Author: Stephanie Liou

Golden Globe film of the year, top-grossing movie of all time, conversation piece at every dinner table – “Avatar” isn’t just huge, it’s a veritable 3D phenomenon. And now that 3D technology is at the forefront of public awareness, could it be that “Avatar” is only the beginning of a major technological revolution?

Aside from boasting star power in alumnus Sigourney Weaver ‘72, “Avatar” is no exception to Stanford’s proud tradition of innovation in both the artistic and technical aspects of film.

Students and staff, whether personally involved or not, have strong opinions about the film and the future. Many were receptive to the film’s new and improved technology.

“I found Avatar’s use of 3D surprisingly understated and very effective,” said Tiffany Li ’13. “You could tell it was intended from the very beginning to be 3D, as opposed to earlier efforts which were essentially 2D films with occasional monsters or flying objects launching themselves at the audience.”

Film buff Peri Unver ’13, who has written for The Daily, gushed about the amazing visual experience.

“The cinematography was beautiful; it felt like you were actually in the beautiful forests and on the floating mountains of Pandora,” she said.

Film and Media Studies professor Scott Bukatman was similarly impressed with the aesthetically pleasing components in “Avatar”.
“‘Avatar’ was astounding – at least for the first hour,” he said. “I felt literally immersed in an environment, almost as though I was underwater. It was practically hallucinatory.”

However, he was also quick to point out some of the flaws of the 3D experience as it exists today.

“I have to say that I think it’s a bit less interactive – you’re kind of forced to sit with your head at a level angle, staring straight ahead,” Bukatman said. “I rarely talk to my partner – it’s even harder to eat Goobers.”

Indeed, 3D is by no means a new technology, but one that has been continually criticized and subsequently expanded for decades.

“Four years ago in 2006, Cameron was delaying ‘Avatar,’ waiting for technology to develop,” revealed Computer Science Professor Ron Fedkiw, who received an Academy Award in 2008 for his work with fluid simulations and other technological breakthroughs. His work has been featured in films including “Poseidon,” “Star Wars III,” “Terminator 3” and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Harry Potter” series. He also consulted for some of the technical aspects involved in “Avatar.”

“So while ‘Avatar’ is a beautiful digital film, with 3D technology and great performance motion capture, these technological advances are only incremental on top of the pre-existing work,” he explained. “[The movie’s] real contribution to filmmaking is the ‘virtual camera’ they designed for making the film – that allows one to see CG (computer generated) elements along with the footage being shot.”

Fedkiw is confident that 3D technology will become increasingly prominent not just in film, but in video games and even home entertainment.

“‘Spy Kids 3D’ shipped glasses in the DVD, [and] this phenomena will only increase with time.”

Timing, though, is always an issue.

“My guess is that it is going to be a niche technology – although an important niche – for a fair amount of time,” said Electrical Engineering professor Thomas Lee. “The need to wear glasses is enough of a bother by itself to inhibit widespread adoption of the technology in the home. On top of that, home 3D equipment will be expensive, and the limited availability of 3D titles for quite some time will further constrain the rate of adoption.”

Dr. Henry Lowood, Curator for History of Science & Technology Collections, agreed.

“I am skeptical about the current push to move 3D televisions into the home,” he said. “I think there are some fundamental bottlenecks with regard to content and demand, partly because so many people have recently invested in large LCD or plasma sets, and partly because it is not entirely clear to me what people would do with these sets today.”

It seems that corporations are not interested in waiting, however. At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) held earlier this month in Las Vegas, 3D was the buzzword and everything from myriad types of 3D televisions to camcorders and Blu-Ray discs were introduced and promoted. ESPN has plans to broadcast the World Cup in 3D this summer, and will branch out into other sports soon after.

Yet many who have had negative experiences with 3D films in the past still remain wary of the genre in general.

“I like 3D movies less than normal movies,” said Ryan Staatz ‘11. “I find the forced perspective annoying when I want to focus on other parts of the screen.”

Hillary Lin ‘10 was even more unforgiving.

“I saw [Avatar] in 3D, and it gave me an eyestrain for the rest of the day,” she said. “I think 3D movies need a huge improvement before I’m going to go see any more of them.”

Brendan Weinstein ‘13 felt that the 3D effects in Avatar were “less obnoxious and more subtle than in other films,” but still found the glasses an irritating detraction from the viewing experience.

So is 3D here to stay or merely a fleeting phenomenon?

“I appreciate the use of 3D technology when it actually adds something to the movie and isn’t just a flashy novelty that production companies want to show off,” said Eileen Wright ’13. “But I don’t think 3D movies or TV will appeal to most people… until they get rid of those dorky glasses.”

And, as Freshman-Sophomore College Director Dr. Andrew Dimock observed, “There was a lot more emotional truth and weight in five minutes of George Frederickson’s grief in ‘UP’ than in two-and-a-half hours of ‘Avatar.’”

Somewhere in the middle of complaining about Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM) and watching a meteor shower with friends at 2 a.m., Stanford became home. But at the same time that all 1,700 bright-eyed freshmen arrived on campus and were learning how to navigate its perilous bike roundabouts and newfound freedoms, the small but mighty transfer class of ‘13 was also settling in, experiencing a new–albeit different–transitional process of their own.

Making it through the steep 1.9 percent transfer admit rate, these transfer students now call Stanford home after stints at other universities. So how does Stanford compare to their past schools? All the transfers agreed that the caliber of academics was the main thing that attracted them to Stanford, but the Farm’s unique campus and entrepreneurial life were also draws.

“I was also admitted to four other top schools besides Stanford, but specifically chose Stanford,” said Ravshan Abzalov ‘11, who transferred from Drexel University. “I think that Stanford is a unique university and differs much from its east coast peers.” Abzalov said that Stanford’s “entrepreneurial and innovative environment” and “inspiring campus” have measured up to his initial expectations and he has enjoyed the challenging classes, dorm life and his involvement with Alpha Kappa Psi immensely.

Rebekah Silva ‘11, a transfer from Riverside Community College, agreed.

“I was admitted to several schools as a transfer student, but Stanford was my first choice for many reasons. The Stanford alumni I have met have been more than impressive and it was actually alumni who encouraged me to apply,” Silva said. “Second, Stanford’s chemistry department is world-renowned and I wanted to receive instruction from the department’s professors and participate in undergraduate research. I also knew that I wanted a campus that was beautiful, full of greenery and peaceful. Stanford’s campus is all of those things!”

Getting in and committing was only the beginning, however. As most freshmen quickly realize, Stanford moves fast and transfer student Diana Munoz ‘11 can confirm that Stanford’s high price tag does not buy you a picnic.

“It was definitely difficult to adjust to the speed of the quarter system, but I think now I will be better prepared for the winter quarter,” Munoz said. “The work load is a lot more than I used to experience at my community college, but the material is just fascinating, so it makes it worthwhile.”

“The pace is a bit faster than I’m used to, but I’m managing it fine,” said Lena Schoemaker ‘11, a transfer from the University of Utah. “I still think that semesters are the way to go, but it’s nice having classes done faster in the year. There are so many opportunities on campus that it’s sometimes hard to manage one’s time between academics, social and extra-curricular activities!”

It wasn’t just the difficulty of pacing and scheduling that the transfers had to adjust to, either. Stanford’s tough classes definitely lived up to the expectations of our challenge-seeking transfers.

Silva readily acknowledged that fall quarter was a hard-won battle, especially after she was struck with a bout of H1N1 right before back-to-back midterms. Despite the setback, she proudly emerged with an “A” in Math 51.

“Stanford is really difficult! The problem-sets and exams can be mind-numbing,” Silva said. “Some of my experiences have been a real baptism by fire. But I knew I would be challenged and Stanford has certainly not disappointed.”

“Academically, Stanford is more challenging than Drexel,” Abzalov agreed. “[The] curriculum is more rigorous and midterms are not as straightforward. Most of the time, you really need to think outside of the box to come up with the right answer. My first encounter with the rigor of testing at Stanford was my first Stats midterm where for the first time in my academic career I wasn’t able to finish the test in the time given. That was like WOW! I realize that I am at Stanford now!”

However, the personal connections and friendship made throughout college can be equally if not more important than the academics and the transfer process undeniably takes a toll upon these relationships.

“Adjusting is much more difficult than I had anticipated,” confided Farbod Faraji ‘11, who holds the touchy distinction of being a transfer student from our nemesis, UC-Berkely. “People are very elated to hear that I got accepted to Stanford, but fail to realize how difficult it is to leave a school, especially the comfort level there and all the valuable connections and friends made over the years.”

Schoemaker had similar sentiments.

“Socially, there are many great people on campus but sometimes it’s hard to break into the scene since we weren’t here our freshman year so we weren’t integrated right away into social situations,” she said.

Overall, the transfers reported positive experiences, despite some initial difficulties. The efforts of the administration and residential staff have not gone overlooked, either.

“The faculty, student body and the Kimball student staff have been more than welcoming,” Silva said. “I could not imagine being anywhere else.”

Becoming a Cardinal also means tapping into the great sense of pride that permeates and unites our campus.

“There is a bigger sense of pride here,” Munoz said. “My worst moment [of fall quarter] was losing to Cal and having my friends from there give me heat about it!”

“Stanford offered a great community and sense of belonging that I didn’t feel a part of at my other school,” Schoemaker echoed. “Last quarter I had a class that was two floors below ground and after one of the classes the elevator was out of commission and wasn’t going to be running for a couple hours. Since I’m in a wheelchair and need to use the elevator, the students and TAs in my class carried me and my wheelchair up four flights of stairs to get me outside.”

So, was Stanford the right choice?

“I think it was the right choice for me because Stanford offers me opportunities that UC-Berkeley could not,” Faraji said.

Munoz is also very sure of her decision.

“Transferring to Stanford was definitely the right choice for me. This school challenges me intellectually as well as socially,” Munoz said. “I love being able to meet people from all parts of the world and have meaningful and intellectual conversations!”