Just wondering if anyone else has thought about this. A pair of human eyes is a 3-D movie camera. The only difference is that our eyes can “record our lives” for years until we die and our “cameras” stop rolling. But hey, let’s try the same thing with a 3-D movie camera, and we would have a movie that could run from 25 to 70 years. It would record our lives as long as a pair of human eyes. Has anyone else been thinking about this too?
Nope. Because recording footage is actually only a small part of the work in making a movie. It costs something like $50k and 10 hours of labor to record 5 minutes of film. Comparing a human eye to a movie is kind of like saying a screwdriver built the Statue of Liberty.
People have been experimenting with the idea since the 80’s. You can buy a little gadget to do it now, albeit not in 3d.
That was the plot of the movie The Final Cut.
Actually, comparing the human eye to a video recorder is not correct. The most recent work on memory and recall has shown that our brain does NOT record our experiences as if it were a video. It only stores certain parts of the experience. When you “remember” it, you remember the few things actually in your memory, and your brain “fills in” the rest of the scene. This is one of the primary reasons that eye witnesses of an event will recall SUCH DIFFERENT information.
For pretty fascinating information about our memory, look up Elizabeth Loftus.
J.
It’d be a boring film, I reckon. I say just keep some events from a small portion of your life, then reduce them down to the important and exciting parts, and add a musical soundtrack. 90 minutes should be enough.