Movies Rated By 3D Strength - Mild, Medium, Strong, Extreme / Parallax, Pop-Outs etc

[bavanut]

#4 THE CASUAL NEGATIVE

Pity the poor studio executives in the age of 3-D. They have learned just enough of stereo technique to be dangerous. From a hastily assembled, now half-remembered seminar a few years back, or perhaps from a dusty old book still living in a bottom drawer, they have learned one basic principle, that parallax values ought to be kept low-- less than or equal to the average human interocular, even on the very largest screens. But they have elevated this guiding principle to the status of inviolable law; they are not prepared to question it, let alone put its validity to the test.

Total screen parallax is the sum of negative parallax plus positive parallax. For the studio executive, and for the director and producer, one sure way to decrease overall parallax is to cut it in half. Where there be no off-the-screen effects, total parallax in many latter-day films ranges from zero to 65 millimeters, no more. The "deep window" 3-D that sometimes results can be very lovely, but is more often the visual equivalent of bland porridge.

We who buy movie tickets in this day and age are paying top sirloin prices, not porridge, and this current state of affairs must somehow be brought to an end.

Pity also the average moviegoer. They have never heard of Spottiswoode or Lipton or Norling or Rule. They could not tell you the difference between negative parallax and positive, and although they may vaguely remember something about Cartesian coordinates from school, they do not know from z-axis. Such things may as well be Greek.

What moviegoers do know, if ever they consciously think about it, is that in their everyday lives, their natural sense of stereo is often sharpest and most dramatic at close range-- within ten or 20 feet. And what they most certainly know is that, in most modern cinemas, they will be seated 20, 30, even 40 feet away from the screen. They will have paid an inexplicable upcharge to see films that purport to replicate the dynamic experience of two-eyed sight, but the experience is lacking: the makers pull their punches; all that action plays out not even at arm's length, but far beyond. It is no great thrill to watch either pageantry or carnage through a distant window.

Neither the studio executive nor the average moviegoer has learned something we vintage 3-D hounds sometimes take for granted: Not every off-the-screen effect has to be a silly gimmick. Paddle balls, fiery arrows, and floating beer trays all have their place, make no mistake, but it is possible to bring the action off the screen and into theater space without provoking howls of derision. And there are benefits to doing so, clear benefits to the DP and the technical crew with regards to increased parallax budget, which benefits we can explain and analyze in future installments.

For now, let me call your attention to Figure A, one of my very favorite images from the entire canon of Golden Age stereoscopic cinema, from one my very favorite 3-D films of all time, MISS SADIE THOMPSON.

Note that the action is presented on four distinct planes. In the far deep, the mountains of Hawaii. Next, a young Charles Bronson, with just a bit of positive parallax placing him inside the screen. Then, Henry Slate and the beautiful Rita Hayworth, standing in the very plane of the screen. And last of all, standing in the same room with us, just beyond our grasp, the wonderful Aldo Ray.

This is not a gimmick shot. It does not call any special attention to itself, apart from being simply gorgeous. Personal evidence, purely anecdotal, suggests that some moviegoers are not consciously aware the screen has been transgressed in this instance. But this stands as just one example of how the filmmakers of the 1950s, professionals with years of hard-won experience, were quite willing to test the limitations of the screen itself, and in so doing explore the frontiers of this remarkable new medium, the stereo cinema.

This is what I have come to call the casual negative. Perhaps we can think of a better name together.

Far point +76/1920
Near point -24/1920
Total parallax 100/1920

PLEASE NOTE: Just this once, I am breaking with my usual policy. This is a color anaglyph, not black and white. The reader is reminded that the original film is in full color, and is meant to be presented through polarizing glasses, not red and cyan. My anaglyph conversion is for illustration purposes only.