Multimedia
Newsletters
Blogs
Whitepapers
Events
DCP Directory
Mill Directory
Edit Calendar
Advertisers
Reader SurveyEditor's Notes
Jul 1, 2007 11:58 AM, By Cynthia Wisehart
I'm a 3D skeptic, but I'm willing to be proven wrong this time. I'm probably poorly equipped to judge the latest stereoscopic resurgence due to 20 years of exposure to 3D film production for world's fairs and theme parks. I've seen some of the most extraordinary 3D films ever made — films most people have never heard of and probably never will. And that's my point. Artful stereoscopic filmmaking has yet to converge with populist storytelling. So to me it remains an artform in search of a business model.
At least now it's no longer an artform in search of investment. James Cameron alone took care of that in his partnership with Vince Pace. But now DreamWorks has asserted a 3D policy, and 3D technology veteran Steve Schklair and his band of believers occupy a posh office in Burbank, Calif., after riding the ups and downs of 3D in a personal and unwavering way. His partners at 3ality debuted 55 minutes of U2 3D at Cannes. That footage will go wide, likely this year. Those who've seen the footage say it's pretty remarkable. Its pedigree is the renegade creativity of off-the-grid 3D filmmaking, not the quaint studio efforts of the past.
In other signs of commercial life, Insight Media will put on a3D BizEx conference and expo in San Francisco next month. And enterprising technology companies are offering pricey custom rental systems (Pace, 21st Century 3D, Stereomedia, Dimension 3, Vision III) and entry-level software (Philips' WOWvx Compositor).
Maybe stereoscopic 3D will thrive in our multi-platform world where media is distributed and redistributed. But 3D is also a double-edged element in that culture. On the one hand, it may benefit from the digital repurposing marketplace where movies are no longer presented as singular, precious events; a 3D version of something is just another version; economically it's less of a stretch, especially when digital presentation removes the cost of striking two-eye film prints. But 3D is also supposed to be a tonic to the remix/repurpose trend by capturing the event-based luster that used to anoint the out-of-home theater-going experience.
This month's issue focuses on restoration (p.8), which is in a similarly curious position. “Restoration” implies preservation, renewed glory, and reverence for the intent and lexicon of film. But the repurposing marketplace is what makes it more financially viable. Blade Runner, for example, was ahead of that curve by decades; now it's back at it in a full-fledged realization of the potential of versioning plus marketing. I don't mean that cynically. I think it's smart and fun.
Restoration and stereoscopic filmmaking both have an old-fashioned feel, but both are newly viable for very modern reasons. The restoration adventure stories in this issue are not just about flashback, but about renewal and about the true arc and shelf life of what we've come to call assets and the uneasy opportunities that go with that.
