This is topic Happy 50th BWANA DEVIL! 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=004252

---

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 11-26-2002, 08:53 AM:
 
50 years ago, on November 26, 1952, Arch Oboler's African adventure had its world premiere in Hollywood and Los Angeles at the Paramount theatres. Produced on a modest budget and photographed in dual-strip Natural Vision, this 3-D attraction was a tremendous success - "A Lion in Your Lap, A Lover in Your Arms."

Within 2 months, nearly every Hollywood studio had a 3-D feature in production. Warner Bros. began filming House of Wax; Paramount started re-shooting Sangaree (it had begun as a flat production); Universal-International started on It Came from Outer Space; RKO sent a crew to Mexico for Second Chance; Columbia began to rush Man in the Dark and Fort Ti through production; and MGM started on Arena. Even budget conscious Allied Artists got on the dimensional bandwagon with The Maze. The 3-D craze hit a fever pitch throughout the summer of 1953. At any one time, moviegoers had their choice of several first run 3-D films in all the major cities. By the fall, poor projection and falling grosses led to its first decline, and the introduction of CinemaScope in September ("The Modern Miracle You See Without the Use of Special Glasses") was another nail in the stereoscopic coffin.

3-D had a brief resurgence in the Winter with a number of high profile entries, including Hondo, Kiss Me Kate, Cease Fire, Miss Sadie Thompson and Creature from the Black Lagoon. However, by Spring of 1954, 3-D was pretty much a dead issue. The few remaining titles were released with little fanfare, or went out in standard 2-D only.

The 3-D craze was a quick one, but fondly remembered by those old enough to have experienced it first-hand. One technical point - all of these films were originally presented in the superior Polaroid dual-strip process. The single-strip red/blue anaglyph conversions were created in the seventies for various re-issues. There is a tremendous difference in quality between the 2 formats, and many people wrongly assume that these films were originally presented in the headache-inducing anaglyph system.

Fans of 3-D cinema can thank Arch Oboler and Sid Pink for taking a chance with a format that no major studio would touch. Happy 50th birthday Bwana Devil!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-26-2002, 09:24 AM:
 
How far we've come!

If you haven't experienced IMAX 3D, or dual-strip 70mm 3D (e.g. "Terminator 3D" at Universal, or the 70mm 3D shows at Disney theme parks), you are in for a treat.

IMHO, the best 3D virtual reality experience I've experienced on a large screen is the IMAX "SOLIDO" presentation of "Echoes of the Sun" on a dome screen with the LCD glasses. Saw it in Chiba Japan (near Tokyo) in October 1991.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-26-2002, 09:38 AM:
 
For those who haven't seen the 3D IMAX Space Station film, I highly recommend it. It is the best-looking 3D film that I have seen and is probably the closest that I will ever get to experiencing space travel. This uses a 2-strip Polaroid process which blows away the 35mm single-strip Polaroid 3D systems that I have seen.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-26-2002, 11:43 AM:
 
I was only thirteen years old when I saw "BWANA DEVIL" at Consolidated's old Liberty Theatre in Honolulu in 1952 and I was hooked on 3-D ever since. Yes, IMAX 3-D and all of the other 3-D films that are featured at Disneyland and Universal are better only because they use 70mm films but the 35mm versions were just as good when it came to 3-D effects. By the time the craze was over, I saw almost every film that was released in the format. Scott, "SPACE STATION" was indeed a very good 3-D IMAX film but I have seen better ones. The 3-D effects was very good and so was the space photography but the print I saw was terrible because of poor image quality.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-26-2002, 01:08 PM:
 
I just saw SPACE STATION last night, and I would agree that it is some of the best 3-D I've ever seen. Also, a very entertaining.

My favorite 3-D moments are the following:

(35mm)
The paddle ball man in HOUSE OF WAX
The floating tray in THE BUBBLE (aka FANTASTIC INVASION OF PLANET EARTH)
The Oil Can in the Eye in PARDON MY BACKFIRE

(Imax 3-D with Goggles)
The floating paint blobs in the PAINT MISBEHAVIN' trailer
The flying heads in CYBERWORLD
The Russian Rocket launch in SPACE STATION 3D

I never got to see BWANA DEVIL...I'm sorry I missed it, but, I was only 2 when it came out!
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-26-2002, 05:31 PM:
 
The only film I saw in 3D is "We are born of stars" presented in IMAX at the Bradford museum theatre, Great Britain, in 1986 I think. It used anaglyph and spectators wore the old-style flexible glasses with cardboard frame and plastic lenses. A large part of the film was computer-generated with simple colors therefore the anaglyph system was sufficient to render spectacular effects (although I know it is nothing compared to the modern electronic glasses with 48fps projection).

By the way, could someone explain me how the polarizing system works with 3D cinema? Having myself often used a polarizing filter many times when doing 24x36 still photography, I know exactly what the principle of light polarization is, but I never found technical informations clearly showing how it works when applied to three-dimensional movie projection (as used with films like Jaws-3D and Space Hunter for example). Thanks in advance...

Message edited on Nov. 27th:

What I can't figure out is how eyes make the distinction between the left and right pictures since both are projected on the same screen (hence coming to the eyes from only one direction) with a single 35mm projector!
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-27-2002, 08:49 AM:
 
There is a polarizing filter placed in front of each projection lens that corresponds with the polarized glasses viewers wear. Each eye/lens pair is polarized in a different direction, so that it sees only the portion of light that it is meant to. There is some depolarization of the light as it passes through the port window and bounces off of the screen, resulting in slight crosstalk or "noise" which sometimes appears in your brain as double vision.

I can go insanely in depth with this if you like.

Also check out the thread here called "IMAX Basics". I can't recall if we discussed much about how 3D works there or not.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-27-2002, 09:46 AM:
 
Adam Martin wrote: "There is some depolarization of the light as it passes through the port window and bounces off of the screen, resulting in slight crosstalk or "noise" which sometimes appears in your brain as double vision."

If you tilt your head with a polarized system, you also get more cross-talk (double images) between the "right eye" and "left eye" images. The much more expensive LCD glasses (electronic shutters synced to the projector via IR) are much better in this regard.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-27-2002, 12:48 PM:
 
Here is something I don`t get: What is the point of IMAX 3D? If you wear those LCD glasses, your field of vision is so restricted, it makes no difference if you look at a gigantic screen or if the screen is 5 m2.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-27-2002, 02:23 PM:
 
The point of IMAX, whether it's 2D or 3D, is to immerse the viewer in the movie by going beyond his field of vision. You're not supposed to be able to see the whole screen at once. You're supposed to be able to move your head and still see image, as if the movie were all around you.

Yes, the 3D glasses restrict the field of vision, but until someone invents a reasonably-priced disposable polarized contact lens that stays in alignment with the projection filter, it's as good as you're gonna get.

John, I understand that there will be no more E3D/PSE installations. The hassles of maintaining the electronic hybrid goggles far outweigh the benefit of a significantly improved S/N ratio in the eyes of most exhibitors. And I hear they're heavy and uncomfortable to boot.
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-27-2002, 02:31 PM:
 
Thanks for your comments. One more question:

In 1983, Jaws 3-D played at a local multiplex: that kind of simple ultra-automated multiplex with only 1 Kinoton FP20 (or FP30) projector and 1 set of ST100 platters per screen. So I think they had 1 single 35mm print with both left/right pictures on it. How do the pictures display on the film in such a case? And I guess they must probably use a special lens on the projector?

Yes Adam, you can go deeply into this. I have a full box of Alka Selzer ready here
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-27-2002, 04:13 PM:
 
The single projection system for JAWS 3-D and other films of the era used the over-and-under approach. Basically, the frames were Tecniscope sized (2 perfs per image), so a standard 4-perf projection frame contained both frames. A special attachment to a "flat" lens both polarized each image and converged them. The resulting image will be SCOPE in appearance, but if the theatre is using their standard lenses with this, the scope image will be no wider than the theatre's normal FLAT setting (with significant masking top or bottom or both. Another varient was used for older films (House of Wax, Dial M for Murder). In this case, the two images wer side by side, employing a SCOPE squeeze. After being unsqueezed, the two images went through the same basic process on its way to the screen.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-27-2002, 04:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

And I hear they're heavy and uncomfortable to boot.

---