my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Ghosts of the Abyss in 35mm 3D? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Ghosts of the Abyss in 35mm 3D? Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-13-2003 07:18 PM                     Abyss is over under single machine  |  IP: Logged Andrew Lee Film Handler Posts: 99 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-16-2003 12:18 PM                     I believe Adam and other mentioned that Spy Kids 3 will be filmed in 3D with the same rig used in GOTA. Me thinks that some marketing hype may be behind this. As I understand it, SP3 will have short segments filmed utilizing the Pulfrich method. Theatre patrons will don their glasses (or should I say glass) during specified segments of the film.  |  IP: Logged Bernie Anderson Jr Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Woodbridge, New Jersey Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-16-2003 02:01 PM                        I went to the Lincoln Center IMAX theatre (located in the heart of New York City) to see the 6:30 show last night. As I was about to buy my ticket, I asked to confirm that it was showing in 3-D. They said no, because there was a problem with the glasses. They hoped it would be fixed by today. If they can't get the technical bugs worked out at their premiere Manhattan venue, I wonder what kinds of problems they're having around the country. Faulty presentation (as in the 50's and the 80's) is going to doom 3-D again!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-16-2003 02:30 PM                     That is a little unfair considering that most of the IMAX 3d theatres run day in and day out with out a hitch so the odd failure is to be expected. Also the PSE headsets used are not just cheap glasses  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-16-2003 02:40 PM                        Bernie, The first IMAX 3-D film I saw was at that same Lincoln Centre IMAX theatre and it was about a young Russian boy in New York City. The glasses or goggles they used was the electronic type that had a red light and before the film started we were asked if we saw the light. If the goggle did not show this light, it means that that it was defective and need to be replaced. The Waikiki IMAX here in Honolulu uses the standard kind and the the problem you experienced in New York is non existent in this theatre. By the way, what is the difference between the goggles and the regular Polaroid glasses? -Claude  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-16-2003 03:27 PM                     The polsrized system uses 2 polarizing filters one rotate 90 degrees in respect to the other with complementing filters on the left and right image source (2 machines or a split lens) Effectively this allows only the eye in question to see the image for the complimenting filter source. The problems with them is there is always some ghosting and if the audience has there glasses slightly off level then the ghosting is worse The headset system has a rotating shutter on the projector that is synced to the lcd stlyed shutters in the headsets and this increases the amount of seperation dramatically reducing ghosting and eyestrain  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-16-2003 03:42 PM                     The film Claude saw was Across the Sea of Time: New York 3D. We've talked about the E3D glasses here and I'm sure other places.  |  IP: Logged William Leland III Master Film Handler Posts: 336 From: Charleston, SC, Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-16-2003 05:15 PM                        We are running GoA 3D here at the Charleston IMAX. We are the only theatre showing this print in the area, there is another in Greenville , I think. We are having no problems running GoA 3D, but when we ran our trailers for it GoA in 3D we had problems, or we thought we did. Our images we not lining up. The backgrounds where not in focus and what was suppose to be in 3D was not in true 3D. Also the picture was not lined up correctly. At the edges of the screen you could clearly see 2 different frames or scenes. We first switched eyes, but that didn't help, so we asked for new trailers, they came and same problem. Apparently we where the only theatre running GoA trailors in 3D. . Our Space Station 3D was fine, so we knew it was the trailers. We continued playing the trailers and had no complaints. We finally screened GoA 3D, when it came in and the same problem was visible as the trailers. We called DKP and was told Cameron didn't leave a 2 inch gap for your eyes and when filming 3D movies, he went to 4 inches.  |  IP: Logged Tom Doyle Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Bristol, CT, USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 04-16-2003 10:53 PM                     I just got a copy of The Hartford Advocate today - Ghosts Of The Abyss is reviewed by John Boonstra. Here's a snippet from the review: ". . . the 3D process is instantly headache-inducing and never, ever looks particularly three-dimensional." As I write this, the website has not been updated yet for this week's issue, but you can try here tomorrow: www.hartfordadvocate.com and click on 'film'.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-16-2003 11:46 PM                     I have a 3D trailer for GOTA on SOS Planet. The 3D sync is just fine, but one of the eyes was mis-printed and is cocked at an angle of about .5 degrees. This is throwing the 3D effect off a little, as well as focus. The feature print of GOTA is just fine. The HD camera that Cameron used has a couple of major limitations. The convergence (which controls how "deep" the image is) on the camera was fixed. This means that the 3D effect will be subtle rather than "in your face". The interoccular distance (the distance between the lenses/eyes) controls how large an object appears. The greater the distance, the smaller the object looks. The average human eye pair is 2.5 inches apart. That's why when a 3D image is properly set up on screen, there should be a 2.5-inch offset (which also matches the camera lens offset). The lenses that Cameron used required that a 4-inch distance was used. Additionally, the cameras were modified so that the pitch angle could be adjusted with the focus. I'm not real clear myself on how that last item affects how one perceives stereo vision, but I understand it was an unusual thing to do with the cameras.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-17-2003 07:02 PM                    The excessive interoccular (4" instead of 2.5") explains why everyone looked just a little too small. I'm still cogitating over your statement about the interoccular matching the image offset on the screen. Screen size doesn't matter? I thought an image that is to be seen at the level of the screen (neither in front of nor behind) would be completely converged.  |  IP: Logged Dick Vaughan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1032 From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-17-2003 07:14 PM                        William Was it you who coined the phrase " This trailer looks like stomped dog !"?  |  IP: Logged William Leland III Master Film Handler Posts: 336 From: Charleston, SC, Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-17-2003 07:27 PM                        Nope was not me, but I do agree.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-17-2003 07:58 PM                     quote: I thought an image that is to be seen at the level of the screen (neither in front of nor behind) would be completely converged. A dual-strip 2D trailer (both eyes identical) presented with an offset of 2.5-inches at the screen will appear slightly in front of the screen. I honestly don't remember (it was explained to me once) why there is an offset at the screen, but it had something to do with consistency with the cameras. (Could have been BS!) I wonder if GOTA would look any better if I changed the offset here to four inches? Obviously, I won't be able to do that, because our 2D would then be showing on the walls and our other 3D films would look like crap. But it would be an interesting all-nighter experiment, nonetheless.  |  IP: Logged John Stewart Film Handler Posts: 67 From: Austin, TX, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 04-17-2003 11:12 PM                     Spy Kids 3 is being shot in 3d but I don't know if the whole film will be shown in 3d. The crew spent the last 2 sundays shooting in front of our theater in downtown Austin. I saw 2 Sony HD camera with cables going over to 2 VTRS. I did not get to see the cameras up close but one was in the normal horizonal position and the other was vertial in the downward position. My guess it is looking into a mirror. We had an afternoon shower and a lot of plastic showed up to cover it all up. John  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.