few false starts over the past century, the optical illusion that is 3-D entertainment is back in vogue. And this time, there are no red-and-green cardboard specs to wear as you fight back the nausea.
Sure, three-dimensional imaging is hardly a new phenomenon: the Lumière Brothers were playing with it back in 1903, when their film L’Arrivée du Train was scaring Parisiens out of their stereoscopic seats. Five decades later, the art of cinematography was enriched by such delights as Bwana Devil, promising viewers "A lion in your lap! A lover in your arms!" Now it’s time to take your seats once again for 3-D: The Sequel. Suddenly, Hollywood has caught on to new, digital, three-dimensional technologies as a way to boost the box office.
This summer, we’ve had 3-D versions of mainstream hits such as Monster House, Steven Spielberg’s animated thriller, and The Ant Bully from Warner Bros. Later this year we can expect Sony Pictures’ Open Season and Disney’s 3-D version of The Nightmare Before Christmas, with Meet the Robinsons slated for release in 2007.
There’s a reason why Disney, in particular, is getting excited: when it released a 3-D version of Chicken Little last year, it took three times as much as the 2-D version. As a means of tempting viewers out of their living rooms, the innovation is a no-brainer, according to its head of distribution, Chuck Viane, who calls it "the greatest delineation between us and home entertainment".
There are two competing technologies driving the take-up. Disney and Columbia Pictures have been working with a format called Real D, which requires cinemas to upgrade to digital projectors that show images much faster than conventionally – around 144 images per second, half intended for each eye. Viewers then slip on plastic glasses with clear, polarised lenses to see the effect. And then there’s the rival Imax 3-D technology, which helped to kick-start the revival in 2004, when a specially formatted version of The Polar Express took 14 times as much per US screen as the conventional print. For Titanic director James Cameron, the new technologies offer such irresistible creative possibilities that "I couldn’t imagine myself going back and shooting with the camera that I used before".
But cinema is just the start. If you have a spare £12,000, you could put in an order for Philips’ new 42in 3-D TV, which relies not on glasses but on a sheet of transparent lenses over the screen that sends different images to each eye. Samsung, meanwhile, has been demonstrating stereoscopic 3-D cameras for its mobile phones – and let’s not even mention the video games packed with multidimensional excitement. For us inky 2-D newspaper types, it’s all rather intimidating. Anyone know how to bring a photo byline to life?
(The Times Magazine, August 12 2006)
If this column were truly up with the trends, these words wouldn’t merely be nestling on glossy paper, they’d be jumping out at you, dancing teasingly before your eyes, and then kissing you sensuously on the lips to say thank you for reading. At least, that’s how a newspaper column ought to behave if it’s to keep up with a fashion that’s currently sweeping through visual media, from cinema to video games. After a few false starts over the past century, the optical illusion that is 3-D entertainment is back in vogue. And this time, there are no red-and-green cardboard specs to wear as you fight back the nausea.
Sure, three-dimensional imaging is hardly a new phenomenon: the Lumière Brothers were playing with it back in 1903, when their film L’Arrivée du Train was scaring Parisiens out of their stereoscopic seats. Five decades later, the art of cinematography was enriched by such delights as Bwana Devil, promising viewers "A lion in your lap! A lover in your arms!" Now it’s time to take your seats once again for 3-D: The Sequel. Suddenly, Hollywood has caught on to new, digital, three-dimensional technologies as a way to boost the box office.
This summer, we’ve had 3-D versions of mainstream hits such as Monster House, Steven Spielberg’s animated thriller, and The Ant Bully from Warner Bros. Later this year we can expect Sony Pictures’ Open Season and Disney’s 3-D version of The Nightmare Before Christmas, with Meet the Robinsons slated for release in 2007.
There’s a reason why Disney, in particular, is getting excited: when it released a 3-D version of Chicken Little last year, it took three times as much as the 2-D version. As a means of tempting viewers out of their living rooms, the innovation is a no-brainer, according to its head of distribution, Chuck Viane, who calls it "the greatest delineation between us and home entertainment".
There are two competing technologies driving the take-up. Disney and Columbia Pictures have been working with a format called Real D, which requires cinemas to upgrade to digital projectors that show images much faster than conventionally – around 144 images per second, half intended for each eye. Viewers then slip on plastic glasses with clear, polarised lenses to see the effect. And then there’s the rival Imax 3-D technology, which helped to kick-start the revival in 2004, when a specially formatted version of The Polar Express took 14 times as much per US screen as the conventional print. For Titanic director James Cameron, the new technologies offer such irresistible creative possibilities that "I couldn’t imagine myself going back and shooting with the camera that I used before".
But cinema is just the start. If you have a spare £12,000, you could put in an order for Philips’ new 42in 3-D TV, which relies not on glasses but on a sheet of transparent lenses over the screen that sends different images to each eye. Samsung, meanwhile, has been demonstrating stereoscopic 3-D cameras for its mobile phones – and let’s not even mention the video games packed with multidimensional excitement. For us inky 2-D newspaper types, it’s all rather intimidating. Anyone know how to bring a photo byline to life?
(The Times Magazine, August 12 2006)
<< Home