Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ghost of the Abyss--update?

This is topic Ghost of the Abyss--update? 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=004786

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 04-13-2003, 09:12 PM:

So has anyone seen this in 35mm over/under (not Imax) and if so, how does it look? Focus? 3-D alignment OK?

Jeff

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-13-2003, 09:16 PM:

Jeff, Are you sure they are over and under??? As Richard Fowler already said in another thread already running about this film......

"The specially outfitted 35mm cinemas will be dual machine.
Richard Fowler
Kinoton America Inc."

So are there any over and under prints out there?????
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-13-2003, 09:52 PM:

I saw it in IMAX...er...make that I-Justadequate...Friday night. It's pretty cool to visit the old girl again and it's a good looking picture but in terms of pure image quality the true IMAX 2D trailer I saw ahead of it easily blew it away.

FWIW the HD video footage doesn't fill the IMAX frame height so I guess the 1.78 AR has been retained although someone with access to the print would have to verify the precise shape of what's on there.

But I'd like to know about the 35mm version too.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-13-2003, 10:01 PM:

The AR on the Imax screen is approximately 1.75 or 1.78.

It looks a lot better than Episode II, but still looks like video to me.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-13-2003, 10:03 PM:

Months ago some of the preliminary information said it to be presented with dual projection ( for special venue ) but because of practical reasons it is over and under format.....now to get the shoe leather out of my mouth [Wink]

Richard Fowler
Kinoton America Inc.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-13-2003, 10:28 PM:

Wow. If all they're doing is strapping on a lens unit and hanging a silver screen it's going to really suck. Wouldn't you have to just about double the lamp output (whether wattage or efficiency or some of both) to do it right? I wonder if this was done.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-13-2003, 10:50 PM:

After enjoying almost all of the 3-D films of the fifties, I fell in love with the process and today I have the same fondness for the process in IMAX and the ones used in theme parks because they all use dual projection as the original films I saw when I was young. Although I was not impressed with the process, I have also made an effort to see almost all of the over/under 3-D films such as "FRIDAY THE 13th- 3D", "JAWS 3-D", and several others and in my opinion they all were bad. Beside a dark picture caused by the use of polaroid glasses and a single lamphouse, the picture did not have the same realsitic effect as dual projection 3-D. I am very pleased that Honolulu's only showing of "THE GHOST OF THE ABYSS" is now playing in IMAX 3-D at Consolidated's (Pacific) Waikiki IMAX. [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-13-2003, 11:04 PM:

To me that is where 3-D needs to remain, in the large format world.3-D had its day in 35 MM twice and that's enough. I have never seen a dual projection 35 MM set up so I take your word Claude that it looked good. I have seen the large format Imax 3-D presentations and I enjoyed those. The 3-D of the early 80's wasn't that good. The biggest problem was to much jumping around of the image throwing off the 3-D effect to the point of giving one headaches and eye strains.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-14-2003, 12:54 AM:

1) Could someone please explain how the "Over-Under" process works?

2) Does anyone know if disney is going to take back the lenses and screens once the movie has finished its run?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-14-2003, 01:02 AM:

If it is the 35mm over/under 3D I might be thinking about, I have one comment:

Poorly lit screen where the image was a little better than a 16mm presentation.

For what it is worth: When we ran "Mad Max," we had the option to return the lens after use, as long as we didn't burn it up.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-14-2003, 01:04 AM:

Darryl,

Yes, dual projection 3-D in 35mm had the same wonderful effects as the large format versions and it was unfortunate that the process did last very long. After seeing the dual projection version of "HOUSE OF WAX" I saw a single projection 3-D version many years later and it was terrible! In dual projection, the ball from the paddle board was 'in your face' almost forcing you to blink or duck. In the single projection version, the illusion was not there at all.

-Claude

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 04-14-2003, 04:20 AM:

Paul
Was "Mad Max" in 3D? That's news to me.
We ran a few of the over/under 3D prints years back and I agree, they were somewhat terrible. I believe the lens came from an outfit called Stereovision. Their print of House of Wax was side by side, but most of their prints were A/B.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-14-2003, 09:14 AM:

Paul,

Were you thinking of Metalstorm [Smile]

I think one problem with the House of Wax could have been in the transfer of images to one strip of film. In the process some of the image could have been lost therefor not producing the same 3-D effect that the dual projection image produced.

Posted by Pete Lawrence (Member # 130) on 04-14-2003, 10:37 AM:

As a partial answer to Mike's question about the over-under process, here is an example from an animated 3D film called Starchaser.

The left eye and right eye images fill the standard frame, one above the other. Hence the name over-under. A combination prism/ polarizer would be attached to your normal flat lens and converge the two images into one on screen. I don't remember which image is for which eye. I should add the edges of the film aren't really yellow. I had to tweak the image to make the sprocket holes visible.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-14-2003, 12:23 PM:

Peter and Darryl, I thought it was Mad Max. It was about mid-1983, but sometimes I get titles confused.

Whatever it was, we ran it for about two weeks before we got rid of it. The thing I remember was we ruined the print. The runner plate of the PRO-35 trap was bent and came in contact with the film and scratched it very badly on the base side.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-14-2003, 02:04 PM:

Nothing like a 3d scratch [puke]

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 04-14-2003, 02:35 PM:

Paul
I wonder if you are thinking of SPACEHUNTER which came in the A/B 3D process.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-14-2003, 02:42 PM:

Peter, I think you nailed it. Thank you. [Smile]

Gordon, you got that right!!!! Watching a scratched 3D print will drive the audience nuts!

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-14-2003, 02:48 PM:

We have a badly scratched print of L5: First City in Space (dual strip Imax) here. Before I took over, the theater was running the print in 2D only because of the scratches.

However, with it being dual strip, I feel that many of the scratches get lost in the 3D (because the two prints are not scratched in the same places) and we are now running it in 3D. You don't have that choice, of course, with over/under (although side-by-side would probably work that way, too).

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-14-2003, 03:01 PM:

I might be wrong but I do not ever recall anything about "MAD MAX" being released in 3-D. The film was a very low budget Australian film starring an almost unknown Mel Gibson and I recall the images looking very dingy compared the two other very high quality sequels Warner Brothers released.

-Claude

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-14-2003, 05:57 PM:

Claude, your assessment was correct. That was my error when I cited Mad Max.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-14-2003, 06:24 PM:

I think it was Peter who posted a picture of a 3-D strip on the previous page. That is a perfect example of how one could splice in the wrong place and cause the 3-D effect to reverse. There is no distinction between the frameline and the LE and RE image seperator bar.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-14-2003, 06:29 PM:

The 3D effect won't reverse, per se, if the eyes are switched, but rather cause a walleye effect where the viewer's eyes diverge instead of converge. This can cause great pain. For an example of this, turn your polarized glasses upside down (or hold them to your face backwards with the arms pointing away from your head) and try to watch the show.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-14-2003, 06:31 PM:

Yes....One of our operators framed on what he thought was the correct frame line. It wasn't. Results? A bunch of frustrated customers with splittin' headaches. Lots of refunds that night until I got there to find out what went wrong.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-14-2003, 06:39 PM:

Some 3d over under had a thinner division line between images and some had a small mark in the edge area

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-14-2003, 06:40 PM:

I have been reading some comments by people who have seen both the 35mm and the IMAX versions of "GHOST OF THE ABYSS" at some DVD forums and the 35mm version has been receiving negative comments while the IMAX presentation has been mostly positive. This prove that the only way to do 3-D right is with a dual projection system.

-Claude

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-14-2003, 07:18 PM:

If aligned and installed properly and operated properly single machine 3d can produce excellent results
regretably it is usually a victim of film done wrong

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-14-2003, 10:48 PM:

Gordon offered:
Some 3d over under had a thinner division line between images and some had a small mark in the edge area

In some versions the septum between subframes was a thicker line than the frameline. No doubt this sometimes caused operators to thread two perfs out of frame which creates a bizarre inverse 3D effect for the viewers whose eyes are each seeing the opposite image.

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 04-15-2003, 03:54 AM:

All the A/B 3D films I've had dealings with in the past have had thinner frame lines between the images which makes it easier to splice. The thick frame lines were obviously the entire frame.
That example sent earlier looked a bit screwy to me in that you could not tell were the frames were.
I never, never thought this process was worth a damn. It appeared to me to be a cheap, less work version of the original 3D process. I'm sort of glad this process disappeared along with the crappy films that came with it. Dual 3D is the only way to go.
PS Happy birthday HOUSE OF WAX.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-15-2003, 10:48 AM:

As I said properly aligned and illuminated single film 3d is very good and in fact can be better than 2 strip due to the better convergance possible with a single source with a common keystone
That is one of the advantages the IMAX GT projector has over the twin SR or Twin 15K systems is less keystone distortion due to the offset of the lens centres

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 04-16-2003, 12:09 PM:

Gordon is correct. This type of 3D projection can work well, but is limited to the experience and abilities of the operator/projectionist.

The term for reversed 3D in the industry is pseudoscopic. As Adam mentioned it is very painful to watch. This type of mistake is one of many by inexperienced operators when presenting 3D films.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-16-2003, 12:26 PM:

Like the over under 3-D process of today, even dual 3-D had problems because of improper presentations by some projectionists who did not know exactly what they were doing. One of the chief complaints that contributed to the early demise was eye strain. This was not caused by people not able to sit through a 3-D film for over 45 minutes by the comments made by a Film Tech member the other day but by improper film handling. There might be a time when film damage occurs causing the removal of couple of frames or even feets of film. When this happens, it is very vital that the lost film frames or footage is replaced with black leader. If not, the picture is no longer matched causing eye strain.

-Claude