Share this on:
 E-mail
32
VIEWS
0
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view LenGrace's profile
    Posted May 1, 2012 by
    LenGrace
    Location
    Tupelo, Mississippi
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Tech talk

    More from LenGrace

    Overcoming Critics of 3D Technology: Consumers Rule

     

    I have always admired quality innovation and the Cameron | Pace Group has quietly, if not singularly, embraced 3D (Three Dimensional) technology making it an industry standard for movies, concerts, and sports events worldwide. Attending conferences in the early 90’s as often happened in those days; the early emergence of HD technology (High Definition) seemed foreign but so intriguing in the quality presented, viewer instincts immediately embraced the concept of pure depth perception.

     

    Today that technology is standard in all venues where film or video is distributed to the masses. Analog gave way to a digital format and 2D (Two Dimensional) is now the accepted standard for production.  3D, on the other hand, has not been widely accepted seen as an expensive and time consuming process that does not add the perceived value for the buck.

     

    3D: A Sordid History

    The history of 3D technology goes way back to the early 1900’s, and I will not get into the specifics since it would take more than just saying what needs to be said in this article. In essence, 3D has had a long history of up and downs, coming into favor with audiences and film makers, and subsequently going out just as quickly. But a standard was never developed on which the industry could make a quality product at a reasonable cost, one that would give the financial rewards needed to continue innovation on a mass scale.

     

    If you are a student in the history of 3D many methods have been tried, and some progress has been made, but not to the quality we expect in today’s market. IMAX 3D has marked the most recognized Industry improvement in 3D technology but is not seen as widely distributed or profitable medium for the masses.

     

    Cameron | Pace Pushes the Envelope of 3D Technology

    The results of research and development by Cameron | Pace Group has been remarkable in creating equipment and processes, including FUSION 3D and SLATE2 SCREEN processes to give a true 3D experience, one which has resulted in a first in financial results in the same year for two blockbuster films, reaching a $ Billion in box office sales including  “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” and “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”.

     

    Techniques developed since the late 90’s have come to fruition, culminating in a product that incorporates 3D technology into film production from beginning to end in the production process, in essence shooting each scene in 3D and using post-production techniques to combine and mesh the final product into a tremendously innovative and quality product.

     

    Training for Film Makers 

    CPG offers film makers a Sandbox, or simply a playground, to test their FUSION 3D technology. As a storyteller the process involves the compliments of shooting with new technology that gives an otherwise reluctance to incorporate 3D into the next film, a view into the reasons and sensibilities in doing so from beginning to end. Most filmmakers and studios believe 3D is an expensive process and slows production time, therefore adding more costs onto ever increasing film budgets and unpredictable bottom-line profits. CPG believes the process is inexpensive and does not add additional costs to production compared to the unique results of the final product.

     

    3D Detractors

    Film critic Mark Kermode argues that 3D does not add that much of value to film, claiming that the impressive aspects of the movie Avatar had nothing to do with 3D.  Roger Ebert has continually criticized 3D film as: “too dim” (due to the polarized-light technology using only half the light for each eye), sometimes distracting or even nausea-inducing, and argues that it is an expensive technology that adds nothing of value to the movie-going experience (since 2-D movies already provide a sufficient illusion of 3D).” See (3D Film)

     

    Another criticism is that many of the movies created in the 21st century were not filmed in 3D but converted afterwards which is the main point that CPG (Cameron | Pace Group) is trying to make. The new standard for 3D should be a beginning to end process as a part of film production. The quality this adds to 3D technology and the resulting satisfaction of film viewers should be the compelling reason to adopt their new standard.

     

    Creating a compelling reason for viewers to purchase any new technology such as 3D is more of a long-term than short-term process. First, the storytelling in any 3D product must be superior; second, the quality and wow-factor for 3D productions must be achieved. It must achieve what HD and Digital seemed to have accomplished, that is, superior depth perception and ultimate screen resolution bringing the masses along with them. 3D has to satisfy a reason to want that technology.



    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story