To be completed by Wednesday 11th February
Meet with your partner(s) (see below) to critically analyse stereoscopic vision and 3D sound. Choose a Stereoscopic 3D film that you have all experienced in 3D. You need to critically analyse the sound design/soundtrack/sound effects, edits and cuts, scenes and narrative structure, use of negative and positive parallax, etc. When you meet, try to discuss some of the questions listed below. After your discussion, you will write in pairs/trios a 200 words max. article about this 3D film and post it in the allocated page.
Which 3D environments depicted in the film worked best? Which elements did not, visually or sonically speaking, work well? Why? Which aural / visual elements were not immersive? Why do you think these elements did not fully convey the experience of threedimensionality? What was missing if you compare them to elements that worked well? What was the most immersive part of the film? What part felt like the most naturalistic? Why? What sort of effects were used then? Which parts were mostly CGI or synthesised/digitally produced? How did they differ from naturalistic sounds and visuals? Could you tell the difference? Which visuals and sounds seemed to be best suited to convey emotional responses? Did you notice any changes in the depths and qualities of the spaces (sonic or visual) that the film was creating for the characters and the environment to develop in?
Film exploration: pair 1 (names TBC)
Film exploration: trio 3 (names TBC)
EDIT after this —————————————————————————————
Review of Jupiter Ascending IMAX 3D
Prior to watching the film I had heard from both friends and critics that the film was visually impressive yet lacking in the performances and direction. Obviously for this critique it is primarily the visual we are analysing, although 3d may also bring about effect on perception of the performances.
Watching the film it became apparent that it was a 3d stereoscopic conversion, it was lacking gradual depth of field within the image. Meaning that the foreground, middle ground and background at times felt very distinct. It showed the images almost like paper puppets appearing at staggered depths, with the figures themselves appearing 2d leaving only the empty space between the foreground, middle ground and background as the demonstration of 3d. Given the nature of this (action/sci-fi) there are many fast action sequences which don’t translate to 3d all that well, it confuses the eye and becomes hard to follow. Given all those criticisms there were moments that the 3d worked well. Where scenes had an element that connected the foreground to the background, such as a table or corridor the 3d felt fuller. It was notable that the occurrences were limited. There were scenes that had C.G.I. space crafts moving which with the panning sound and 3d produced an imposing sight and sensation.