Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spy Kids 3-D

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Spy Kids 3-D (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Spy Kids 3-D

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-25-2003 08:09 PM

The "shocking" scene in the 1903 GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY comes at the end, when an actor shoots a gun directly at the audience. I'm sure some of the faint-of-heart were alarmed by that.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-25-2003 10:15 PM

FilmGuard does not adversely affect 3D prints. Sounds to me like the gate tension was too low or something wasn't adjusted properly in the gate and the FG caused the picture to shake due to the film being so well lubricated. In that situation, removing the cleaner would've stopped lubricating the film and thus, no more jitter. Of course the proper solution is to have your gate aligned and set up with proper tension in the first place.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-26-2003 01:44 AM

quote:
The "shocking" scene in the 1903 GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY comes at the end

It did, you're right. But I doubt it held as much surprise as something like "Train Arriving at Station", which caused people to flee for the exit years earlier. In 1896, no one had ever seen lifesized moving pictures before.

The article made it sound like 1903 audiences fainted because the picture told a story.

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 07-26-2003 04:07 AM

This final shot (no pun intended) could, according to the Edison Company, be used at the end or before the main titles. Because the shot is not linked to the action at the end of the picture, it could also be used to give the 1903 audience some thrill before the story began.

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 07-26-2003 07:02 AM

quote:
But I doubt it held as much surprise as something like "Train Arriving at Station", which caused people to flee for the exit years earlier. In 1896, no one had ever seen lifesized moving pictures before.

That seems to be a myth too. I recently read some articles about the earliest moving pictures. Apparently there is no record at all of people running out in panic during the first screenings of the Lumière brothers` film showing an arriving train which was among the first films they showed.
I have seen stills from the film - it does not show the train approaching the audience. Your point of view is way to the side of the tracks on the platform and the train comes into the station and stops about 15m in front of you in the far left of the frame.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-27-2003 11:13 AM

Jeff Joseph pointed out to me that depth perception obtained with the polaroid system compaired to what anaglyphic delivers is miles above.

I admit that my statement equating the effect of the two is based on my recollection of CREATURE from a polaroid screening about 15 years ago. Also on the THEORY of presenting the different eye records to the correct eye. But that is only theory. If Jeff is convinced that the polaroid system can deliver a better sense of depth, I will certainly acquess to his intimate knowledge and verify it for myself at his 3D Festival in September, as I encourage anyone who can, to do so.

If anaglyphic somehow limits the sense of depth/space (which is a very complex eye-brain process), then the dimunition of the perception could very well have to do with any number of other perameters such as the way the eyes respond to the distortion introduced by different saturated colors placed in front of both eyes.

Frank

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-27-2003 12:44 PM

I'm still hoping Darryl S. will tell us more about "light throw back"...

And I caught a tiny bit of SK3D and I wasn't very impressed with the quality of the 3D.

I do remember reading something in American Cinematographer back in the 80s. There are indeed other factors such as lighting/shading and possibly also the use of color, which the polaroid method allows. Other factors include the size of the screen -- which affects interaxial distances -- plus the very fact that the screen has edges poses limitations in that anything that appears "in front of" the screen must be completely contained on-screen...otherwise the brain will get confused. Essentially, the screen becomes a "window" and we won't accept the notion that something in front of a window could be obscured by its edges. So there are other factors apart from just having a pair of stereovisuals.

My favorite 3D movies are "Captain EO" and "Jaws 3D."

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.