Re: How can Stereo help story?
- Well, this is a big topic. I could probably write a small novel on
this one question alone.
I'll only pick one or two of the more obvious answers...
In most movies, the story opens with a hero that is an island. That
is, their security/support is gone and they are on their own. Often,
especially in animated films, the hero is an orphan or becomes an
orphan at the start of the story. They are also missing something in
their life (which they will gain, as they evolve later in the story).
Their life is lacking something, they're failing to have the fun they
should, maybe also missing love, and their life is "flat". 3-D
cinematography should echo and accentuate this aspect of the
character's life. In much the same way as the musical soundtrack would.
Pre-production/production has a Storyboard (to script the blocking
characters & camera movements/view), Color Script, Scratch Track
(rough underlying soudtrack music), and a Key Lighting Script
(lighting evolution for story), etc. These allow the aspects of a
movie to support the emotional state of the character, and the tone of
the story. For example, a Color Script contains thumbnails (series of
tiny drawings) of each sequence, showing the color schemes used
throughout the movie. They provide tonal support, to reflect the
"depression" of the character, or their "happiness", their "greed",
"innocence", etc. So, too, a well told 3-D story would have a Depth
Script, which depicts the underlying tonal support for the characters
and story (in terms of 3-D cinematographic effect).
Because the hero's life is initially 'flat', much of Act I (the first
1/4 of the story) tends to be less deep 3-D, in order to emphasis the
lack of depth in the hero's life at the start of the story. There are
deep 'moments' in the first Act... some of those need to happen to
empasize specific story beats (blimps of shinying or theatening
moments to the hero)... but most of them will happen to other
characters (not the hero), in their scenes, to emphasize how much
deeper and more fullfilled the *other* character's lives are, in
contrast to the flat life of the hero, in Act I.
About 1/4 of the way into the story, the hero is offered a chance to
have an adventure. After (briefly) initially refusing that 'call to
adventure', the hero accepts it and leaps into the new adventure, and
often into a new world/realm to be discovered and explored. When
exposed to this adventure, their life starts to become more fulfilled,
adventurous, and "deeper". In contrast to the shallow depth used to
cinematically tell the story of the hero's lack of adventure in the
beginning... now the cinematic 3-D storytelling widens and deepens
*dramatically*, to show the vastness of the new world/realm, the
incredible scope of the adventure in front of them, and (most
importantly) the sense of openess and *freedom* that the hero feels
from their previously unremarkable, entrapped life. This is not
eye-poking 3-D, but instead DEEP 3-D (65mm positive infinity be
darned, this is a wall-eyed moment, as best as you can safely achieve
it)! This is the moment when you Wow the audience with the deepness of
a vast landscape, or other impressive, deep, behind-the-screen
expanse. This is the same 'Wow' the hero is feeling, shared by the
audience through 3-D.
Ok... well, that's the bulk of Act I, at it's coarsest overview
description, on how to use 3-D for storytelling. The only other thing
for Act I is that you should always start and end a movie with a
powerful, attention-grabbing moment. So, the first sequence of Act I
(first scene, usually 3 to 10 minutes) should be *very* 3-D...
preferably, with some out-of-screen (negative parallax) moments, and
some reasonable depth to the scene. This pulls the audience into the
story initially, so they'll stick through the rest of the relatively
shallow Act I, until it returns to being deeper and more 3-D, near the
end of Act I. (Roughly, 5 to 10 minutes of shallowness). It also
provides the contrast necessary, without which you wouldn't sense the
dullness of the hero's initial life, which is the basis of why there
is a story need, and why the character needs to change.
Wish I could go into all the details. And the rest of the 3-D story
support, but, hey... this posting is already too long, and I'm
babbling as it is. So, I'll just talk about the first 1/4 of the
story, and stop short of babble-mania. :-)
-- Brian Gardner
- On 3/2/06, vfxdoctor <brianrg@...> wrote:
> ...and their life is "flat". 3-DThe concept of contrasting visual elements in the image to emphasis
> cinematography should echo and accentuate this aspect of the
> character's life. In much the same way as the musical soundtrack would.
> Because the hero's life is initially 'flat', much of Act I (the first
> 1/4 of the story) tends to be less deep 3-D, in order to emphasis the
> lack of depth in the hero's life at the start of the story.
story elements has been used with sound and color. Early sound films
had only parts, usually musical numbers, in sound. The beginning and
ending of the Technicolor "Wizard of Oz" were monochrome (sepia), with
the main fantasy story element in full color. Likewise, it would be
possible to have part of a film flat and part in 3-D. This was tried
in Spy Kids 3-D, although not as effectively as it might have been had
more thought been given to relating it to the story elements.
> So, too, a well told 3-D story would have a DepthA dimensional script should include not only camera and lens settings,
> Script, which depicts the underlying tonal support for the characters
> and story (in terms of 3-D cinematographic effect).
but characteristics of the scene (set dressing, art design) and even
the actors (makeup, costuming) and direction (moves within the
storyline to relate to the story itself).
> ... now the cinematic 3-D storytelling widens and deepensI agree with the premise, but not the necessity to actually go
> *dramatically*, to show the vastness of the new world/realm, the
> incredible scope of the adventure in front of them, and (most
> importantly) the sense of openess and *freedom* that the hero feels
> from their previously unremarkable, entrapped life. This is not
> eye-poking 3-D, but instead DEEP 3-D (65mm positive infinity be
> darned, this is a wall-eyed moment, as best as you can safely achieve
> it)! This is the moment when you Wow the audience with the deepness of
> a vast landscape, or other impressive, deep, behind-the-screen
> expanse. This is the same 'Wow' the hero is feeling, shared by the
> audience through 3-D.
wall-eyed. Many, perhaps most people find visual divergence
uncomfortable, even painful. Others find that this unnatural
condition will actually cause the backgrounds of images to "split
apart" and be unfusable, resulting in a very disconcerting "double
flat image" effect.
If the described scene is correctly photographed (and in some cases
correctly staged), divergence is not necessary at all to convey the
impression of extreme depth. This is proven by the "wow" effect in
non-stereoscopic Cinerama when the camera-carrying aircraft crests a
mountain peak or flies over the edge of a large canyon or over a cliff
to reveal a huge expanse of scenery (accompanied by a dramatic "swell"
in the soundtrack music).
If this were done in 3-D as well, the result would be breathtaking.
3-D Cinerama has always been a wish of mine, and now with visibly
seamless computer stitching, it just might be possible.
There are two main keys (and several minor ones) to achieving this
"wow" effect without going walleyed.
The visual depth impression resulting from parallax differentiation is
a comparative one, not an absolute. If the far point is indeed
parallel, we visually interpret it to be at infinity (or as far away
as possible for a particular scene). Attempting to diverge the eyes
does NOT make it appear to be any further, it only degrades the image.
However, if the range is extended by having closer near-points, the
background appears to be further by comparison.
With great distances, even in real life, parallax differentiation
becomes progressively less, and other depth cues (see "Andrew's List")
tend to predominate. Cinerama made great use not only of peripheral
vision, but motion parallax as well, and most certainly the surround
sound soundtracks (for both music and sound effects such as traveling
foleys). With 3-D, these factors can greatly enhance the impression
> Ok... well, that's the bulk of Act I, at it's coarsest overviewAn important story-telling element is that of anticipation and
> description, on how to use 3-D for storytelling. The only other thing
> for Act I is that you should always start and end a movie with a
> powerful, attention-grabbing moment. So, the first sequence of Act I
> (first scene, usually 3 to 10 minutes) should be *very* 3-D...
> preferably, with some out-of-screen (negative parallax) moments, and
> some reasonable depth to the scene.
comparison. When you are going to have an off-the-screen impression,
it will be enhanced by several things, one of which is to have the
scene that immediately precedes it relatively flat, with little depth
With flat films, directing the audience's attention to key story
elements is often done with the limited capabilities of having to work
within the restricted realm of 2-D. Such things as camera motion and
selective focus. With 3-D, selective focus is not only unnecessary,
but usually undesirable. Instead, the depth element itself may be
used to effect this by using camera placement, motion, traveling
convergence (or, better yet, traveling lens shift) and other
techniques and combinations draw the audience into the desired story
The capabilities of stereoscopic imaging for enhancing and directing
storylines have hardly been explored yet.
- At this point, there have been several commentaries on Phil's original
question to 3dtv regarding how 3-D can help a story. These have even
split into three different threads (with similar titles, yet
differentiating just enough to result in the splits.
Regarding changing title subject lines, I would like to suggest that
this only be done when the main subject topic changes. Trying to
follow and answer different threads on the same subject gets rather
convoluted, and makes it rather difficult to assemble all of the
answers relevant to the same concept. Keep in mind that anytime the
subject line is changed, a new thread is automatically started. This
is good when the topic actually changes, but not helpful for a
continuation of the same topic.
Regarding Phil's original question, do you feel that it has been
adequately answered, Phil, or would you like to see further
commentary? Anyone else like for more expansion on this very
- --- In email@example.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
> Likewise, it would beI definately was NOT suggesting this. I'm more talking about using the
> possible to have part of a film flat and part in 3-D.
contrast of controlled depth versus deep depth, to support the story
and character's emotional contrasts.
Think of this more like using muted colors during depressing scenes
versus vibrant colors during happy scenes. The idea is to use depth to
create a claustrophobic atmosphere versus a magnificently vast atmosphere.
- On 3/3/06, vfxdoctor <brianrg@...> wrote:
> I'm more talking about using theSo, would this be like conveying an upbeat finale by having the hero
> contrast of controlled depth versus deep depth, to support the story
> and character's emotional contrasts.
> Think of this more like using muted colors during depressing scenes
> versus vibrant colors during happy scenes. The idea is to use depth to
> create a claustrophobic atmosphere versus a magnificently vast atmosphere.
ride off in the sunset in a magnificently vast atmosphere, while
earlier shots would be more confining by showing only a half-vast
atmosphere? Many current flat movies seem to be rather half-vast.
>Think of this more like using muted colors during depressing scenesThis is an excelent idea !!! This will teach people to be depresed from standard 2D movies !
>versus vibrant colors during happy scenes. The idea is to use depth to
>create a claustrophobic atmosphere versus a magnificently vast atmosphere.
2D scene - the live is flat and bad ...
3D scene - this is the true live !!!!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: "vfxdoctor" <brianrg@...>Could one use focus too? Could there be a "focus script"? You know, the
>"innocence", etc. So, too, a well told 3-D story would have a Depth
>Script, which depicts the underlying tonal support for the characters
>and story (in terms of 3-D cinematographic effect).
hero lacks focus (in his life) in the first 1/4 of the story, Act I, and
later on one could bring the story into focus. You'd want to start the
> From: "J R" <stereoscope3d@...>...
>[directing audience] With 3-D, selective focus is not only unnecessary,Bob Bloomberg's slideshow on Tuscany did a really wonderful job, in a few
>but usually undesirable. Instead, the depth element itself may be
>used to effect this by using camera placement, motion, traveling
of the dissolves, of directing the audience attention using compositional
elements. This minimized eyestrain going from one slide/scene to the next.
But this is not an example of how 3d _supports_ storytelling. It is an
example of how one can make 3d more _tolerable_, i.e. less obtrusive and
stressful. What is perceived as a potential extra axis (or extra
dimension) for creativity is the thing that makes 3d images take a lot more
time for the mind's eye to digest, and this factor alone makes them
unsuitable to story telling - generally. There will always be exceptions
on the margin, of course.
>This is true, and so I am intrigued if this discussion - this exploration -
>The capabilities of stereoscopic imaging for enhancing and directing
>storylines have hardly been explored yet.
will find any such capabilities. So far I haven't seen any evidence.
>their premise of being excellent story-telling vehicles. But, thisI appreciate the examples, but I'd like the discussion to remain more
>does not mean that they cannot be. Some of them, such as "House of
>Wax" "I, the Jury", "Second Chance", "The Glass Web", "Inferno", "Kiss
>Me Kate", and "Dial M for Murder" while not living up to their
>potential, nevertheless point to directions that this could and should
>take. Once someone who is both a great story-teller and yet fully
>understanding of 3-D does a production, the importance of 3-D to the
>story will be realized.
theoretical. I think we are getting off track. I don't understand how
_theoretically_ a story telling can be enhanced by 3d. To restate my
1. storytelling depends on characters and their actions.
2. enhancements (e.g. in evoking mood) can be made with color, sound, etc.
but these come at NO COST to the audience.
3. 3d is costly in terms of human factors (for the simplest example: 15% of
your audience are not stereoviewers). It is hard on the eyes. There is
NO WAY around this, I believe (you can always minimize parallax, but then
this begs the question).
thus my question becomes:
4. where in the problem of story-telling is the solution of 3d worth the cost?
(Keep in mind please, I am not dismissing the usefulness of 3d motion
pictures. I am addressing the original question, "how can 3d support
storytelling?" It's a good question, because many motion pictures made,
are made to tell a story.)
resolved for 2006: absolutely no email reading before 9AM!
©2006 Boris Starosta Stereoscopic Art + 3d Photography
absolute web contact via <http://public.xdi.org/=starosta>
Co-ordinates: 38 deg 3 min 23 sec N 78 deg 29 min 45 sec W
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
> ...I think we agree to disagree on this.
> I agree with the premise, but not the necessity to actually go
> wall-eyed. Many, perhaps most people find visual divergence
> uncomfortable, even painful. Others find that this unnatural
> condition will actually cause the backgrounds of images to "split
> apart" and be unfusable, resulting in a very disconcerting "double
> flat image" effect.
I went to the local IMAX 3-D theater to watch 'Wild Safari 3D' the
other day (with Phil/'Deepa'), and we were surprised that many of the
best moments in the film had extreme positive parallax. We flipped
up/off our glasses periodically. One scene that I particularly liked
had a positive parallax of about 3 feet (yes, 3 'feet'). I could be
wrong, maybe it was only 2.5 feet... it was big, though. And neither
of us (nor the family behind us) had any trouble fusing it.
I've never bought in to the 65mm positive parallax limit. My view is
that I'm not simulating reality, I'm making art. There are rules that
I need to abide by, and rules that I can break. I also don't believe
in absolutes very often. I believe that within limits, for a limited
amount of time, I am free to break the 65mm rule, as long as I know
what I'm doing. Obviously, going too far will create unfusable double
images, but I have enough common sense and visual feedback to not do
A real person's life can take 80 years to live, but as an artist in
film, I can portray a biography of their life in 120 minutes. I'm not
limited by reality of time. I don't need to make a 80 year long movie.
Their life wont be accurate in 120 mins, it'll be distorted. But, how
it is distorted is what makes it art. And controlling that editing
process is the difference between a great biographic film, and a poor one.
I feel the same way about stereoscopic parameters. The interaxial,
amount of positive parallax, image shift, and angle of the camera
backplane are all 'creative' controls to me. I know that there are a
lot of people chanting the 65mm positive parallax limit mantra. I may
stand alone in defiance on this one.
Hopefuly, I won't have to eat these words later. :-O
> 3-D Cinerama has always been a wish of mine, and now with visiblyWe should looking into geting together an doing this as a personal
> seamless computer stitching, it just might be possible.
project. Maybe start with a simple short? I wonder if the Pacific
Cinerama Dome in Hollywood is set up for 3-D on their cinerama
screens? It'd be one hect of a festival entry!
> An important story-telling element is that of anticipation andYes, this is what I'm alluding to. Start the film deep and
> comparison. When you are going to have an off-the-screen impression,
> it will be enhanced by several things, one of which is to have the
> scene that immediately precedes it relatively flat, with little depth
attention-grabbing...then contrast it with shallow depth and confined
to emphasize hero's adventureless/loveless life...then contrast it
again with deep and vast 3-D to emphasize the excitement and freedom
that comes with the start of the adventure.
> The capabilities of stereoscopic imaging for enhancing and directingVery true. I think that is our duty. The time seems right for this.
> storylines have hardly been explored yet.
We just need to seize the moment, before the money-men use 3-D to sell
tickets to badly made movies and sour the audience. I wish I had the
position and money to just hire all the best and most enthusiastic 3-D
experimentalists into a studio (or form a new studio) and make a
top-notch think-tank for developing 3-D content.
- --- In email@example.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
> Many current flat movies seem to be rather half-vast.Hah!! :-) lol
This had me falling off the chair laughing.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, boris@... wrote:
> Could one use focus too? Could there be a "focus script"? Youknow, the
> hero lacks focus (in his life) in the first 1/4 of the story, Act I, andCertainly this was done recently, on an allergy medication commercial,
> later on one could bring the story into focus. You'd want to start the
> very beginning
which is playing currently on TV. The hero starts their journey all
congested, dulled, and unenergetic, presented by the hero being
de-focused as they walked through a background that is sharply
in-focus. After the hero is introduced to the allergy medication, they
are free to live a clear-headed life... which is represented by the
hero coming into sharp focus.
Usually, camera scripts starts with a Storyboard. Focus notes first
appear there. Although, it's not specifically called a 'Focus Script',
focus is initially scripted there.
Don't know if had intended your comment as sarcasm. But, the
entertainment industry is strange enough, that even sarcastic ideas
have been done before. :-)
- On 3/3/06, vfxdoctor <brianrg@...> wrote:
> I went to the local IMAX 3-D theater to watch 'Wild Safari 3D' theSo??? What was your viewing distance? Parallax takes into
> other day (with Phil/'Deepa'), and we were surprised that many of the
> best moments in the film had extreme positive parallax. We flipped
> up/off our glasses periodically. One scene that I particularly liked
> had a positive parallax of about 3 feet (yes, 3 'feet'). I could be
> wrong, maybe it was only 2.5 feet... it was big, though. And neither
> of us (nor the family behind us) had any trouble fusing it.
consideration the angle of view and the resulting lateral displacement
at the eyes. Therefore, it is a function of not only the actual
linear lateral displacement at the screen, but the distance of the
screen as well. Let's say there was a positive displacement of 3
feet on the screen. Obviously, you would not be able to fuse that
from, say, a viewing distance of 3 feet. Doesn't matter. No one
views an IMAX movie from that close. Even the front row is usually
over 50 feet away. The further you get from the screen, the smaller
the angular displacement will be, and the closer it will approach
parallel sight-lines. Even if the screen is 200 feet away, it is
closer than infinity, and therefore the eyes will be very slightly
converging to fuse a point on the screen that is at zero parallax (no
displacement). Thus you can safely go out to 65mm with NO divergence
whatsoever. At normal viewing distances, a 3 ft. displacement will
not cause more than a very slight amount of divergence, considerably
less than if you were to try to "parallel" (a misnomer) freeview a
stereo card with a 3-1/2 inch base.
The point is, that there is no need to force divergence at all. A
point on the screen that has a 3 foot positive parallax will not
appear to be significantly, if any, further away than a 65mm (approx.
2-1/2 inch) parallax from normal viewing distances. Extending
divergence past parallel has no advantage, so why do it and risk
problems for people who are sitting closer?
- --- In email@example.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
> Regarding Phil's original question, do you feel that it has beenThis has been a great discussion. Confirming and adding to many ideas I was thinking
> adequately answered, Phil, or would you like to see further
about and compiling into my own notes on how to get the most out of 3D for my
future projects. Now it all comes down to time, interest and budget from everyone
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Husak Michal" <husakm@...> wrote:
> This is an excelent idea !!! This will teach people to be depresed from standard 2Dmovies !
Ha that is the best comment so far. ;-)
--- In email@example.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
> divergence past parallel has no advantage, so why do it and risk
> problems for people who are sitting closer?
Thats something to test. Does it seem deeper?
- On 3/4/06, Deepa <stereo@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:In real life, we never encounter visual objects past infinity
> > divergence past parallel has no advantage, so why do it and risk
> > problems for people who are sitting closer?
> > JR
> Thats something to test. Does it seem deeper?
(parallel sightlines). When observing celestial objects such as the
moon and stars, there is insufficient visual stereo acuteness
capability to visually differentiate distances between a relatively
close (in astronomical terms) object, our moon, and the stars which
are light-years away. Even a high-flying aircraft in our own
atmosphere will appear visually to be as far as our moon, a distance
difference of about two hundred thousand miles.
I recall one night when a flock of geese passed in front of the disc
of the moon. To be visually resolved, the geese would have had to be
only a few hundred feet away. Yet, a friend who happened to be with
me at the time made the comment that they appeared to be "swimming
across the face of the moon". Objects that are at such distances
that the eyes approach very closely the parallel sightline condition,
are way too far away for the unaided stereo base of the human eyes to
vary the distance assumption based on stereoscopic vision alone.
However, testing is a very good idea. It would be useful for people
making stereo images to know how much divergence is tolerable for
Such a test would, however, be rather difficult. There are at least
three, possibly four criteria, of which only the first (and least
critical) would be relatively easy to test. Even then, it would be
necessary to test several hundred people to make sure that the results
were reasonably statistically valid. It would also be desirable to
differentiate between people who had never seen stereoscopic 3-D
before and those who had considerable stereoscopic image viewing
experience. Differentiating by age groups, and possibly other
factors (such as frequent near-vision situations like reading or
computer screen viewing much of the time) might be useful.
The first criterion would be that of determining at what points both
divergence and extreme convergence could be visually detected or
"felt" by the individual, in terms of first feeling the lateral pull
of the eye muscles in response to this visual stimulus. It might also
be desirable to determine (both as a separate test and combined) how
much vertical disparity was tolerable.
The second criterion would be the pain threshold. And the third
would be the amount of time (both for one exposure, and cumulative,
over say a two hour period) that this would be tolerable.
A possible fourth might be testable, but with difficulty. This would
be headaches that were a result. The possible variables here are
numerous, and many people, after viewing a 3-D movie, have reported to
me (as voluntary comments) that the onset of these headaches was some
time, often hours, after the viewing experience, although a very few
did say they experienced "instant" headaches. It is likely that some
people are much more susceptible than others, such as people who are
prone to suffer migraines.
In any case, the real question would be who would be willing to
underwrite the cost of such testing. People usually expect to be
paid to participate in "focus groups".
Any thoughts or comments? I am ready to conduct such a test, as soon
as the money (including my being paid for putting together and
conducting the test, or series of tests) is available...
- To vfxdoctor, yes my suggestion of a focus script was sarcastic (even if
cut-off by my own email bungling), but I appreciate your reference to
current uses of focus in video illustration (also I admit to my own
_serious_ interest in defocus or blurring as a compositional device in 3d).
In nominal support of my thesis, the substance of most of the responses in
this thread has been about technical human factors issues, and to a lesser
extent, how stereo will enhance the "experience" of a scene.
For example, can divergence be tolerated by your audience if you want to
show great "vast" depth, or even, does overly positive parallax (i.e.
divergence) create a "deeper" sensation than a well composed shot kept
within traditional limits?
I don't see how these things have anything to do with storytelling. Again,
I believe storytelling is about characters (i.e. script and dialogue) and
their actions. The rest is icing on the cake. (Granted, lots of people
going to the theater, go for the icing. That's why there's so much
interest in 3d currently).
To my mind, the original question has not yet been addressed (except for my
own half-vast response, if you will.).
- --- In email@example.com, boris@... wrote:
> In nominal support of my thesis, the substance of most of theresponses in
> this thread has been about technical human factors issues, and to alesser
> extent, how stereo will enhance the "experience" of a scene.Again,
> I don't see how these things have anything to do with storytelling.
> I believe storytelling is about characters (i.e. script anddialogue) and
> their actions. ...I, too, was quite surprised by the lack of answers to the actual
question. There were a lot of responses to the realism and Wow-factor
of 3-D. And a few 3-D vs 2-D comparisons of advantages. But, not many
response about actual 'storytelling'. ... But I differ with you a bit,
in that I think (while going a bit a stray) the discussion did address
some aspects of using 3-D to help tell a story.
I suppose asking the question, "How can 2-D be used for storytelling?"
might have had a similar omni-directional response.
I think that it's a lot easier to say how 2-D or 3-D can be applied to
*this* (specify a story here) story, than it is to give a generic
answer. I tried to respond with an example of a generic application of
using 3-D for telling Act I of 'the hero's journey' (a generic story
formula), in the same way that the music soundtrack, set and costume
colors, and camera focus are used to tell the story... by supporting
the character's emotionals/state, channeling the audience's attention,
or accenting plot points of the story. But the generic question could
only get a generic response.
I think any technical aspect of storytelling in film is about
*supporting* either the underlying emotional current of the scene, or
about echoing the inner emotional state of the character, or
controling/focusing the audiences' attention and point of view. The
medium doesn't *make* the story, it only 'conveys' it. In that
context, you can use the aspect of the 2-D medium to echo, support, or
compell characters or story plot points. And you can use the 3-D
medium in the same way. You use the medium to bring out aspects of the
existing story, but 3-D (or 2-D) doesn't 'create' the story.... it
helps 'tell' the existing story better.
To some extent enhancing the 'experience' of the scene *IS* 3-D
story-TELLING.... which is pretty much on-topic.
I consider the stereo camera placement, toe-in/parallelism, and
interaxial combo as a tool that controls whether the audiences has an
objective vs subjective view of the scene. Also... I equate the
interaxial to the amplitude of the musical soundtrack. I equate
negative parallax to a rack-focus, for extreme directing of the
audience's attention. I mean this loosely, in the sense of their
similarity of use for storytelling purposes. But, I definately think
of these as storytelling tools, in that they are controling the
'telling' of the story... hopefully to make a more powerfully told
story, than had it been told in just 2-D.