Updated schedule on 1/26...
January 3 John 4:19-26 -- Worship in Spirit & Truth, part 2
January 10 Romans 8:28-30 (Guest Preacher Doug Barcroft)
January 17 Genesis 1:1-2 -- From chaos to creation
January 24 Genesis 1:3-31 -- By His word...
January 31 Genesis 2:1-3 -- The blessing of holiness
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Book Review: The Liturgical Year by Joan Chittister
I recently received a copy of The Liturgical Year: The spiraling adventure of the spiritual life by Joan Chittister, which is one of the latest titles in Thomas Nelson's series on "The Ancient Practices" of the church. (Disclaimer: I received this copy for free from Thomas Nelson, in exchange for my commitment to write this review.)I read another title in this series, Fasting by Scot McKnight, last spring-- and it was excellent. I was excited about the opportunity to read this title, too, for two reasons: a) I have increasingly become a student of the idea of the liturgical calendar over the last several years, and b) I hoped to find a similar unpacking of complex and somewhat obscure ideas in this title that I had found in McKnight's Fasting.
I must say, I was/am quite disappointed.
There is a segment of Christians for whom everything is about the sentiment. The historical foundations and bases for Christianity serve very little purpose for them-- indeed, if those things were entirely removed or discredited, nothing much would change about the way that they think, feel, and practice their version of Christianity. (I would go so far as to say, like Paul, that they gospel they offer is no true Gospel-- because Paul himself appealed to the very real and historical bases of the faith as the thing that makes it credible instead of lamentable.) I may unpack this idea in a future blog post, because I think it is both common in some circles and dangerous.
That said, Chittister's presentation of Christianity and liturgical practice dips into this pool of sentimentality often. It's not hard to recognize; in fact, there are some give-away phrases that show up frequently. When I read Chittister speak of "the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith" in an opening chapter, I had a hunch of what was to come. Unfortunately, I was right.
The problem with the dichotomy of "the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith" is that the two are historically one-- there is no difference, yet the writer (and others) speak of them, and deal with them, as if they are distinct. Likewise, the problem with Chittister's larger development of The Liturgical Year is that she deals with the historical and biblical aspects as distinct from what makes its it valuable.
The thing about the concept of the liturgical year is that it is biblically, theologically, and historically-based: every concept (at least of the contemporary protestant practices of it) is rooted in a biblical and/or theological foundation. Every piece of it has a biblical/theological meaning and purpose. Likewise, each part-- and the whole-- has a rich foundation of historical practice and purpose. It would not be a stretch to imagine a book filled entirely of the biblical, theological, and historical discussions around each aspect of the liturgical year (which is what I had hoped that The Liturgical Year would be).
Those parts of the discussion are in there; but they are included anecdotally, or sometimes to set up a discussion on inconsistency or problem. But they aren't the focus of the book; they are not even a part of the focus. The thrust of the book, it seems to me, is the sentiment of the seasons. In other words: in the eyes of the author, the importance of the liturgical year isn't so much what it means; it's what it means to you or to me.
A full, well-lived Christian life, though, has plenty of things to be sentimental about without making everything about being sentimental. The Liturgical Year wastes an opportunity to be a book of substance instead of mere sentiment.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Obesity
There was a news report on TV recently that said that the number of dangerously obese Americans climbed from 15% to 35% in the last 30 years. This is a shocking number, and is worth commenting on.
First of all, I agree that more and more Americans (and it seems to be unique to our country's culture-- probably a confluence of a number of things, not the least of which is the sheer excess that defines us) are overweight, and many dangerously so. Without a doubt, this is a culture-wide problem, and one I will say more about in a moment.
But I also need to say this: I think those numbers are inflated-- and maybe greatly so. That's because they are based on the concept of the "Body-Mass Index" or BMI, which is a simple calculation based on your height and current weight. BMI is widely-regarded as an accurate measure of fat percentage, and medical science has determined that higher fat percentages are strongly connected to all sorts of health problems.
But BMI is not as accurate as a measure of body-fat percentage in many people. It is a formula developed in the mid-1800s, and people's body shapes, diets, and lifestyles were very different then. It assumes things like an average proportional body-build to height, which simply doesn't apply as people vary from the average heights (which, by the way, were very different 150+ years ago). In the mid-ranges of BMI, studies have shown that it fails to distinguish between fat and lean body mass. BMI is a popular tool among "the masses" even though it doesn't seem to be taken very seriously by doctors and health professionals; maybe this is because of our obsession with morbid thinness as a culture. One study concluded:
How do I know this? Because BMI always calculates me as way outside of the categories that I should fit into. At my current weight, it categorizes me as obese. Now, I freely admit that I am overweight, and I am working on making corrections on that. But I'm not obese, according to my physician. In fact, if I lost all of the weight that I'm aiming to lose, BMI still shows me being overweight-- though my physician has told me that he doesn't think I need to lose any more than I've targeted. (BMI has my ideal weight at 210 pounds-- almost 80 pounds less than I am now.)
So I think we need better formulas informing us about obesity. But I still think it is a problem-- and it's one that Christians don't take seriously enough.
In a culture that is simultaneously increasingly obese and also obsessed with an unrealistic and unhealthy concept of "thin" as beautiful and ideal, one way that Christians could-- and should-- be counter-cultural (and culture-transforming) is to exhibit proper moderation in the way we think about food, weight, and body size. We should stop comparing ourselves to the magazine covers, TV and movie personalities, and other worldly icons; we should start comparing ourselves, and our current health and eating practices, to what is healthy and beneficial.
You want to know where I see this as most realistic? Witness the typical church dinner. Whether it is catered, a covered dish/"pot luck" situation, or something else, these seldom offer much in the way of healthy options. What if the next dinner at your church offered baked chicken instead of fried chicken? What if there were rice or roasted potatoes instead of mashed or au gratin? What if there were no desserts?
Outrageous... inconceivable-- I know.
When I first started seminary, one of my professors was new, also. He clearly-- obviously-- lost a fair number of pounds in the first couple of semesters. Not so many that he seemed too thin or gaunt, but he had shed 20 or 30 unneeded pounds. I asked him about this, and his response was, "there is a lot of positive peer pressure on the faculty here. It's a real culture of encouragement toward being healthy." Wouldn't it be great if most churches could be like that-- not pressure to be too thin, nor prejudice against those who are overweight, but simply a culture that encourages healthiness?
What do you think: what are some ways that your church could shift toward being a culture of health?
First of all, I agree that more and more Americans (and it seems to be unique to our country's culture-- probably a confluence of a number of things, not the least of which is the sheer excess that defines us) are overweight, and many dangerously so. Without a doubt, this is a culture-wide problem, and one I will say more about in a moment.
But I also need to say this: I think those numbers are inflated-- and maybe greatly so. That's because they are based on the concept of the "Body-Mass Index" or BMI, which is a simple calculation based on your height and current weight. BMI is widely-regarded as an accurate measure of fat percentage, and medical science has determined that higher fat percentages are strongly connected to all sorts of health problems.
But BMI is not as accurate as a measure of body-fat percentage in many people. It is a formula developed in the mid-1800s, and people's body shapes, diets, and lifestyles were very different then. It assumes things like an average proportional body-build to height, which simply doesn't apply as people vary from the average heights (which, by the way, were very different 150+ years ago). In the mid-ranges of BMI, studies have shown that it fails to distinguish between fat and lean body mass. BMI is a popular tool among "the masses" even though it doesn't seem to be taken very seriously by doctors and health professionals; maybe this is because of our obsession with morbid thinness as a culture. One study concluded:
Although body mass index (BMI) has been adopted by WHO as an international measure of obesity, it lacks a theoretical basis, and empirical evidence suggests it is not valid for all populations.
A. Bagust and T. Walley, An Alternative to Body Mass Index for Standardizing Body Weight for Stature, Q J Med 2000; 93: 589-596.
How do I know this? Because BMI always calculates me as way outside of the categories that I should fit into. At my current weight, it categorizes me as obese. Now, I freely admit that I am overweight, and I am working on making corrections on that. But I'm not obese, according to my physician. In fact, if I lost all of the weight that I'm aiming to lose, BMI still shows me being overweight-- though my physician has told me that he doesn't think I need to lose any more than I've targeted. (BMI has my ideal weight at 210 pounds-- almost 80 pounds less than I am now.)
So I think we need better formulas informing us about obesity. But I still think it is a problem-- and it's one that Christians don't take seriously enough.
In a culture that is simultaneously increasingly obese and also obsessed with an unrealistic and unhealthy concept of "thin" as beautiful and ideal, one way that Christians could-- and should-- be counter-cultural (and culture-transforming) is to exhibit proper moderation in the way we think about food, weight, and body size. We should stop comparing ourselves to the magazine covers, TV and movie personalities, and other worldly icons; we should start comparing ourselves, and our current health and eating practices, to what is healthy and beneficial.
You want to know where I see this as most realistic? Witness the typical church dinner. Whether it is catered, a covered dish/"pot luck" situation, or something else, these seldom offer much in the way of healthy options. What if the next dinner at your church offered baked chicken instead of fried chicken? What if there were rice or roasted potatoes instead of mashed or au gratin? What if there were no desserts?
Outrageous... inconceivable-- I know.
When I first started seminary, one of my professors was new, also. He clearly-- obviously-- lost a fair number of pounds in the first couple of semesters. Not so many that he seemed too thin or gaunt, but he had shed 20 or 30 unneeded pounds. I asked him about this, and his response was, "there is a lot of positive peer pressure on the faculty here. It's a real culture of encouragement toward being healthy." Wouldn't it be great if most churches could be like that-- not pressure to be too thin, nor prejudice against those who are overweight, but simply a culture that encourages healthiness?
What do you think: what are some ways that your church could shift toward being a culture of health?
Friday, January 22, 2010
A couple of thoughts on real estate and markets...
Not long ago, a friend and I were talking about the current housing market.
Around here, there was a season of rapid growth and building in the residential housing market, with new homes going up all around; that ended right around the time when we moved here, about two and a half years ago. This "slump" has only very recently begun to show signs (to my eyes, at least) of a rebound, with some new homes being built and signs up for plans of new development. It's probably about the same where you are.
My friend happens to be active in one of the area chambers of commerce, and I mentioned how I had noticed that the real estate market seemed to be coming back a bit.
"Not according to the folks in the chamber, it's not," he replied quickly.
As we explored this further, he offered more information on this assertion: his fellow chamber members involved in real estate maintain that the current market, though showing signs of slight improvement, is still far off of what it was a few years ago.
But let's think back to what we've learned about the real estate market over the last couple of years, while we've been in the midst of an economic recession: as many have tried to analyze and diagnose what the cause of our economic struggles have been, one of the main contributors to the recessive climate was the way that real estate was handled over the past decade or so.
Here are a few of the factors at play that caused the real estate "bubble" that eventually burst a couple of years ago:
People were being "qualified" for loans who had no real means of repaying the loans they were given.
Those who were in a position to repay them were being "qualified" for loans that would require a higher-than-normal percentage of income to be devoted to home-loan repayment.
Loans were being granted for 100% of the value of a home, and sometimes even more-- 115%, 120%, 150%!-- assuming that homes would appreciate rapidly, as they had been.
"Private Mortgage Insurance" or PMI-- once commonly required for most or all loans where the downpayment represented less than, say, 20% of the total amount borrowed-- became an optional additional expense.
New home construction was growing at an enormous pace, far outpacing the rates of previous decades.
The net result of this is the climate that we found ourselves in two years ago: people who couldn't afford their loans (either because they simply didn't have the income or because too much of their income was required), unsurprisingly, weren't able to repay them. They also had no PMI (not that they would have qualified for that under normal circumstances, either) and therefore the loans defaulted, leaving banks with enormous amounts of property unpaid-for. That property was sold at a huge loss, because the rapid construction of new homes meant a lack of demand that drove values down, not up-- and a home financed at 125% of its market value a year or two earlier wasn't worth 80% of that value at present-day.
And here's the bottom line: all of that was the result of a system that was vulnerable to greed, fraud, and usury. All three showed up, and crashed the system.
So back to the current conditions, and here's my big question: should today's real estate market be measured against the markets of three or five years ago, when those markets were inherently based on greed, fraud, and deception?
Wouldn't it be far better to take some sort of market average-- say, the average of the past 25 years-- and measure today's market against that instead? Wouldn't that give us a much clearer picture of how well the real estate market really is doing today?
It might not look as good on paper, and it might not make the builders, bankers, and real estate agents happy. But it might actually represent a sustainable and ethical market-- and that's what I'm interested in seeing established. Aren't you?
Around here, there was a season of rapid growth and building in the residential housing market, with new homes going up all around; that ended right around the time when we moved here, about two and a half years ago. This "slump" has only very recently begun to show signs (to my eyes, at least) of a rebound, with some new homes being built and signs up for plans of new development. It's probably about the same where you are.
My friend happens to be active in one of the area chambers of commerce, and I mentioned how I had noticed that the real estate market seemed to be coming back a bit.
"Not according to the folks in the chamber, it's not," he replied quickly.
As we explored this further, he offered more information on this assertion: his fellow chamber members involved in real estate maintain that the current market, though showing signs of slight improvement, is still far off of what it was a few years ago.
But let's think back to what we've learned about the real estate market over the last couple of years, while we've been in the midst of an economic recession: as many have tried to analyze and diagnose what the cause of our economic struggles have been, one of the main contributors to the recessive climate was the way that real estate was handled over the past decade or so.
Here are a few of the factors at play that caused the real estate "bubble" that eventually burst a couple of years ago:
People were being "qualified" for loans who had no real means of repaying the loans they were given.
Those who were in a position to repay them were being "qualified" for loans that would require a higher-than-normal percentage of income to be devoted to home-loan repayment.
Loans were being granted for 100% of the value of a home, and sometimes even more-- 115%, 120%, 150%!-- assuming that homes would appreciate rapidly, as they had been.
"Private Mortgage Insurance" or PMI-- once commonly required for most or all loans where the downpayment represented less than, say, 20% of the total amount borrowed-- became an optional additional expense.
New home construction was growing at an enormous pace, far outpacing the rates of previous decades.
The net result of this is the climate that we found ourselves in two years ago: people who couldn't afford their loans (either because they simply didn't have the income or because too much of their income was required), unsurprisingly, weren't able to repay them. They also had no PMI (not that they would have qualified for that under normal circumstances, either) and therefore the loans defaulted, leaving banks with enormous amounts of property unpaid-for. That property was sold at a huge loss, because the rapid construction of new homes meant a lack of demand that drove values down, not up-- and a home financed at 125% of its market value a year or two earlier wasn't worth 80% of that value at present-day.
And here's the bottom line: all of that was the result of a system that was vulnerable to greed, fraud, and usury. All three showed up, and crashed the system.
So back to the current conditions, and here's my big question: should today's real estate market be measured against the markets of three or five years ago, when those markets were inherently based on greed, fraud, and deception?
Wouldn't it be far better to take some sort of market average-- say, the average of the past 25 years-- and measure today's market against that instead? Wouldn't that give us a much clearer picture of how well the real estate market really is doing today?
It might not look as good on paper, and it might not make the builders, bankers, and real estate agents happy. But it might actually represent a sustainable and ethical market-- and that's what I'm interested in seeing established. Aren't you?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Praying for Haiti
Marcie asked me the other night, "how should we be praying for Haiti?"
Here are my thoughts... feel free to add yours in comments.
Here are my thoughts... feel free to add yours in comments.
- Pray for those who are still alive to be found and treated quickly, and that their sustained injuries would be minimal.
- Pray for those who are part of the search and rescue teams, that their work would be expedient and that they would have the strength and endurance to continue in their work.
- Pray for the mental, emotional, and spiritual health of both the victims and the rescuers, that the trauma of involvement in such a disaster would not take a lasting toll on them, and that they would think and believe rightly about the truth of the Gospel.
- Pray for the existing infrastructure to be able to withstand the pressures and demands on it, especially for healthcare (primarily hospitals) and transportation.
- Pray for economic and political stability to be established/re-established in the country, and for the future to be greater than the past in these ways.
- Pray for the rebuilding efforts, especially that they would promote better quality of life and opportunity for a people who have been historically oppressed and destitute.
- Pray for those who do not know Christ in a saving way to be spiritually awakened and aware of the truth, and that many would come to true, saving faith as a result of the realities faced through a disaster like this.
- Pray for those who come to faith, and those who are already believers, to receive the spiritual care and nurture that they need, and for the continued establishment of churches.
- Pray for the laborers who serve as missionaries and ministry workers in Haiti to persevere during these difficult times, and that their ministry to the Haitians would be fruitful.
- Pray that we who live in comfort and ease around the world would not quickly forget the need and difficulty of disaster recovery in the already-destitute country of Haiti.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Worship 2: Helps for planning worship
I love writing liturgies every week. It is, for me, a many-fold act of my ministry and life: it prepares my heart for worship; it itself is an engagement of worship; it drives me into Scripture and theological thoughtfulness; it is a service that I render to the souls of my congregation.
As I prepare for worship every week, I find a handful of resources (in addition to my Bible, of course) are always at-hand:
In addition to these-- my "regular" tools-- I also find help in all of the following resources:
Here are some other resources; I don't personally use these often enough to mention in the lists above, but it's not due to any problem I have with them! I certainly know a number of people who do.
PASTORS: what are some resources that YOU find helpful in planning worship services?
As I prepare for worship every week, I find a handful of resources (in addition to my Bible, of course) are always at-hand:
- Hymnals-- we use The Celebration Hymnal in the pews. I also frequently turn to the Trinity Hymnal (the newer, 1990 edition) for supplementary hymns, and I have a collection of about 40 or so other hymnals and songbooks that I occasionally refer to.
- Psalter-- over the last two years, we've increasingly used Psalter selections in our worship. (I'll talk about the Psalter in a future post.) I have several different Psalters, but we primarily use Sing Psalms, a Psalter done by the Free Church of Scotland in 2003.
- The Worship Sourcebook-- this compilation, which was put out several years ago jointly by Baker, Faith Alive Christian Resources, and the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, is an incredibly helpful tool for crafting liturgies. It has brief guides for each section of worship, then several (sometimes dozens) of examples for each section. It also has many sections dedicated specifically to the particular seasons of the liturgical year.
- The Cyber Hymnal-- I use this website at least a couple of times a month, and sometimes weekly, for identifying tunes for hymns and psalter selections, and for finding alternate tunes.
In addition to these-- my "regular" tools-- I also find help in all of the following resources:
- General worship sourcebooks-- The good old Book of Common Worship is a great help, especially for special events and services (like weddings and baptisms, for example); Terry Johnson's Leading in Worship is a very similar, but more contemporary, volume. (Incidentally, I find that both have a lot of content that is a bit on the legalistic/ungracious side for my tastes, which is why I don't use them more frequently.) Also, don't forget that the Book of Church Order of the PCA has a directory for worship. So does the Westminster Confession of Faith-- though most editions don't come with it, since it wasn't a "binding" section.
- Specific worship sourcebooks-- I absolutely love Hughes Oliphant Old's Leading in Prayer as a sourcebook for prayers for different parts of a worship service. I also like Robert Vasholz's two pocket-reference works (published by Christian Focus), Benedictions and Calls to Worship; Vasholz has done some creative things in both. And I've been reminded recently of the great selections of responsive readings of the Psalms in the Trinity Hymnal.
- Crafted Liturgies-- occasionally I'll mine the work of others for creative inspiration and direction in writing liturgies. I sometimes find that The Book of Common Prayer is helpful in this regard. I also read through the articles and provided liturgies from Reformed Worship magazine, which has all of its archives online.
- Musical Help-- sometimes the Cyber Hymnal isn't enough, and I'll turn to Hymnary.org as an alternative; it's actually a better layout and easier-to-use website, but it doesn't have as much of the content I'm looking for, usually. I also sometimes find new tunes for hymns at the RUF Hymnbook website. I also (very) occasionally check the Oremus Hymnal website, which offers hymn selections based on the liturgical calendar.
- Church/Liturgical Calendar-- I'm learning more and more about the liturgical calendar and how it can be helpful in shaping worship. Some sources I've found helpful are Ken Collins' website, the Reformed Liturgical Institute, and the churchyear.net site.
Here are some other resources; I don't personally use these often enough to mention in the lists above, but it's not due to any problem I have with them! I certainly know a number of people who do.
- General Help-- Christ Community Church of Franklin, TN offers Community Worship Resources, a helpful site that offers all sorts of help for worship.
- Sourcebook-- an online alternative sourcebook is The Open Sourcebook, which regularly offers very good options.
- Collects-- a friend of my loves The Collects of Thomas Cranmer by C Frederick Barbie and Pau F.M.l Zahl.
- Choral Music-- if you have a choir, don't miss the ChoralWiki, where you can find hundreds of choral selections published for free!
- More on Hymns-- The Center for Church Music offers a website, Songs and Hymns, that is both a guide to hymns and a collection of helps for singing.There is also Hymn Studies, which looks at both origin and biblical/theological content of hymns.
- Hymn Stories-- if you like to use hymn stories in your "rubricks" for transition between worship elements, you might find 200 Amazing Hymn Stories helpful.
PASTORS: what are some resources that YOU find helpful in planning worship services?
Monday, January 18, 2010
The uniqueness of the PCA
Dr. Roy Taylor, who is the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which is the denomination I serve, recently published a paper entitled, "The Uniqueness of PCA Polity" which he presented at a meeting of all Stated Clerks in the PCA.
By and large, I found Dr. Taylor's thoughts to be fair and accurate. I especially appreciated his section on the essence of presbyterian church government (pp. 2-3), which is a wonderful summary of how presbyterianism is distinct from other forms of government in the church (episcopal, congregational). And I found both his awareness and his description of the nature of weaknesses and strengths in a system (p. 3) to be refreshing, informative, and generally helpful.
A couple of things stand out to me that are worth thinking/re-thinking about:
By and large, I found Dr. Taylor's thoughts to be fair and accurate. I especially appreciated his section on the essence of presbyterian church government (pp. 2-3), which is a wonderful summary of how presbyterianism is distinct from other forms of government in the church (episcopal, congregational). And I found both his awareness and his description of the nature of weaknesses and strengths in a system (p. 3) to be refreshing, informative, and generally helpful.
A couple of things stand out to me that are worth thinking/re-thinking about:
- Dr. Taylor mentions that we have a non-comprehensive Book of Church Order-- and that the "lower courts" (namely, the presbyteries and the local congregations) have the freedom to exercise their wisdom and discretion within the bounds of the principles (p. 3). In other words, our local congregations and presbyteries may enact policies more strict or specific than the BCO stipulates. This had occurred to me frequently regarding the work of a local congregation, but where it is new is in thinking about presbytery: perhaps that is a level at which many of the perceived shortcomings and/or ambiguities could be worked out more fully before overtures to the assembly are made. (I'm thinking about things like how pastoral transition and placement works, for example.)
- I love how Dr. Taylor describes the dual nature of membership within the PCA as "a dynamic tension between voluntary association and mutual submission" (p. 4). That phrase alone is something to turn over in my head a few times, but his further discussion on the issue is thorough and thought-provoking. I believe that section "c" under that topic needs to be more widely considered and practiced by many PCA Ruling and Teaching Elders, myself foremost.
- In #8 of the "Distinctives of the PCA" section, Dr. Taylor discusses "the supremacy of theology over polity" (p. 5). I was just speaking with a fellow PCA Pastor from another presbytery, who spoke of the starkness of how important this is.
- One of the most valuable discussions in the paper, I think, is the acknowledgement of how "'the pendulum effect' may have been too strong as we reacted against the excesses of our former denominational connection." In the ongoing advance of our denomination, I think this piece of the puzzle must emerge as a part of the discussion, and those who are holding too tightly to the reactions "against excesses" must loosen their grip, while others must learn the greater value of the nature of those reactions. This has impact of both theological and political nature, practical and theoretical.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Drifting by Andy McKee
If you haven't discovered Andy McKee yet, here's a great sample if his guitar prowess:
Friday, January 15, 2010
3-D Television
I read this fascinating article from Slate on ESPN's plan to offer a 3-D sports network. Justin Peters's points are excellent, and help me understand the difficulty in the jump to 3-D. Check this salient point:
From what little bit I've seen and read about 3-D TV, that's spot-on. But Peters goes on to elaborate what actually does work in 3-D sports:
Neat-- so, I wonder: could a working M.O. be something like a dynamic switch back-and-forth between 3-D and plain HD, where replays and extraordinary plays were in 3-D, but the rest was in 2-D HD?
Maybe-- but even for that to happen, the technology will have to come a long way before it makes it into most living rooms. I don't see folks being too quick to wear a pair of 3-D glasses for the whole game, only to watch the instant replays in 3-D.
My guess is that we're still a ways off from broad adaptation of 3-D TV technology. What do you think?
Live-action 3-D differs from the 3-D camerawork made famous in CGI-heavy movies like Avatar. A 3-D representation of the computer-generated Na'vi looks great largely because you've never seen a Na'vi before. Since you have no idea what a blue cat person is supposed to look like (and since the blue cat people are computer-generated), you don't pick up on any visual distortions. But we all know how a real, 3-D human is supposed to look—and, while watching a 3-D football game, you're acutely aware that the guys in helmets and pads don't look exactly right.
From what little bit I've seen and read about 3-D TV, that's spot-on. But Peters goes on to elaborate what actually does work in 3-D sports:
In my experience, close-ups are where the technology really shines. You're close enough to the action that the added depth starts to matter. Bailey says also that in its broadcast of the USC-Ohio State game, ESPN experimented with low-angle shots that did provide something of a ball-in-the-face effect. Three hours' worth of pigskin flying at your head would make you nauseous, but an occasional through-the-screen shot would do much to convince doubters that 3-D adds something extra to conventional broadcasts.
Neat-- so, I wonder: could a working M.O. be something like a dynamic switch back-and-forth between 3-D and plain HD, where replays and extraordinary plays were in 3-D, but the rest was in 2-D HD?
Maybe-- but even for that to happen, the technology will have to come a long way before it makes it into most living rooms. I don't see folks being too quick to wear a pair of 3-D glasses for the whole game, only to watch the instant replays in 3-D.
My guess is that we're still a ways off from broad adaptation of 3-D TV technology. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)