Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are there many theatres that can still show dual projection 3D?

This is topic Are there many theatres that can still show dual projection 3D? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003972

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-08-2002, 06:04 PM:

2004 will mark the 50th anniversary of Natural Vision 3-D. It was 1954 when an independent producer, Arch Oboler released "BWANA DEVIL", the first feature in that process starring Robert Stack and it was an instant hit.. The film itself was terrible but the 3D effects was wonderful. Because the process used two seperate 35mm projectors, the picture was very bright despite having to wear polaroid glasses to view the film. For those of you who have never seen the 3D films of the fifties, the effect is almost the same as IMAX 3-D. Since "BWANA DEVIL", I had made an effort to see as many films as I could in the process including "HOUSE OF WAX", "IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE", "ARENA", "THRE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON", FORT TI", "INFERNO", "THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE" and "THE MAZE". Beside many others I saw in 3D, there were others I had to watch in a regular version such as "DIAL M FOR MURDER, "HONDO" and "KISS ME KATE" because the 3D process was no longer popular.

When I used to read the Los Angeles Times on a regular basis, I have noticed that there were one or two revival theatres that were showing newly struck 3D prints there. Beside these theatres in LA, are there still others in other parts of the country and the world that are still showing Natural Visian (Dual Projector) 3D? I am not referring to the single projection system which in my opinion sucks big time.

-Claude

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-08-2002, 06:09 PM:

We have regularly installed Selysen Sync motors for 3d festivals
Actually the single film 3d can be very good if the time and care is taken to set it up properly

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-08-2002, 08:58 PM:

There are probably more than you would expect that can run 2-strip 3-D films. It isn't that hard to do. Special venue still uses the 2-strip method.

In the DC area, the AFI runs a 3-D festival about once a year in 2-strip.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-08-2002, 10:06 PM:

The theater I am currently at now USED to run dual projector 3D. They showed them in our large giant screen auditorium. The extra projector has long since been removed, but there are some interesting switches that still remain on the main projector. It seems like an interlock switch, but there there are actually TWO ways it is wired for interlock. I am guessing that the weird one was to start both projectors at the same time. And yes, they have those damned Selsyn motors in addition to the regular Simplex motors. Can you imagine seeing a 3D movie in our large giant screen auditorium?

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 09-08-2002, 11:48 PM:

Just removed the second projector from a 2-strip outfitted booth. There is still a silver screen in that auditorium.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-09-2002, 02:23 AM:

NFT2 in London can still do it, and does from time to time, which is appropriate, as the NFT developed out of the Telekinema at the Festival of Britain where modern 3D, i.e. polarised picture and stereophonic sound really started in 1951.

NFT3, previously the MOMI (Museum of the Moving Image) cinema could, but the DP-70s were replaced by Vic 8s at about the time the museum closed, and I don't know if it is now set up for 3D.

NFT1 cannot do it, unsuitable screen, and wrong shape auditorium.

I don't know if any other cinemas in London are still equipped, but I haven't heard of any others doing it for many years now.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-09-2002, 02:54 AM:

Gordon McLeod writes:

quote:
Actually the single film 3d can be very good if the time and care is taken to set it up properly

And one crucial thing is making sure the prints match each other totally, which is becoming more of an issue as the extant sets of 3D prints are getting older and more worn.

What you've got to do is exactly the same as with that other Warners technology, Vitaphone - replace any lost frames with an exact same amount of spacing. I once ran House of Wax and the print preparation involved running both left and right eye through a double-gang synchroniser. Footage numbers are printed every 16 frames between two perforations, and you have to make sure these match up on both prints. If there are any missing frames from one side, you replace it with clear spacing so that at least the audience will only lose the 3D - you won't darken the picture, which would happen if you used black.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 09-09-2002, 03:23 AM:

I've installed one special venue 3d system this year.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 09-09-2002, 09:44 AM:

I've still got a set of the original port glass polarising filters for two projector 3D.... still in their original envelope un-used.

The 'Up and Over' single projector system was ok but you had to make sure your lamp house was de focused to get as even a light spread as possible. I've seen a couple of dire shows as a result where one image was very dull at the top and the other was very dull at the bottom.... masking tape everywhere.

It was mostly due to the fact that the projectionist was expected to run single manning, set up the 3D and do his normal duties as well. No wonder the end result was often a disaster...... and who gets the blame.. answers please on a post card to....

BTW I would suggest Leo that you are wrong when you say you replaced missing / damaged frames with CLEAR spacing. That would result in a very disturbing white flash in one eye, and ruin the moment by drawing attention to the fact that there was damage etc. A black frame would not be as distracting or uncomfortable and not ruin the moment.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-09-2002, 10:21 AM:

In Los Angeles the Tiffany and Vagabond theatres, ran 3D Festivals
afew times a year. At the Vagabond, Chris Condon from StereoVision 3D
set that house up. StereoVision had their 70MM set up at the old UA
Pasadena for reseach and testing.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-09-2002, 10:28 AM:

quote:
Chris Condon from SpaceVision

I thought he was with StereoVision?

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-09-2002, 10:52 AM:

Tim
Your right , its been a long time since I was back in the Vagabond.

Thanks

Posted by Kris Brunton (Member # 432) on 09-09-2002, 12:30 PM:

We installed 3 system in the orient last fall. All systems used the GE selsyn motors. We experimented with some other types of motor systems utilizing DC motors with shaft encoders but they would not control the roll down after down after power was removed. The selsyns were the only thing that worked.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-09-2002, 12:46 PM:

Chris Condon was also involved with the set-up for the Nuart's 3-D film festival last month (although all films were using the single strip method).

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 09-09-2002, 02:14 PM:

I have a fond memory of Natural Vision dual projector 3D, as a young 3rd projectionist nearly 50 years ago, in a 2,500 seater cine-variety theatre. With a throw of 152 feet onto a large academy ratio screen the quality of the 3D image was outstanding! Interlock was by a simple coupling bar between the two projectors. The film was sent on four 5,000’ spools for left and right eye, and there would be of course an Intermission to change the reels. As mentioned before in another thread, I can name at least three UK cinemas that had the luxury of four projectors to enable changeovers. One of them was the West End of London Warner Theatre, which also had separate follower soundheads interlocked for THE HOUSE OF WAX in stereo sound as well! Image that.

One amusing incident I remember was when the manager came upto the projection box wondering why the picture was flat and not 3D. We had to stop and go back to the beginning again, after it was realised that a fresh batch of 3D glasses had been folded the wrong way. The manager then had to go on stage and give instructions to turn the glasses the right way around!

Gordon wrote,

quote:
Actually the single film 3d can be very good if the time and care is taken to set it up properly

I agree, I saw THE BUBBLE in perfect 3D projected from a Philips FP20 with an excellent xenon light at the small Classic Cinema, Piccadilly Circus. It can be done.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-09-2002, 05:29 PM:

So what is needed to run 2-strip 3D, assuming an existing changeover booth with 6000' capability, a silver screen, and sufficient image brightness? Is it just a matter of installing the selsyn motors, the polarizing filters, and some switches, or is there more to it than that? What is the approximate cost of the conversion?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-09-2002, 05:46 PM:

Bernard,

How is it possible to interlock four projectors to show dual strip 3-D so that an intermission is not necessary? I alway thought the distance between the two projector must represent the same distance as one eye is to the other.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-09-2002, 05:47 PM:

Some 3D films have a separate mag track so in that case you'd need a dubber with 3-track heads.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2002, 05:57 PM:

I'm actually working on a project that should be able to have a 4-projector 2-strip 3-D changeover...detail will be made available in the future.

Anyway as to what it takes...it all depends on what you have and what you want.

You can use the selsyn method but be sure to also get the shutters in time with each other before "locking" the machines. The power switches for both motors should also linked so the selsyns are only there to maintin sync, not actually drive the projector.

For more modern methods, you can have 3-phase motors with motor conrollers. You could have one controller operate both motors or some controllers can "talk" to link them up.

You will need a "silver" screen for polarized 3-D and polarizing filters for each machine (with the proper glasses for the audience).

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-09-2002, 06:06 PM:

I've only seen single strip 3D a couple of times, in the under/over format. I felt the screen brightness left something to be desired. I remember on one occasion the first reel had been laced up two perfs out of rack, so the left/right images were reversed. Unlike with the anaglyph system, you cannot correct this by turning the glasses round, each eye will still see the same image, you can however do it by turning the glasses upside down, which those of us who realised what was wrong did, others followed our actions, and soon most of the audience were watching through inverted glasses. At this point, word must have got back to the projectionist, as the film was pulled up by the necessary two perfs, almost the entire audience then similtaniously removed their glasses, and returned them to the normal position!

Of course, this also had the effect of one eye seeing the previous image, relative to the other.

I have never seen the 1.37 side by side anamorphic system, I would imagine that it would involve even more light loss than the under/over system. I only know of two films released in this format, the re-release of 'House of Wax', which I am told was not of as good quality compared to the two strip original, and 'The Stewardesses', which I believe held some sort of record at the time of its release for something like grearest ratio of earnings to production costs for a 3D film, or something similar. Does anyone know of any other films in this format?

I also never saw the two formats which used who images side by side, each rotated through 90 degrees, in either the same, or opposite directions. I think these were used mainly by warious 16mm systems.

Bernard, what screen size did you see single strip on, and do you happen to know what lamp Wattage, or current, was used?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-09-2002, 06:23 PM:

There were at least three quality 3-D films released in the single strip 3-D process. The first one I recall was a science fiction film but I afraid I cannot recall the title at the moment. The others were "JAWS 3-D" and "FRIDAY THE 13TH- Part 3-D" Although the 3-D effects was not very good during most of the movie, the opening credits during "FRIDAY THE 13TH" and JAWS 3-D" was very effective especially the floating fish head in the Jaws film.

-Claude

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 09-09-2002, 08:04 PM:

Claude wrote,

quote:
Bernard,
How is it possible to interlock four projectors to show dual strip 3-D so that an intermission is not necessary? I alway thought the distance between the two projector must represent the same distance as one eye is to the other.

I think you will find that only large cinemas were equipped with four projectors, and they would have had long throws, also the academy ratio screens would not have been much larger than 24’. Therefore lining up the four projectors was achieved for 3D presentation.

Just out of interest an Independent cinema owner in Herfordshire, kept his four projectors running after the 3D era, two were for wide, and the other two for scope!

Stephen wrote,

quote:
Bernard, what screen size did you see single strip on, and do you happen to know what lamp Wattage, or current, was used?

The Classic Cinema, Piccadilly was a very tiny ex Cartoon & News Theatre, I would think under 200 seats. At a rough guess I don’t suppose the screen would have been much wider than 20’. You are stretching my memory with the Philips FP20s, they could have been pulse light or xenon.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2002, 08:49 PM:

The last wave of 3-D films (single strip) that I ran (starting in 1981) was:

Coming At Ya
Friday the 13th part 3
Jaws 3-D
Spacehunter
Parasite
Some film with Steve Guttenberg..."Invisible Man" or something to that effect.
The Reissue of House of Wax in side-by-side 3D

I'm sure others will come to me after I stop writing. Many of the above debut different lenses. Coming At Ya used the "Marks" polarising system, Space Hunter had the nifftiest lens that allowed separate left and right eye focus and removable polarizers. Friday the 13th had the Paramount box that allowed for separate left and right eye keystone compensation and a polarizer card.

The Stereovision company also was very supportive during this era...eventually coming out with a universal lens attachment that would work on most any projector.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-09-2002, 10:05 PM:

I try to use stepper motors on the machines as that is the most accurate method of maintaining sync

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 09-10-2002, 12:18 AM:

The Music Box in Chicago is equipped for double system 3D projection. This past winter we set it up with a Mag dubber and presented "Kiss Me Kate" in dual system "Full Frame" (No optical track) Mag fullcoat 3 channel StereoPhonic sound. Selsyns on the RCA 9030's and a shaft encoder on the Century SA picture head to sync the dubber. Reel to Reel with an intermission. I'm very fussy about phasing the projector shutters. When power is applied to the selsyns their's just enough creep to make rephasing mandatory. If your attentive you'll have a perfect show every time. We did. In all my years of 3D projection I've never experianced sync creep using selsyns. 3D is a challenge but, IMHO it's just about the most fun thing a projectionist can do with clothes on.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-10-2002, 06:48 AM:

Almost any change-over house can run dual strip 3D with a few extra pieces of equipment. The interlock selsyns and the silver screen. As simple as that might sound, alas, I have yet to run a 3D festival in my theatre. I've got the selsyns, but not the silver screen. Because the 2500 seat house has wide seating, I can't install a silver and then leave it there to use for regular sceenings. Although, with the number of people we get for most shows, I suppose we could mark off the side seats were image would fall off and contain the audience to the good image seating, but there are times when we do get large crowds, especially for sneaks. Then what do I do? Plus, we just don't have the dollars to spend on a silver screen, even if I wanted to go that route, especially since the one we have is in good condition. But I sure would love being able to run dual strip HOUSE OF WAX, my favorite of all time.

Frank

Our selsyns mechanically couple to the standard induction motor by a belt. Does any manufacturer make a dual motor arrangement with a standard motor and a selsyn section built into the same housing?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-10-2002, 07:24 AM:

Bernard wrote:

quote:
I agree, I saw THE BUBBLE in perfect 3D projected from a Philips FP20 with an excellent xenon light at the small Classic Cinema, Piccadilly Circus. It can be done.

And then:

quote:
The Classic Cinema, Piccadilly was a very tiny ex Cartoon & News Theatre, I would think under 200 seats. At a rough guess I don’t suppose the screen would have been much wider than 20’. You are stretching my memory with the Philips FP20s, they could have been pulse light or xenon.

On a screen that size single strip would probably work well, but I don't find it very satisfactory at larger sizes. Two strip gives a much better light output. I think the best solution may be single strip 70mm, either two roughly Academy sized frames side by side for 1.37, or two normal 70mm frames, under and over, with a ten perf pull down for widescreen. I believe such systems have been built for special venue use, but I have never seen one.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-10-2002, 08:57 AM:

So where does one get the Selsyn motors and what is the approximate cost to Selsyn-ize a pair of SH-1000s? (I'm fantasizing about something that won't happen, but am still curious.)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2002, 10:13 AM:

Selsyn sagas:
http://www.fairradio.com/selsyn.htm
http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-051.htm
http://www.mrinds.com/
http://theatreorgans.com/nc/metrolina/carolina/photographs/b02.html

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

Posted by Kris Brunton (Member # 432) on 09-10-2002, 12:21 PM:

You can try Wolk for the Selsyn Motors. Last I talked to them them thought they had some more but were waiting to unload a freight container (from the move). They are still available from GE as well. If I can find that contact info somewhere I will post it.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-10-2002, 12:44 PM:

Quote:

quote:
I think the best solution may be single strip 70mm, either two roughly Academy sized frames side by side for 1.37

This was actually done for an early 70's re-release of HOUSE OF WAX. I was told by a friend way back in college that someone at Stereovision told him six such prints had ben made. I remember seeing them advertised at the Chinese and a theatre in Orange County.
It was advertised as also having stereophonic sound, but whether this was the original mix or not (three stage channels from a seperate 35mm mag coat film, the surround from an optical mono track on one of the two image films, the other reel having a mono mix of the whole soundtrack), I don't know.

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 09-10-2002, 02:04 PM:

Regarding "House of Wax" in 70mm side by side. The Russians have been doing this for years. As a matter of fact, I think StereoVision imported some of their projection attachments for the "HOW" 70mm engagements. Regarding "HOW" audio. The 70mm release restored the surround channel as this exists as an optical track and Warner Bros. didn't lose it. The stage channel for the 70mm release was mono as Jack Warner decreed ALL previus fullcoat elements be erased and the mag stock used to record audio for Warners Television production in the 50's. To this day Warners has yet to locate the original front stage stereo tracks for this title.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-10-2002, 03:12 PM:

In Los Angeles when the movies "Bwana Devil" and "House of Wax"
opened they played at the Paramount Theatre in Downtown Los Angeles.
"House of Wax" was presented in WarnerPhonic Sound. The Paramount theatre had 3600 seats and the projection throw was 190 feet. The Paramount had round the clock screenings, when "House of Wax" opened. In Long Beach, California the 3D theatre was the Fox West Coast Theatre. The West Coast was equipped for WarnerPhonic Sound also.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 09-10-2002, 03:14 PM:

Around 1965, might have been later, there was a revival of Natural Vision dual projection 3D at the ABC Broadway Cinema, Hammersmith. I took my wife a couple of times, who had never experienced 3D. Much to my surprise they were shown on a 1.75 wide screen which was effective.
The two projectors must have been carefully framed and not moved off the Natural Vision line-up chart! There certainly wasn’t any cropping that I remember, so I can only assume there was sufficient head room.
_________________________________________________________

Stephen,

Re: Classic Cinema, Picadilly Circus 3D. On reflection, by that time I would think that the light source must have been xenon! The Philips pulse light becoming extinct!

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-10-2002, 03:50 PM:

Here are some other pictures that was released in Hawaii in the standard version only and and I am not sure if they were ever released in 3-D. Based on what I saw, I bet the 3-D version must have been very effective if they were ever shown in Natural Vision in theatres. One of the film was a terrible but funny B&W grade C Sci Fi horror film with George Nader titled ROBOT MONSTER". Another one was "DRUMS OF TAHITI" with Dennis O'Keefe. There was another film that was a high quality production from Columbia Pictures that was based on "RAIN", a play by Sommerset Maugham. The movie was "MEET SADIE THOMPSON" starring Rita Hayworth, Jose Ferrer and Aldo Ray. This film did not appear to have any 3-D gimmicks but it looked like it might have been great in 3-D.

-Claude

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 09-10-2002, 04:22 PM:

Has anyone tried 3D (single Strip)at a outdoor event?.
I have been asked only this week about this very subject?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-10-2002, 04:58 PM:

Claude wrote:

quote:
I alway thought the distance between the two projector must represent the same distance as one eye is to the other.

Claude, you are thinking about the cameras. The taking lenses are typically aligned to reproduce the average (adult) interocular distance of 2.5 inches. This is assuming a 45mm lens on a dual 35mm camera setup because a 45mm lens (with 35mm film) "sees things" about the same as the naked eye.

The interocular (or interaxial) can be widened to exaggerate the apparent nearness of the subject or to capture far-field scapes with more pronounced relief.

In projection, the images are lined up so they are centred to one another. The distance between projectors is not critical, except as it might relate to keystoning.

My favorite 3-D movie is still CAPTAIN E/O starring Michael Jackson. Written by George Lucas, Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Co-Starring Dick Shaw and Angelica Huston.

CAPTAIN E/O was an attraction at Walt Disney World's EPCOT Centre, debuting in or around 1984. It played in the Magic Eye Theatre, part of the Kodak Pavillion in Future World. It may have played in Disneyland in Southern California, but I'm not sure about that. The Magic Eye Theatre featured in-theatre smoke and laser effects that were synchronized to the on-screen action.

CAPTAIN E/O was 17 minutes in length and cost about $17million to produce. It was shot (primarily) using twin 65mm cameras. Vittorio Storaro was the Director of Photography. The soundtrack was digital and it featured two songs by Michael Jackson. The first song, entitled "We Are Here To Change The World" has not been released. The second track, entitled "You're Just Another Part Of Me" appears on Jackson's "Bad" album.

The pre-show was a really neat 2-D, multiprojector slide show called "Making Memories."

~Manny (in Super 3-D)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2002, 09:29 PM:

AFAIK, Kodak has sponsored several dual strip 70mm 3D shows: "Magic Journeys", "Captain EO", "Muppetvision 3D", and "Honey, I Shrunk the Audience".

http://incolor.inebraska.com/aat/imagination.html

Here's the camera rig:
http://www.hineslab.com/DisnyRig.html

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-10-2002, 10:23 PM:

Quote:

quote:
To this day Warners has yet to locate the original front stage stereo tracks for this title.

I know several WB titles have turned up from collector's that were Mag/optic CinemaScope films, but WB was pretty cheap when it came to saving the original elements. But since these mag tracks weren't on the film print itself, chances are even more slim of finding them.

I remember Variety's article on UA's "big" 70mm 3-D in 1979. I think they said their would be 12 channels of sound in the system, including overheads.

The Steve Guttenberg film was The Man Who Wasnt There, and seemed to last a week (a complete disaster).

I found almost all the 3-D films I saw to be mostly worthless and cheap looking (cant comment on Metal Storm, had to walk out, the convergence was HORRIBLE.)
Believe it or not, I Found Flesh For (Andy Warhol's) Frankenstein to be the only "modern" era 3-D film to show an artistic style. Acting was deliberately bad, but it was well photographed, with interesting sets. Although because of the timing of the "new" death of 3-D, we did miss out on Godfather 3-D. Who knows what Coppola would have done with the process? Probably quite a bit better than those responsible for Jaws 3-D, Amitiville 3-D and Friday the 13th 3-D (too bad Star Wars used VI for Return of the Jedi in 83!)

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-10-2002, 10:55 PM:

quote:
Although because of the timing of the "new" death of 3-D, we did miss out on Godfather 3-D. Who knows what Coppola would have done with the process?

I remember reading somewhere that Coppola had directed a 3-D porn flick entitled "Manhole." Can anyone confirm/disprove this?

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 09-11-2002, 06:03 PM:

3-D Movies : a history and filmography of stereoscopic cinema by R.M. Hayes, ©1989, ISBN 0-89950-407-8

Pages 61-63: "Four months after The Mask [opened in late 1961], Francis Ford Coppola's cannibalization Bellboy and the Playgirls opened in "adult" cinemas in several larger cities. (Coppola made a number of these early skinflicks, though he intentionally ignores their existence today, being a demigod to many apparently wise individuals who see some kind of talent in him that has escaped my attention.) This comedy was actually a West German black-and-white feature made in 1958 called Mit Eva fing die sunde an with new scenes inserted by Coppola. The new material, or most of it, was shot with a dual 16mm Auricon rig devised by Richard Kay and called Optovision. The cameras were arranged in the pattern of Natural Vision. The stereoscopic shots were then printed, in color, side-by-side onto the standard frame and via both an enlarging and polarizing converging device were projected. At least in one theatre. Other stereo-vision prints were presented in single strip anaglyphic duo-color format. According to the distributor only eight 3-D prints were actually made, and most engagements were flat in the hybrid black-and-white/color mismatching of original and insert scenes. This actually did do something for Coppola's career. It allowed him to make other "art theatre" films for "adults only" before signing on with Roger Corman as a dialogue coach, sound recordist, and whatever else he could get hired to do. Of course now he is generally known for the overly expensive bombs he has been making for years. (In all fairness, some of his films have been highly successful, but these usually are produced by others. Since a good producer is of far greater importance to any movie than a good director, Coppola can't really be given more than modest credit for the success of such features as The Godfather, Tucker: The Man and His Dream, and the few others he has directed which have been profitable.)"

Page 85: "The year 1977 saw the release of the first feature in 3-Depix, the hardcore homosexual trash Manhole. (Even the title was pornographic!) This was filmed with an early prototype lens unit and had only a 2:1 aspect ratio. Later versions of the single strip over-and-under process would have different framelines and a full 2.35:1 picture image. This film had extremely limited engagements even in the "lavendar" houses for which it was made."

Pages 136-138 (selections): "Bellboy and the Playgirls (Joseph Brenner Associates; February 12, 1962). Sequences filmed in Optovision (dual 16mm printed 35mm single strip side-by-side 1.66:1)." "Also known as The Playgirls and the Bellboy and The Beltgirls and the Bellboy. Also released with the 3-D scenes in single strip anaglyphic duo-color." "COMMENTARY: Francis Ford Coppola doesn't list this film on his credits, but he directed (and possibly wrote) it, and now his long-kept "secret" is out. The movie is a mishmash of black-and-white footage from the 1958 West German comedy Mit Eva fing die Sünde an with additionally shot monochrome and 3-D color scenes tossed in. It is pointless to really criticize this thing; it was made for the sixties "raincoat" crowd and intended only as a fast buck item to fill grindhouses specializing in so-called "adult films," which generally weren't very adult and seemed aimed more at twelve-year-olds, at least that is about the mentality level of these sort of things. Prints are still around on this, and it is interesting to see, not from an entertainment viewpoint, but because of its production history and being an early Coppola effort. I don't like Coppola's films by and large, but since many do, it should be seen if the opportunity arises. I think the original German footage is much better than the American inserts. Oddly, this reworked edition was also released in West Germany under its original title. It appears on European film lists as if it were actually a German-made 3-D film. I feel sure Coppola is more than willing to allow them to take full credit for it."

Pages 257-258: "Manhole (1977). Filmed in 3-Depix (single strip over-and-under 2:1). Director of photography and 3-Depix supervisor Max Glenn. 3-Depix technology Mortimer and Alvin M. Marks. 3-Depix converter Marks Polarized Corporation. Filmed in New York City. Eastman Color. Optical sound. Self-imposed rating: X. Only the above credits were available on this hardcore homosexual feature, but any credits that appeared on the film would have been pseudonyms anyway. The first film shot in 3-Depix, which at this time used the narrower aspect ratio. COMMENTARY: This film can be considered of interest for only one reason: it was the first movie in Marks' 3-Depix system and utilized an early version of that process which had wider framelines and a 2:1 ratio."

The "American Film Institute Catalog Feature Films, 1961-1970" entry F6.3849 is under The Playgirls and the Bellboy.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-11-2002, 07:02 PM:

Isn't there something in the FAQ about quoting Doktor ["I held a ruler to 70mm film to find the aspect ratio!"] Haze without a suitable disclaimer? If not there ought to be.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-11-2002, 07:18 PM:

Quote:

quote:
it was the first movie in Marks' 3-Depix system and utilized an early version of that process which had wider framelines and a 2:1 ratio."

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't wider framelines of an over-and-under single 3-D film produce WIDER AR frames?

QUOTE:

quote:
"The year 1977 saw the release of the first feature in 3-Depix, the hardcore homosexual trash Manhole. (Even the title was pornographic!)

As opposed to what? hardcore heterosexual trash?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-11-2002, 09:29 PM:

>As opposed to what? hardcore heterosexual trash?

Soitenly. Or not hardcore or not trash. 3 parameters, each of which can assume 2 states (hardcore/not hardcore, homosexual/heterosexual, trash/not trash). Thus 2 ^ 3 (two cubed) or eight possible combinations!