We've been an active 3-D venue for a couple years and had great luck with it. I've found with a good bulb and proper setup, it is a fantastic format (IMHO).

The problem now is availability of titles. This year Kit Parker films would not guarantee "House Of Wax" - which tells me if they won't stand behind it, given the poor condition of their prints, then it must really be trashed.

So, does anybody know of other titles that may be available and who has the rights to them?

Our town loves the format, we just need new films to show..

Thanks!
 

"Jaws-3D"
That b&w 3 Stooges 3D short forget the name
"Dial "M" for Murder."
"Friday the 13th" forget which one
"Comin' at Ya!" not very good, but 3D.

I'm sure Scott N. would know many more, and good ones.

------------------

 

We've been told there are no remaining 3-D prints of Jaws 3.

We've run Dial-M but WB pulled it - hopefully they've re-released it.
 

People loved it. There's a really fake scene where someone throws a bottle directly at the camera (it's full of typical 3D shots like that.) You can see the wires holding the bottle, but the whole thing is so stupid-funny that everyone laughs.

I really give Hitchcock credit for not being brow-beaten into using '3D type' shots in "Dial.."
 

-Aaron

Now the bad news...I just called the theatre's recording to find out the showtimes and learned that due to tech difficulties today's showings (Sunday, 11/28) are not in 3-D, but they may have the system back up and running on Monday for the remainder of the week. It would be sad if they ended up having to play the last few days in 2-D as the theatre invested in a new silver screen and synchronization motor for the two projectors.
 

There's no way to run a 3D print and watch it like 2D - that I'm aware of.

hmmm, vewy intewesting...
 

We ran a single-strip anamorphic version of Dial-M two years ago.

I would still think only half of it would be blurry... guess not.
 

------------------

 

"Dial M" and "H.O.W." were the best 3-D of the 1950s films, IMHO. I need to get frame sequential VHS copies for home.

 

Anyhow, I occasionally see 3-D prints for sale in Big Reel. Of course there are no exhibition rights.
 

They did it the "real" way, with two projectors. I peeked in the booth; (which was tiny) they had a drive shaft with universal joints on one end going from one projector to another. I was talking to the operator before the show started; he jokingly shouted at the projectors; "I defy you to get out of sync...!"

I had a negative opinion of 3D films, until I saw some of the better quality ones (like Dial M.) without any; "3D for the sake of 3D" scenes. I mean, I would'nt want to see it everyday, but for some films that want to immerse the audience, (Jurassac Park?) I think it could still "sell." But, it has to be done right from camera to projector, (no selling those seats on the far sides!) or people will get annoyed.
 

I think that by 1962 or so, the public just said "Screw this."
 

Two-strip IMAX 3D film projected on a domed screen with the PSE LCD glasses. The 3D image literally surrounded you, as you could turn your head to view a wrap-around 3D image.

AFAIK, "Race for Atlantis" at Caesars World in Las Vegas is shown using a similar process, but is CGI rather than live action:
http://www.imax.com/raceforatlantis/tech.html

Even on a flat screen, IMAX 3D is very impressive if done correctly.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
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

I'm hoping to see JOURNEY OF MAN next week, which I've heard is very good also.

Looks like many of the commercial IMAX houses are playing 35mm this summer...too bad there's not enough exciting large format product out there. BUT, that's another topic.

Mark Lensenmayer

 

John: Thanks for reminding me of Echoes of the Sun - many a nasty night spent in the Fujitsu projection room trying to keep those @*&%!! loop cabinets going... 20 minutes of IMAX film is a LOT to thread through hundreds of rollers.
The best show at Expo90 (IMO) was the Electric pavilion and the ride through a mirrored room lit by about a million tiny lights synchronised to music. No film though....
 

Just some observations:

Keeping the projectors in sync, whether by physically locking the moters together, or electronical with selsin moters, is not a problem. The problems arise when the left and right eye prints are threaded out of sync, or spliced out of sync. Think about it, if you have a film break on 1 print, and take out a few frames to fix, you have to find the exact location (to the frame) on the other print, and remove the same. If not, it causes eye strain. Also, when you thread the projectors, no only must you thread both prints starting at the exact same point, but you need to make sure the shutter on the 2 projectors is at the exact same point. If not, again eye strain.

Many of these films were later re-issued on single strip 3d, either over under or side by side. Neither is as sharp or clear as dual strip. Then even worse, since polarized 3D requires a silver screen, many were later converted to anaglyph (red/cyan) which is headache inducing, but can be projected onto any screen.

3D done right is fantastic.

/Mitchell
 

------------------
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
 

Setting the correct inter-occular distance is important too, too little and you kill the 3D effect, too much and you get great eye strain by causing peoples' eyes to go wall-eyed.
Ugh, it hurts just thinking about it.

Paul

 

I'm sure many people thought stereo films and widescreen were just a gimmic at the time. I think it was exhibitors trying to get away with cheap 3D installs that kill 3D. You just can't be cheap with 3D.
 

There were also 3D titles put out that used synchronized LCD shutter glasses ala IMAX. These used the alternating video fields to display the L & R images. The system gave full color images but at half vertical resolution.

Then there's those 3D rollercoaster videos and DVDs that use the principle of delaying the light entering one eye through the use of glasses with plano lenses of differing thickness. I've not seen these myself but various reviews I've read indicate that this 3D process is inconsistent at best--basically it works only on moving images with static images literally falling flat.

Cheers!

Paul
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist
"Otaku wa tsurai yo." <-- Yeah I know. Bad Japanese pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan.

 

------------------

 

/Mitchell
 

------------------

 

------------------
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.

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.

~Manny.
 

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.

Many IMAX and other large format theatres still use polarized glasses, usually much higher quality than the cheap "throw away" ones used for 35mm, so they get washed and reused.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion