Recently, we’ve seen more and more debate and discussion related to 3D film and the difference between a new 3D film and a more traditional 2D version. Martin Scorsese said of his new 3D film that he had to rethink how to tell stories cinematically when approaching his the film Hugo. Certainly, Alfred Hitchcock said similar things about the difference between telling a story in 3D and in 2D when he made his own 3D film.

There are cynical critics who see the current push for 3D as merely a gambit to raise ticket prices. Roger Ebert has come out so dead set against 3D that the vitriol of his remarks make me wonder if he actually has stereoscopic vision (some folks don’t). He certainly makes a number of statements that are dead wrong in terms of 3D vision and child development on top of his other comments about stereofilm.

In any case, despite the rush of some filmmakers to cash in on 3D and either do quick conversions of films made in 2D using inferior processes or to throw in all sorts of out-of-window gimmicky effects in to their films, there really are filmmakers who understand that 3D can be more immersive and that one really can tell good stories . . . but . . . the filmmaker has to understand some fundamental differences between 3D and 2D viewing experiences.

In his insightful essay Understanding the use of Stereo 3D in movies: Geography, Emotion and Dwell Time, Clyde DeSouza signposts just some of those differences and his point on Dwell Time is very well taken and worth the looksee.

– Brian