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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Ghost of the Abyss--update? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Ghost of the Abyss--update? Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-14-2003 02:04 PM                     Nothing like a 3d scratch  |  IP: Logged Peter Kerchinsky Master Film Handler Posts: 326 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-14-2003 02:35 PM                     Paul I wonder if you are thinking of SPACEHUNTER which came in the A/B 3D process.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 02:42 PM                     Peter, I think you nailed it. Thank you. Gordon, you got that right!!!! Watching a scratched 3D print will drive the audience nuts!  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 02:48 PM                     We have a badly scratched print of L5: First City in Space (dual strip Imax) here. Before I took over, the theater was running the print in 2D only because of the scratches. However, with it being dual strip, I feel that many of the scratches get lost in the 3D (because the two prints are not scratched in the same places) and we are now running it in 3D. You don't have that choice, of course, with over/under (although side-by-side would probably work that way, too).  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-14-2003 03:01 PM                        I might be wrong but I do not ever recall anything about "MAD MAX" being released in 3-D. The film was a very low budget Australian film starring an almost unknown Mel Gibson and I recall the images looking very dingy compared the two other very high quality sequels Warner Brothers released. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 05:57 PM                     Claude, your assessment was correct. That was my error when I cited Mad Max.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 04-14-2003 06:24 PM                    I think it was Peter who posted a picture of a 3-D strip on the previous page. That is a perfect example of how one could splice in the wrong place and cause the 3-D effect to reverse. There is no distinction between the frameline and the LE and RE image seperator bar.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 06:29 PM                     The 3D effect won't reverse, per se, if the eyes are switched, but rather cause a walleye effect where the viewer's eyes diverge instead of converge. This can cause great pain. For an example of this, turn your polarized glasses upside down (or hold them to your face backwards with the arms pointing away from your head) and try to watch the show.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 06:31 PM                     Yes....One of our operators framed on what he thought was the correct frame line. It wasn't. Results? A bunch of frustrated customers with splittin' headaches. Lots of refunds that night until I got there to find out what went wrong.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-14-2003 06:39 PM                     Some 3d over under had a thinner division line between images and some had a small mark in the edge area  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-14-2003 06:40 PM                        I have been reading some comments by people who have seen both the 35mm and the IMAX versions of "GHOST OF THE ABYSS" at some DVD forums and the 35mm version has been receiving negative comments while the IMAX presentation has been mostly positive. This prove that the only way to do 3-D right is with a dual projection system. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-14-2003 07:18 PM                     If aligned and installed properly and operated properly single machine 3d can produce excellent results regretably it is usually a victim of film done wrong  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-14-2003 10:48 PM                    Gordon offered: Some 3d over under had a thinner division line between images and some had a small mark in the edge area In some versions the septum between subframes was a thicker line than the frameline. No doubt this sometimes caused operators to thread two perfs out of frame which creates a bizarre inverse 3D effect for the viewers whose eyes are each seeing the opposite image.  |  IP: Logged Peter Kerchinsky Master Film Handler Posts: 326 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-15-2003 03:54 AM                     All the A/B 3D films I've had dealings with in the past have had thinner frame lines between the images which makes it easier to splice. The thick frame lines were obviously the entire frame. That example sent earlier looked a bit screwy to me in that you could not tell were the frames were. I never, never thought this process was worth a damn. It appeared to me to be a cheap, less work version of the original 3D process. I'm sort of glad this process disappeared along with the crappy films that came with it. Dual 3D is the only way to go. PS Happy birthday HOUSE OF WAX.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-15-2003 10:48 AM                     As I said properly aligned and illuminated single film 3d is very good and in fact can be better than 2 strip due to the better convergance possible with a single source with a common keystone That is one of the advantages the IMAX GT projector has over the twin SR or Twin 15K systems is less keystone distortion due to the offset of the lens centres  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.