|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

1) I don't know why more (non-cell) animated films are not released in stereoscopic version for roadshow presentations. I would pay a couple dollars more to see "Toy Story", "Shrek", or even "Chicken Run" and "Nightmare Before Christmas" in stereo 3d. Producing a stereoscopic version of these last two films might have increased production costs by 1%. For computer animation, you would have additional rendering time, but really, it's the people that are expensive. And even if there is not an optimal mass-market viewing sytem yet (apart from IMAX, and something simpler than dual-projector 35mm), in ten years there might be. Archiving a "right view" would be a smart move when considering a revival in 2012.

2) I agree with what John said about Imax 3D. It is clearly the best system now. I would only add that a crucial factor in its success is the wide angle. Having a wider peripheral vision means objects get cut by the stereo frame much less.

But here is a question I would like to put to them that know. If one *were* to produce a new stereoscopic feature film, what system would be the best? I had thought that the over/under StereoVision system was pretty good (from reading Lenny Lipton's book on 3D cinema) but have been fairly discouraged from what I have read here.

Thank you!

Kyle Granger

BTW, the best 3D cinema experience I have ever had (after IMAX) was at an animation festival in San Francisco about 12 years ago. It was held at the Palace of Fine Arts (Exploratoreum) and Pixar was there (as was John Lasseter). They showed their latest short, "Knick Knack" in 2D, and then as a bonus at the end of the program of shorts (spike and mike?), they rolled out a special highly refelctive screen, and showed it with two sync-locked 35mm projectors. I believe it was full academy aperture, 1.37:1 or so. Flawless.

Production or release?

I don't think there is a "best." IMAX has great image quality, but limited availability. Dual projectors is difficult to do in booths designed for only one projector. Single strip (or in the case of "Stewardesses" singles strip) side by side gives a nice cozy frame good for certain subjects. Over and under looks more like scope but tends to be dim.

There are a couple of good yahoo groups on 3D, photo-3D and 3DTV. 3DTV is fascinating from the engineering standpoint, these guys are doing some phiggidy tricks. Photo-3D is great for increasing 3D knowledge, but some posters come across as nit-picking and even nasty. I think this was the group that had details of the making of "Metalstorm" and the crazy way the "plot" evolved based on what was available for shooting.

 |  IP: Logged

Release. Assume that the camera is merely a PC and a film recorder.

> I don't think there is a "best." IMAX has great image quality,
> but limited availability. Dual projectors is difficult to do
> in booths designed for only one projector. Single strip (or
> in the case of "Stewardesses" singles strip) side by side gives
> a nice cozy frame good for certain subjects. Over and under
> looks more like scope but tends to be dim.

This is a nice crystalization of the exhibition issues. So, I guess to rephrase my question: Is any single strip stereoscopic format (anaglyph included!) capable of an acceptably enjoyable film experience? A correct answer may be "none". If it were, maybe we would have already seen "Monsters, Inc." in 3D.

Question: I don't see why side by side should be inherently brighter (or dimmer for that matter) than over-under. Assuming all other things equal (especially the area of the screen).

Though I was living in Noe Valley at the time, I unfortunately missed the 3D films at the Castro Theater. (BTW, they do show 70mm films there, unheard for a rep house.) It *is* interesting to note that still, in 2002, the best 3D feature films were made in 1953 or 1954. The words "feature film" and "IMAX" do not yet go together, with the rare exception of Fantasia 2000.

Re 3DTV: Since 1992, I've used Michael Stark's field-sequential system. At about the same time I came up with an anaglyph format that solves *some* of the color problems inherent with NTSC and MPEG2 via DVD). Without explaining it (as I am already veering way off topic!) this should suffice: field-sequential anaglyph. Odd NTSC (or PAL) field is red; even field is blue.

cheers

Thank you. Ah, now I shall learn more about lamps...

If anyone has heard about the ISCO-Optic 3D-Stereovision lens, I would be interested to know if it is indeed an over-under polarising lens. The company data on the lens is unclear on this point:
http://www.iscooptic.de/english/products/special.php

It depends on what you consider acceptably enjoyable. Directors want 3-D to have the maximum impact of objects coming out of the stereo window. Unfortunately, good watchable 3-D doesn't work that way.

When the eyes are challenged repeatedly by effects, the brain tends to rebel, especially in those people not used to viewing 3D. When people forced to sit to the side or too close to the screen constantly have depth discrepancies and moving images, the exhibitor is literally asking those members of the audience to learn a whole new way of seeing.

From an audience comfort standpoint, a well done film in side by side format would probably cause minimal eyestrain. The downside is the smallish almost square picture.

As Gordon mentioned, it is possible to pump up the lamp for an over/under single strip, which will cover almost twice the screen real estate of a side by side image. The downside is that film defects and grain will be more apparent and the side and front seats become less acceptable for viewing, with dramatic fall off in light as the angles related to the projection beam spread out.

I have little problem with anaglyph presentations, but some people have a hard time with red/blue glasses.

The underlying issue is that the added layer of complexity in a 3D image often makes public viewing a barely tolerable compromise unless the exhibitor springs for a silver lenticular screen, a more powerful lamp, and accepts the neccessity of roped off seats and reduced capacity. 3D is ideally a single viewer experience, where angles and depth can be exactly tailored to the one pair of eyes. I would guess that in most stadium style 35mm auditoriums only 1/3 of the seats have sightlines good enough that I would consider sitting and watch a 3D film. Even in Imax theatres I want to hug the side of the lens.

I haven't yet heard of silver lenticular screens. Is this perhaps a large-format concept?

The only 3-D screens I've ever seen are just "plain old" aluminum colored screens.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

I don't know if the company is still in business, but you might try to contact Christopher Condon of StereoVision...Some time back (around 1988-89) they were able to negotiate some distribution rights on "House of Wax" and a couple of Three Stooges outings in 3-D (one of which was "Spooks").

Too bad about "Jaws 3-D" not being available in 3-D anymore...I recall enjoying that one a lot...even if it flirts with being a ripoff of "Revenge Of The Creature" (which was, I believe, a 2-D sequel to "Creature From The Black Lagoon"). All of the effects worked and the storyline was coherent. It actually works in 2-D, and that really says something: A lot of 3-D flicks don't work too well as regular movies.

"Friday the 13th Part 3" was in 3-D and it is notable for being the one in which Jason first dons his trademark hockey mask.

...and what about "Spacehunter" ?

I have seen two IMAX 3-D titles. "T-Rex" had some interesting effects, but I thought it would have been more interesting as a straight-out documentary. The "cutesy" narrative didn't suit my taste.

The second IMAX 3-D movie was "Across the <something> of Time." This one was pretty much a documentary...but it just wasn't that interesting to me....and the 3-D effect didn't do much to make it worth the $10 admission.

Interesting thing about IMAX 3-D...you have to wear headsets...not just glasses. I find this interesting because one of the supposed drawbacks to 3-D was the need for the viewing glasses. Now you have to wear a friggin welder's helmet and, suddenly, everything's cool! Personally, I never had issues with the glasses. I think they're cool and I have a small collection. I also never experienced "eyestrain."

Back to those IMAX 3-D headsets...I guess times change and people are fickle. Most notable about IMAX 3-D is that there's at least one extra channel of sound coming through the individual headsets.

I had heard rumors that Disney had made "Captain EO" available for commercial exhibition. This was a 17-minute 65mm 3-D attraction produced around 1983 for Kodak's Magic Eye Theatre in Epcot Centre. Michael Jackson was featured as the title character, a bumbling, would-be space hero on a mission to deliver "a gift" to the evil queen of a distant planet. The evil queen is played by Angelica Huston. Captain EO was written & produced by George Lucas and directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Michael Jackson performs two songs in it. This is the stuff he was made to do, and it was made when he was looking his best (IMHO). Very enjoyable! Probably my all-time favorite 3-D flick.

BTW...AFAIK "Captain EO" boasted digital audio...this is back in the early 1980's...So might it be a contender for the first movie digital audio?

The chain that competes with the one I do business with just installed !werks 3-D. I haven't been to see it yet. Anyone have info on this system?

I think !werks is using the same 3-D glasses used by the Epcot Centre show. They feature reusable, washable frames made of ABS plastic and...best of all...they are designed to fit comfortably over prescription eyeglasses. Manufactured by Custom Plastics Development in Orlando, FL. I used to speak with Richard Hord, he may have been the owner of the company but, in any event, this was years ago and I'm not sure he's still around...or the company, for that matter.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.