[ad_1]
The concept of three-dimensional images has been around since the 1800s, but the 1980s saw a revival of the concept in mainstream cinema. Unfortunately, this enthusiasm to offer a unique moviegoing experience was not backed by state-of-the-art 3D systems that could smoothly translate 2D action sequences into convincing 3D shots. Take “Amityville 3-D” as an example: moviegoers were given polarized lenses for an enhanced experience, but the lenses were a total mismatch for the film, as they made it look skewed and distorted on screen. The same can be said about “Jaws 3-D” — all you have to do is watch this scene, and imagine how gimmicky it must have felt for those who watched it in 3D.
Miner spoke to Fangoria about the issues that come with 3D technology in the horror magazine’s 21st issue. The director explained the 3D systems were “all difficult” to navigate, so the only option was to choose a system that posed the least amount of problems during production. He said:
“There’s no state of the art where 3-D is concerned because all the systems are from backyard inventors who are piecing them together. We felt that the Marks system would give us the least problems during production, and would actually be the easiest to use, and I don’t think that was the wrong decision. I think It worked out very well.”
Although the 3D effects in “Part III” are not atrocious by any means, it does little to enhance the atmosphere or visuals in any way. Miner acknowledges this by adding that a “really good 3-D system [is] yet to be invented” and that he would have liked to apply the technical know-how in a better way in the future.
[ad_2]
Source link