As most of you are aware, over the past year or so 3D has become the biggest news to hit movie making and photography. 3D movie making has become the norm with many directors embracing it with open arms, it also appears most of the general public are intrigued by it too. I remember seeing Avatar in 3D, this was the first movie I had ever seen in 3D and I must admit it was impressive. But was it so impressive that I long too see every movie and television program made in 3D instead of 2D??? No, I don’t!
As the viewer, 3D gives a more true to life impression of the world. You actually feel as if the movie you are watching is happening in the same room as you, which is obviously different to the 2D effect where you feel separated from the movie itself. But at the same time, I don’t always feel compelled to be part of the movie itself. I actually sometimes quite enjoy having the feeling of the ‘spy’, spying in on a world that I play no part in. That is part of the magic for me when watching a film, that special mix between involvement and separation that 2D gives you. I do enjoy the complete feeling of involvement 3D provides me with though, so I hope both forms of Movie making will continue to co exist in the future.
3D is a great development in movie making and I look forward to seeing where it will continue to head, I wonder if one day they will make 3D movies without needing the glasses? This to me is another slight downfall of 3D movie making and to be honest, I do not particularly wish to put silly sunglasses on every time I switch the TV on or go to the cinema.
This brings me on to still image photography, 3D is now being hyped up as the future of the Still image? Again, I am intrigued to try it and to see the results I can produce using this technology as I always embrace trying new things. Do I think it will replace the 2D image as my photography weapon of choice? NO. Panasonic and Fuji are clearly setting there sights though on converting people to 3D.
When I began to fall in love with photography, I fell in love with the 2D still image and will continue to feel extremely passionate about this medium.. Photographs to me are paintings created with a camera and I don’t feel 3D will recreate this form of art. (The same goes for Video, I feel video has it’s place. But will it replace still images.. not in my mind, I love the 2D still image!)
This remains an interesting debate, remember when pro photographers turned their noses up at digital photography? And stated in no uncertain terms that ‘digital would never replace film!’. Well look at the world now, due to the faster turnaround times and more time constraints in professional photography (due to digital becoming the norm). Digital has become the only route for the top Pro photographers, despite the fact that film arguably produces better results. Digital is just too darn convenient to go back to the times of waiting a day to have your film developed
I wonder if the 3D vs 2D debate is the same? Maybe a lot of people bemoaning 3D are people that simply don’t like change, perhaps 3D will take over from 2D completely in the future. All I can say is, 3D will never replace 2D in my world. I may end up using both formats but I will never lose my love for the 2D Still image. Which side of the debate are you on?