3D Isn't Really 3D

Recently I bought a new cell phone with "3D" capability, the HTC EVO 3D. By "3D", the manufacturer means that the phone takes and displays two sets of images and videos instead of one. This allows one image for each eye.

Of course, there's nothing 3-D about any of this, it's just old-fashioned stereo photography. When I was a kid we were doing this, and movie-goers from the 1950s watched stereographic movies with those dorky red and green glasses. We've been there, done that.

My friend, who studied film in college, hates 3D movies. To him, it's a solution looking for a problem. The use of 3D leads to crap on the screen. It's gimmicky and it can even hurt your eyes.

And that's not all: the cell phone itself got bad reviews, mostly along the same lines of "gimmicky."

So why did I get one anyway?

Because, as I predicted, I've been having a blast with stereographic photos and movies. At first you do all sorts of hokey things, like having somebody stick a knife "out" at the viewer, or taking movies of stupid things (I have a wonderful 3D video of bananas) but then reality sets in: there's more to this than gimmick, this is truly a new art form.

And I think that's what the problem is for fans of traditional movies and photographs: the stereographic format is not "3D", but it's also not the old flat 2D art form. It's somewhere in-between. So you can't judge it by the old standards, but you also can't judge it by the way we actually see 3D objects, either. Somebody said it was like when black-and-white media changed to color, and that's mostly true. I think it might be more like adding one color, though. Is red cool? Sure. Can you have too much red for a certain scene? Most definitely.

Meanwhile, I'm finding some interesting things, like "a little bit will go very far," or "color, contrast, composition, and depth all interact in new ways" Some things I'm not sure of, like "does the 1/3rds rule of photograph composition holds as far as depth as well?" I'm struggling with how to expose two images that may have different views -- do our eyes focus and adjust to light identically? Or does each eye respond on it's own? What's the appropriate distance between each lens? Can you vary it wildly, or does a very narrow range work best most all of the time? How much difference in depth works with various subjects? Various lighting conditions? How do you handle when parts of one image over-expose but not the other? How about depth-of-field for each view?

I really wish we had 3D, like the famous Princess Leia hologram in Star Wars, but the only way that's happening that I can see right now is through the use of large rotating drums and lasers. (Which means it isn't happening any time soon.) Until that day comes, this is fun. I like having extra data as part of the media I record. I like having a new art form to explore. Even with all the work that's been done over the decades, stereographic art seems an open field, at least to me. For the first time, I'm thinking about the benefits of purchasing a 3-D TV.

It also makes me want to look into prosumer equipment -- something like a 35mm SLR except for stereo work. Fortunately, YouTube will let you shoot 3D from two different sources, say a couple of flipcams taped together, and then it will join it for you automagically. You could probably rig up something with a couple of Nikon SLRS, but you'd have to build the rig, and I think the horizontal offset would be too large. Still, might be worth playing around with.

As programmers and hackers, we're used to blurring the line between new technology and new art. To many of us, programming _is_ an art, after all. To many of us, it's art in the sense of being the skilled, predictable work of a craftsman. This is very similar to the attitudes taken by movie directors, I imagine. So this is fun in the same way a craftsman thinks of a new tool as fun, which I've found can be a much more satisfying and lasting kind of fun than other kinds.

I just wish they'd drop that idiotic "3D" name.