| ||||||||||
| > I was involved in a number of the 'iconic' and ERO Hubble images (2D images made into 3D); saturn, 'pillar of creation,' carina nebula to name a few. My biggest involvement was in making the model for the Orion Nebula sequence. Nice work! I'm also curious about the fact the film was made in 3D. I did some testing with 3D with my project but dropped it as most of the film involves subjects thousands to millions of miles away from the camera. I did not care for apparent size of massive objects appearing small in 3D. Avatar left most every planet/moon shot in 2D space but in Hubble 3D they obviously decided to add 3D depth. I see the advantage of giving it that dimensionality but I also hear from space outreach people that "scale" is the hardest thing for them to explain to non-scientists when discussing the universe. Did you hear any discussions about this during production? I do think it's an underappreciated aspect of 3D filmmaking that size does matter - for both realism and for creative effect. I'm wondering if some filmmakers will move to a 3D on and off for shots where human vision only perceives objects as 2D. It would be nice if glasses were active and could "open" for 2D sections (assuming brightness could be maintained). stephen van vuuren 336.202.4777 http://www.sv2studios.com/ http://www.outsideinthemovie.com/ http://www.stephenv2.me/ A film is – or should be – more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later. –Stanley Kubrick |
