|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What Killed 3-D in the 1950's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-02-2012 06:33 AM
I wasn't born until 1957, so I never saw the original '50s presentations, but I have in more recent times seen most of the original Festival of Britain prints,plus a number of feature films, from both the '50s and the '80s. I've seen 3-D in two-strip, side-by-side anamorphic and under and over and anaglyph formats on 35mm, anaglyph and two-strip on Imax and also demonstrations of two digital systems at Bradford, one was Dolby, and the other was another white screen system which they now have installed there; I can't remember the name.
For me, the technology of traditional polarised 3-D is still too intrusive. Of the other enhancements which have been made to film over the years most, sound - and later stereophonic sound, colour, widescreen etc. have become almost universal; films are only made without them these if an artistic choice has been made to make them that way, they are not made without for reasons of cost or technical difficulty. This has never happened with 3-D, it has always been something which was used for a minority of films, though the total made over the years is quite large. The technical complications with 3-D seem to be largly with exhibition, making a live action 3-D film is not that different today to it was in 1950, even if it's shot with digital cameras today. Contrast this with sound for example, where in the early days the camera had to be in a fixed position in a soundproofed booth, and in the case of sound on disk, editing was difficult and could only be done by copying from one disk to another, or with Cinerama, where actors in different panels had to not look at each other on the set to seem to be looking at each other on the screen. These sort of problems inhibited the production of films in these processes until the technology improved.
In the case of 3-D the technical problems were largely at the exhibition end; there is just too much to go wrong. Most of the 3D films which I've seen have been at the National Film Theatre, where the staff may be expected to be more familiar with it than elsewhere, but even there I have seen various technical problems which have occurred. These were not only with two-strip; on one occasion at the start of a under and over print something was obviously wrong, the images for each eye were swapped over. A few people who didn't know how the polarised system worked swapped their glasses left to right, others who did know turned them upside down. After a couple of minutes the entire audience was sitting holding their glasses upside down. At that point either the projectionist either realised what had happened or somebody told them, and the racking was pulled up by a couple of perfs. At this point the entire audience took off their glasses and turned them over. As a one-off event it was quite funny, but not something tou'd normally want to happen, and it does show that single strip films were not imune to problems.
Many of the large 'Super cinemas' of the late '20s and '30s were not really suited to silver screens. They often had wide, fan-shaped, auditoria, where many of the seats towards the ends of many of the rows would be almost unusable. Where was also the problem of the vertical viewing angle, and of the steep projection rake often found in such theatres, with the projection box often being high up above the back of the balcony. Many such theatres had to install new projection boxes at the back of what we would call the stalls (the downstair seats, I don't think you use the word stalls over there but I don't know what you call them) but I don't think this was done for 3-D. I've never been a fan of silver screens; the only one I've seen which didn't have problems was at the Lafayette, Suffern, NY. I don't know how they've managed it, but I didn't even realise that it was a silver screen at first. I've never seen a 3-D film there, but the relatively small screen and long, narrow, auditorium, more typical of older theatres would probably work better than the large '30s style ones. A problem im many modern multiplex type auditoria is that the screen often has no curtains, and the screen is within reach of the audience as they walk past it; an invitation to touch it. Not generally a problem in the '50s, but likely to be so today with a silver screen.
I don't like the way that with linear polarised systems you lave to hold your head perfectly upright, or you start seeing crosstalk between the images; I want to watch the film, not worry about exactly how I'm sitting, or holding my head.
You say that people didn't mind the glasses. For an occassional show you're probably right; the novelty of the process probably outweighs the disadvantage of the glasses, but would people want to wear them for every film they saw, or would they get fed up with them once the vovelty had worn off? Could this be part of the reason why 3-D films were initially very popular, but declined rather rapidly after ajust a few years, both in the '50s and in the '80s? I have seen projected 3-D without glasses, the Russian lenticular system, and I wasn't impressed, glasses is about the best we can do at present. I didn't like the active LCD shutter glasses which the long defunct Pepsi London Imax used either.
One particular problem with the glasses at the NFT, both polaroid and anaglyph, was that they used disposable cardboard ones, but collected them in for re-use. Apart from any possible hygene issues they used to run 3-D films in short seasons every few years, with maybe a dozed films, in various formats, over a couple of weeks or so. The glasses were discarded at the end of the season, and for the next season there would be new ones, but for a film towards the end of the season they would be in poor condition. I don't know if this happened at any other theatres, either in the '50s or later.
I was quite impressed with the two brief digital 3-D demonstrations which I've seen, but these were both computer generated animated material. This seems to be what most of the new 3-D films are from the adverts which I see on the sides of buses on my way to work. They're also mainly children's films. You can get away with showing even poor quality 3-D material to children because of its novelty value, by the time that's worn off they've grown up a bit and there's a new group of children you can show it to.
In short, I think the technology has simply been to intrusive for 3-D to become a 'normal' thing in the past. There's an interesting point though. If a film was made in a poor early sound system, or a poor early colour process then there's nothing you can do about it. It may be historically interesting to see and hear it as it was, but you cannot improve it. With 3-D films, as long as the elements for both eyes exist, you can show it in any system you like. Original two-strip films were later show in single-strip and/or anaglyph form. If a better system is developed then the older films can be shown using it, and will make use of the advantages of it. It would be interesting to see how a live action 3-D film like 'House of Wax' would look on one of the white screen digital systems. I'd still want it to be shown in its original format, so it could be seen as it used to look as well.
Claude, I have to disagree with what you say about the under and over single strip system. I've seen a few films in it, and I think that it can work quite well, with a couple of provisions. Firstly, if should only be used for films close to 2.35 aspect ratio. There really isn't enough film area to start cropping the image. Secondly, it should be used on screens of moderate size, up to maybe 8-10 metres. I agree that it looks poor on large screens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 07-02-2012 07:07 AM
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
With D Cinema, will the films look exactly the same when it was properly presented in theatre on film with dual projection, Robert?
I know this was a question for Bob, but I'd like to say that it partially depends on the projection method. If it's a single projector 3D system operating exactly perfectly, then it will look like an improperly done presentation from the 50s with the 35mm projectors being slightly out of phase. If it's done with a dual digital projector setup (or using the single projectors with two light engines, lenses, etc.) then it should look more like the 35mm setup running correctly.
Having said that, I've sat through close to 50 dual projector 35mm presentations now, and a bunch of digital 3D presentations too, and I still don't think the best dual digital projector 3D presentation is quite up to par with the best 35mm dual projector 3D presentation. Almost, but not quite. The 3D TVs are nowhere near close to 35mm or even dual digital setups, for what that's worth. But I have high hopes that they will get there someday.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-02-2012 03:46 PM
To add to that, Mark, I think dual digital projection IMAX 3D is on par with correctly presented dual film 3D. If there is something I want to see in 3D, I will go to the IMAX theatre here in Brooklyn. If it's not in IMAX, I probably won't see it in 3D. The IMAX image is always MUCH brighter than regular RealD and of course IMAX being dual projection has both images on the screen at the same time; ReelD and the others alternate Left eye/Right eye so there is a temporal disparity that is perceived by many people. In fact, Mark, wasn't it you who said that you find that time disparity really annoying?
Anyway, digital 3D can look as good as film, mostly because it eliminates all those things that Bob already point out that can go wrong in a dual film presentation. IMAX I think is on par with dual film (when dual film is done with impeccable precision). Digital takes the untrained projectionist out of the equation. It was difficult even back in the 50s when there were at least a fair number of trained and conscientiously guys working the booths. Imagine what dual 3D film would be like if it were tired with the level of booth incompetence that was rampant just a few years ago before the mass conversion.
Then again, there is nothing other than staggering cost that would prevent a non-IMAX theatre from installing two digital projectors and doing the same thing as IMAX does....like THAT would ever happen.
And about those ViewMaster 3D slides -- The depth in those was fantastic. I had a friend who's dad had a ViewMaster projector, a silver screen and polariod glasses. He also had a Realist camera and projector for 3D slides he himself shot. It was great watching these in his basement. I don't remember ever seeing ViewMaster material shot with the convergence set where any part of the image came forward from the screen. I guess their philosophy was that the screen was a window and you were looking out of it. ViewMaster offered some beautiful photography regardless of the 3D on all sorts of subjects, even though I think it really suffered from the square format.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Furmanek
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Clifton, NJ, USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 07-08-2012 11:34 AM
The late Dan Symmes had a wonderful quote on the attraction of 3-D movies. He compared them to a circus. "They're great when they come to town, but would you want to go every week?"
WORKING FOR PEANUTS in the Real-D format looked comparable in depth to the original shown out-of-phase. Walt Disney was not a fan of 3-D and his two cartoons are mostly flat with occasional depth. However, in the case of MELODY, the finale is quite impressive in 3-D.
The best use of 3-D in a cartoon would be BOO MOON, in my opinion. It features very effective use of layering and even has some well done off-screen effects.
For the most part, the 3-D movies of the 1950's utilized the View-Master window approach to composition and convergence. It wasn't until the 1970's when filmmakers started placing an abundance of action out of the stereo window. Unless done properly (SEA DREAMS, MAGIC JOURNEY) that can be VERY tiring and hard on the eyes.
The craftsman who created the films in the 1950's did an excellent job.
The 1950's boom lasted shorter than most realize. The studios began shooting features in January and February of 1953. By October, the last ones had wrapped. As a result, American Cinematographer published an article in December 1953, "Is 3-D Dead?"
| IP: Logged
|
|
John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-08-2012 12:11 PM
By the time I got into projection, the 3D craze was over, but I distinctly remember two 3D experiences as a kid.
I saw Chargwe At Feather River at the Carlton in Red Bank NJ. I remember being blown away by the arrows that were shot at us, getting that rush in the middle of the chest. Also recall a knife being throw as well. The film was in color, which also was a big deal back them. I remmeber walking out thinking what a great time I had just had.
The other experience I remember was It Came From Outer Space. It was in black and white, and did not blow me away like Charge At Feather River. Interestingly, I walked out of that one with a huge headache.
So, same theatre, but two different recollections. This would lend credence to the theory that It Came From Outer Space was being shown out of sync.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic