Via slashdot I found an article, one of many, panning 3D TV. Of course I can understand the widespread disdain for the technology, as I've previously alluded it is used today as a gimmick. In many ways its current implementation, no matter how advanced the underlying technology (such as IMAX and realD), is no better than the use of the red-and-green '3D' of old.
But I've had a taste of what it can really do. I refer, as I have before, to watching an IMAX film in the science museum that took us to space. One of the aspects that has stuck with me ever since was the reality of the faces on that screen.
I don't care about seeing launch debris race toward me. I am aware that placing my hand in the astronaut's glove was essentially a gimmick. But those faces were important.
When I look at the face of someone standing in front of me I can see the prominence of their nose, the rise of their cheekbones, their brow ridge and socketed eyes. When I looked at the face of an astronaut in that film I could see all of those details.
These are not the shadow plays of old or the paper dolls seen in poorly made modern 3D. These are not dioramic layers or retro magic eye pictures. These are true, deep, rich stereoscopic images.
Enough evangelism, what matters is what this can be used for. I believe that properly produced 3D content could be important for both education and art, two of the most important measures of any culture.
Education begins as soon as we are born, if not sooner. Early in life, once vision has sharpened enough, visual information can be as important as aural and tactile tuition. I recall when my first nephew was younger, watching television programmes and videos made for infants.
Many of these used puppets; these were often brightly coloured with clear, bold shapes and set against a black background. If I remember rightly, from my sisters explanation of her research, this was because young children respond better to visibly real objects (puppets) and greater clarity (contrast, brightness). This was all, of course, on a 2D screen, but consider the advantages offered by 3D.
Those puppets would then appear to really be there, to be tangible objects with real geometry, helping a child's brain to process deeper visual input. They need not use the gimmickry of projecting toward the infant's head, rather they would be better rendered as though on the far side of the screen to complete the illusion. I feel sure that this would have benefit.
Then consider the continued education of growing children. I recall when I was young, being fascinated by images of a kingfisher with its colourful plumage and undeniable grace. How much richer would such an experience and memory be, had I been able to see that bird in its full, three-dimensional form?
By presenting to our children images of such detail we could help them to learn about nature, its structures and wonder. It could have potential for the teaching of geometry, of chemical structures, architecture and more. We could show them great sculptures from around the world.
This leads me to my other point, that of art. If we wish to introduce our children, or ourselves, to great sculpture we must travel for hours to view them. Of course, viewing such works in person will always be the best way, but many people have not the time nor other resources to take these trips. We could at least better see them in our home than today.
But television today relatively seldom shows us paintings. Rather, the medium lends itself to a different sort of art, a modernisation of the traditional theatre play. Players strut and fret their hour upon the stage behind that screen, the camera able to show us nuances of performance that had never been visible to a theatre audience. How much richer might that become, should they appear to stand before us?
Of course the medium would take some time to come to terms with its new aspect. Film makers would have to learn that such depth of view should be as natural an aspect of their work as colour and sound are today. But once this state is reached, what art may be produced!
I must admit that today's detractors rightly point out the primitive implementation of 3D displays today — the need for glasses, the poor image quality, such issues as these — but in time these limitations will be overcome. Once they are, how rich might the medium become.
No comments:
Post a Comment