quote:

---

The Hi-Def 3-D effects look very nice. Just finished a D5 test for Miramax. They say the film is about 80-90% 3-D. [[Wink]]

---

 

---

Posted by Robin Dorking (Member # 460) on 07-13-2003, 06:20 PM:
 
Remember a Freddy Kruger film (part 225 I think!! ), with the last reel in 3D. Looked ok, but gave you a bit of a headache though. Can't see an audience watching 80% of a film in 3D, not with about 90% being kids. In the UK it has not been advertied in 3D yet.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-13-2003, 07:01 PM:
 
It depends on the compositions. I remember JAWS 3-D being easy on the eyes.

HOUSE OF WAX, was viewer-friendly too.

Of course, those were polarized which I'll agree is easier to deal with.

But based on the ads I've seen for SK3D I feel these are going to be momentary effects and not the entire movie. It'll be interesting to see if that's right.
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 07-14-2003, 08:01 AM:
 
Don't forget Children find it easier to watch 3D then adults as their muscules in their eyes are still younge and are able to converge on the images easier.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-14-2003, 09:44 AM:
 
The film runs well, as in the above post it is more than 3/4's in 3D. It's running time is 84 mins. 21 sec. & 15 frames.
I have 8 shows of this feature, this week.
 

---

Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 07-14-2003, 11:49 AM:
 
I've seen Spy Kids 3D, it is not at all what I had expected, it doesn't look that 3D to me at all. The 3D movies I've seen were Captian Eo, Some documentary film about Sharks, and Terminator 3D, those were all amazing. Characters and objects actually flew out the screen, and hung right in front your face! And this is what they sell the movie as being in the trailers. But Spy Kids isn't like that, it looks pretty much 2D to me to with some 3D effects, and I think most of it was due to my imagination. The 3D glasses are Red and Blue, and make everything look wierd, as if there are only 3 colors.

The glasses that I saw the other movies with were not blue and red, but a dark gray color.
I don't know how 3D movies work, but this movie looks mega cheap compared to what I've seen. And I dought Kids will fall in love with it.

BTW so far we've only recieved about 15 glasses! I don't know if more are coming.
 

---

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 07-14-2003, 01:12 PM:
 
A quick explaination of how 3D pictures work can be found on http://www.thelooniverse.com/movies/west/aspectratio/3D.html
 

---

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 07-14-2003, 02:15 PM:
 
Greetings from Cambridge

The subject of 3-D movies is particularly topical at the moment. I have recently retrieved a batch of ParaVision lenses complete with alignment instructions and glasses from the library archives. I believe they were imported into the UK for the release of Friday the Thirteenth (part 3) in 3D and Jaws 3D and were donated to us by the ABC/Regal Cambridge after their use in 1983.

The system is based on the wave nature of light (as opposed to the particular nature of light, (Schrodinger et al), in which a light ray may be considered to consist of two sinusoidal waves oscillating at 90 degrees to each other. Polaroid filters (depending on orientation) are able to eliminate either of these waves, thus allowing each eye to 'see' separate images, depending on the plane of polarisation. To retain the polarisation of the reflected light, a silver screen is necessary. Projection of the image on to a matt or perlux surface causes the 3D effect to be lost, due to the de-polarisation effect. Examination of a ParaVision frame, such as those seen in Jaws 3D will reveal that each frame is divided into 2 separate images, each 2 perforations in height. The upper for one eye, and the lower for the other. The ParaVision lens is split down the middle and has adjustments to control focus and the convergence of the two images.

SpyKids 3D is indeed anaglyphic 3D, where the separate images for each eye are rendered in differing colours on the print. Thus using coloured filters eliminates information intended for the opposing eye. The system is crude, and reasonably effective, but not as efficient and as strain free as viewing polarised 3D images.

My team and I, as one of our ongoing projects, are developing a theatrical system for 3D which eliminates the patrons wearing glasses. Results thus far have been variable, but due to the Praelector and Bursar's recent round of financial constraints, the project has been placed very much in the 'pending' file.

Maybe I shall leave the project as something to work on in my retirement.

From Cambridge, and a financially crippled PG work group, good evening.

David
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-15-2003, 01:53 AM:
 
Anaglyphic 3D is to a tub of rancid coolwhip as polaroid 3D is to fresh whipped cream.

Didn't the Russians develop an eyeglass-less 3D system sometime in the 70s that was based on reflective elements in the screen which directed each eye image in slightly different directions? From what I recall of the description of the system, it was marginally successful in that the patron had to keep his head perfectly oriented or he either lost the separation, or the more common problem, the images got reversed, i.e., left eye image going to the right eye and vice versa.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 07-15-2003, 03:08 AM:
 
Thats true, the Russians did do that, in the 1940s it was first demonstarted in a theatre built for the purpouse, using a Lenticular screen, the audience prefered to watch sharp, bright 3D images with glasses. There are Plasma TV sets avalible from Stereographics that allow you to watch 3D without glasses.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-15-2003, 03:53 AM:
 
I just saw the movie at our theatre in Chula Vista and found it quite effectful. (Tim, were you wearing the glasses the right way round?)
We played it on 2 screens, one in digital and one in 35mm. I found the effect worked slightly better with the digital system.
It takes place in a computer game (Like "Tron"). You can take off the goggles in the real-world scenes placed strategically in the movie to relieve the eyes.
I also found it very entertaining. I think it is going to be a great movie for kids.
 

---

Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 07-15-2003, 08:14 AM:
 
Original posted by Frank
"Anaglyphic 3D is to a tub of rancid coolwhip as polaroid 3D is to fresh whipped cream."

I'll have to agree with that statment.

Mike,
Yes, I was wearing them the right way, I'm sure. I even reversed them to see if there was a difference. I watched the movie in Digital also. I guess since I was already familiar with Polaroid 3D, I didn't understand what I was supposed to be seeing with the anaglyphic 3D. Its just so different
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-15-2003, 08:58 AM:
 
you are not going to get that eye popping 3-D effect with anaglyphic imaging like you do with polarized imaging because it does not utilize the light throw back for the left and right eye. Basically it is just going to give you a 3 dementional feel and that is all.

One of the best utilizations of 3-D imaging that I saw was not in a movie but at a Kiss concert in 98. They had live stage shots and animations projected in 3-D. on huge screens. Worked really well.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-15-2003, 09:53 AM:
 
In the press notes for Spy Kids 3D. They have included about 5 1/2 pages called "A Quick History of 3D and Where the Spy Kids take it".

Here is a small excerpt from the notes.

When Robert Rodriguez decided to make the third SPY KIDS installment a 3D experience, his first thought was that he'd have to start by inventing an entirely new 3D camera from scratch - one that would use the high-definition digital video that gives him the stylish flexibility that has become his trademark. To his astonishment, Rodriguez then discovered that a much better version of the camera he was designing already existed!

In fact, director James Cameron had commissioned the creation of just such a versatile camera for his groundbreaking 3D documentary "Ghosts of the Abyss". Cameron's camera essentially fused two high-definition video lenses (separated by the interocular distance of 2.5 inches) together into one unit. Although never used for a fictional film before, let alone a family film, the camera offered a lot of what Rodriguez had dreamed about, and more. The camera was even designed with a unique ability to cross its lenses, rather like human eyes crossing, in order to reduce eyestrain for the 3D viewer. Most of all, it was extremely adaptable system. "Leave it to Jim to go where no one has gone before in designing this amazing new system. Once you've shot your movie with the two cameras, you can release it a number of ways. The same movie can then be used in IMAX, at a theme park, in theatres with anaglyphic 3D glasses, or even on a flat television screen without the 3D," say Rodriguez. "You have all the options."

"The first concern on any 3D project is the fact that you're flying blind," Rodriguez says. "As a filmmaker you are unable to see what you are capturing on the set, which is crucal to capturing great 3D. That's why other 3D movies are so static. They had to lock down the cameras, choose a convergence point, and then let it ride. A lot of 3D movies rarely work because of the 'shoot it blind' way of working. Not so with this new system. Because we were shooting in high-deffinition, we were able to install a unique monitoring system at the Austin, Texas studio: a four-foot by three-foot high-definition 3D projection screen that allowed us to see exactly what the finished image would look like in astonishing clarity as long as we were wearing our 3D glasses!" This set-up allowed Rodriguez to focus on two of the most essential elements of 3D filmmaking:convergence and focus. Convergence refers to the point of focus at which two images cross. By using convergence, the filmmaker can determine if an object will appear to be behind the screen, in front of the screen, or somewhere in between. This was essential to creating the sensation of flying Spy Kids, floating robot heads, hurtling toads, spewing lava balls, zooming high-speed vehicles and glowing staffs that pierce right through the screen.

Shooting in 3D further spurred Rodriguez to consider all kinds of visual elements in greater detail- especially the use of color and perspective. Early 3D effects from the 1950s appeared in black and white . Polychromatic 3D images are still a new frontier, and require extreme care in color-correction. Rodriguez used real-time color correction that allowed him to correct each frame's colors to his eye's satisfaction instantly. But one thing Rodriguez had to get used to was the idea that the use of his absolute favorite design color-primary red-had to be limited (no red light gets through the blue lens of the anaglyphic glasses). "To me red is a color that pops out and I really like to use a lot of it, but when you're wearing anaglyphic glasses, you can't see true red, so I had to start thinking differently. I learned to like purples," he notes. "Eventually, Idiscovered so much about how different shapes and colors would appear in 3D that I realized I was going to have to design a lot of the costumes myself, it was not only a lot faster for me than having to explain it all to someone else, it was also probably the most fun job on the set."
 

---

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 07-16-2003, 01:19 AM:
 
<Early 3D effects from the 1950s appeared in black and white>

Um, really? House of Wax? Dial M For Murder? Kiss Me Kate? Those b/w movies??

Jeff
 

---

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 07-16-2003, 04:34 AM:
 
Jeff
Or how about these B/W 3-D movies
"Charge at Feather River", the classic "Bwana Devil", Tarza, Son of Cochise", "Gun Fury", and "Hondo".
Must have seen those blitzed!
 

---

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 07-16-2003, 08:17 AM:
 
I remember an early press release for the Imax 3-D process. It stated that Polaroid 3-D was a new process. I guess nobody bothered to check the fact that it had been around since the mid-thirties!

Doesn't anybody do research anymore, or do they just assume that nobody will catch their fabrications?

Whether it gives a slight illusion of depth or not, I'm afraid this anaglyph 3-D release will be yet another nail in 3-D's coffin. I'm so glad that SabuCat is doing the World 3-D Film Expo. At least people will have an opportunity to experience the overall high quality of 1950's dual-strip Polaroid 3-D.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 07-16-2003, 08:27 AM:
 
Bernie,

I agree with your last point. Anaglyph 3D is indeed a step backwards. Mid-thirties on the Polaroid 3D.....can you double check that.
 

---

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 07-16-2003, 01:08 PM:
 
The Polaroid process was developed in the mid-thirties, and premiered on film at the 1939 World's Fair in New York. The inaugural film short MOTOR RHYTHM, will be screening on September 12 (with House of Wax) at the World 3-D Expo.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-16-2003, 01:13 PM:
 
"Motor Rhythm" and other shorts:

http://www.3dfilmfest.com/shorts.php
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-16-2003, 01:16 PM:
 
So....

What does a 3D print look like if you are not wearing the glasses?

Are all 35mm prints of Spy Kids 3 in the 3D format, or are there regular prints also?

I mean what happens if a second run cinema gets a print, will a box of 3D glasses ALWAYS be sent out with the prints.

What happens if a cinema gets a print in the future (years ahead), but they don't get sent a box of glasses? Will they have to cancel the screening?

I mean come on, it is evident from reading this board etc that DTS discs are often not shipped with prints, so how likely is it that the film studio will remember to ship out a box of 3D glasses every time a print is shown.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-16-2003, 01:30 PM:
 
red/blue 3D glasses are generally available...just procure them yourself.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-16-2003, 02:56 PM:
 

quote:

---

... it is evident from reading this board etc that DTS discs are often not shipped with prints, so how likely is it that the film studio will remember to ship out a box of 3D glasses every time a print is shown.

---

I can't remember ever receiving a print that had DTS discs missing. It's likely that the the posts you recall are from secondary-run houses, and the original theatre didn't put the discs back in the can.

We received a letter from the studio today, advising that glasses are on the way. How they'll deal with the secondary markets... I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-16-2003, 03:12 PM:
 
Here are a couple of sample of what polarized 3D looks like without glasses.

Both left eye and right eye images are evident on screen. The closer the image appears to the viewer in 3D, the greater the separation of the images without the glasses. The farther away from the viewer the 3D image appears, the more the two images will converge.

Pick out individual parts of the images below to see what I'm talking about. A good example is the photo of the ceiling of the hut, where the support post gets closer to the camera and the images diverge.





With polarized 3D as seen above, the image on screen appears in true colour, where anaglyphic 3D tints the image to match the coloured glasses.
 

---

Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 07-16-2003, 03:24 PM:
 
Jack Ondracek said;

quote:

---

I can't remember ever receiving a print that had DTS discs missing.

---

Interesting that you should say that, since our print of Spy Kids 3D did not come with DTS discs! And as far as I know the glasses arrived at the last minute.
 

---

Posted by Bill Carter (Member # 156) on 07-16-2003, 04:57 PM:
 
I'm being told that:
1. The glasses will be shipped by Technicolor.
2. Miramax will "decide" how many will be allocated to each theater.
3. Neither party is sure what will happen if you "use up" your allocated glasses.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-16-2003, 10:29 PM:
 

quote:

---

our print of Spy Kids 3D did not come with DTS discs! And as far as I know the glasses arrived at the last minute.

---

That's interesting, Tim... but, isn't the film releasing NEXT Friday? You sure got your print early.

Are your Technicolor prints shipping out of the Ontario plant?

I'd wonder if maybe Technicolor tracks theatres that (they think) have DTS, but we get them at the drive-in... and there's no such animal there.
 

---

Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 07-17-2003, 12:17 AM:
 
We ran a sneak, in both DLP and 35mm a couple days ago. A local radio station promoted it.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-17-2003, 02:18 AM:
 
Ahhhh... ok.

Any chance the discs might not be finished yet?? Seems I saw in another post that this happens sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-17-2003, 05:02 AM:
 
Anglyphic glasses are readily available from third party vendors. If the theatre management sees that they are running low, they can have a box of 10k of them at the theatre door by FedEx the next day. No biggie. I guess the exhibitor can do a deal with Miramax as to what the split will be for the cost.

We are running CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON tonight --Universal sent no glasses at all; they were clear on that from the get-go. We were on our own to find a supplier.

Also interesting, evidently there is no standard for which color goes with which eye. The glasses are made so that you can bend the sides in either direction. We tested ours last night and it's blue on the left eye, red on the right -- all depends on which filter they used on which negative in the lab. You can tell right away if you've got them on backwards -- the depth perception is wild -- things that you know to be in the distance by normal 2D angular perspective, have a "depth feeling" that tells the brain that they are instead, close. Your brain has a real hard time wrapping around THAT contradiction! But reverse the glasses and it all "feels" right again....no need to up your medication.

And then there's this: "Rodriguez says. 'As a filmmaker you are unable to see what you are capturing on the set, which is crucal to capturing great 3D. That's why other 3D movies are so static.'"

How old is this idiot? He sounds like he was hadn't yet switched from tit to bottle when all those great 50s 3D films were made, which, in spite of lumbering 3D camera rigs, the cinematographers were quite capable of capturing much more that "static" imagery. What an ass.

He talks as if, without his big plasma monitor screen that "allowed Rodriguez to focus on two of the most essential elements of 3D filmmaking: convergence and focus," according to him, filmmakers who made the great 3D classics just couldn't get convergence right! Imagine what they could have done if they had a PLASMA MONITOR SCREEN!

He goes on to explain it: "Convergence refers to the point of focus at which two images cross. By using convergence, the filmmaker can determine if an object will appear to be behind the screen, in front of the screen, or somewhere in between." Oh, what a concept....sounds like he thinks HE discovered it and no one else ever paid any attention to convergence or focus before. All those 50s 3D films without any proper convergence....and probably out of focus too!

The guy sounds like someone who is learning to drive a car explaining to Mario Andretti how amazing it to work the clutch and shift at the same time.

And then there's: "Shooting in 3D further spurred Rodriguez to consider all kinds of visual elements in greater detail- especially the use of color and perspective. Early 3D effects from the 1950s appeared in black and white" (??!!??).

As if that's not enough, he continues....."Polychromatic 3D images are still a new frontier." What drugs is this guy on? Is he kidding? The use of COLOR with anaglyphic? Polychromatic 3D images are a new FRONTIER?? and require extreme care in color-correction (I'll say, and it that with or without putting different color filters on each eye!)

"Rodriguez used real-time color correction that allowed him to correct each frame's colors." EACH frame! Bet that took awhile! And was that WITH OR WITHOUT THE GLASSES??!!

Sometimes it fun to watch them drown in their own diarrhea.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 07-17-2003, 05:09 AM:
 
We recieved 2000 3D glasses today (Friday) and the fim opens here in Seattle on the 25th.
My big problem for this 3D film is.....if the entire film is not in 3D that means customer is going to have to "hold on" to his or her glasses until 3D sequences come up. I have this strange feeling alot of glasses are going to get dmamaged, lost or whatever in the meantime and they're going to be looking at you for another pair. So what's the staff to do?
Didn't this problem coming up with a William Castle film "13 Ghosts" some years back? Anyone out there have any problems with that, with only a small portion of the film needing the glasses.
Hope I'm not dating myself.
 

---

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 07-19-2003, 05:14 PM:
 
We also received our glasses on Friday. 16 000 pairs to be exact. Upon opening the boxes, our worst fears came true.........all 16000 glasses are individually wrapped which is going to be hell on our house staff. I can see it now......."Attack Of The 3D Glasses Wrappers", Coming to a theater to annoy you.

Then again thats what I love about not really being on the front lines to deal with that crap. I know Ill be in the booth with my own 3D glasses watching this one
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-21-2003, 10:22 AM:
 
Is there a standard that specifies anaglyph glasses have the cyan filter for the right eye, and the red filter for the left eye? Likewise, is there any standard for the spectral densities of the colored filters used? (I couldn't find any):

http://www.berezin.com/3d/3dglasses.htm

http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/anaglyph-glasses.html

http://www.3dcompany.com/3dglassesintro.html
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-21-2003, 12:01 PM:
 
And here's an article from the New York Times, that once again gets its information wrong (especially on the 50's processes):

July 20, 2003
3-D Rides Back to Save the Day
By RICK LYMAN


LOS ANGELES
ALWAYS frantic to revive the sense of magic that greeted the first motion pictures, Hollywood is taking yet another chance on one of the movies' most enduring challenges: 3-D.

On Friday, Robert Rodriguez, the Texas-based director who started with bloody shoot-'em-ups but has moved in recent years to family fare, is offering "Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over," the latest installment in his series about secret agents' children who go into their parents' business. And no less a light than James Cameron, who ventured into 3-D earlier this year with "Ghosts of the Abyss," an IMAX documentary, vows that he is now hard at work on his long-awaited first feature film since "Titanic." All he will say about his new project is that it, too, will be shot in 3-D.

"Whenever Hollywood is at a point where things are getting desperate, 3-D seems to be the first rabbit they try to pull out of the hat," said Robert Thompson, professor of media and culture at Syracuse University.

Perhaps desperation is too harsh a word for the nervousness now spreading through the studios, but it's not far off.

The big-budget franchise films — the sequels, prequels, remakes and the like — that have proved to be the most reliable bets for studio executives in recent years are suddenly not performing as the marketers and the numbers-crunchers expected, from "The Hulk" to "Charlie's Angels 2: Full Throttle." Both box office revenue and attendance are down significantly this summer, despite a steady churn of these movies.

The computer animation that created a revolution in special effects, allowing directors to recreate ancient Rome or insert an army of 10,000 at the click of a button, had been helping to keep franchise fever alive. But now there is a growing sense that audiences have seen what this new technology can do, and nothing deflates Hollywood hype faster than "been there, done that."

A result is that the heavily courted under-25 audience has become apathetic, some might even say discerning. So perhaps 3-D will do the trick. "Three-D has always been something we, in the audience, have been particularly interested in," said Jeanine Basinger, chairwoman of the film studies department at Wesleyan University. "Let's face it, those of us who are film nuts want to get up there in the picture."

Mr. Rodriguez, putting the finishing touches on the new "Spy Kids" at a post-production facility in downtown Hollywood one recent afternoon, said it was a new camera system invented by Mr. Cameron, in alliance with Pace Technologies and Panavision, that first drew him to the idea of working in 3-D.

To get that three-dimensional effect, each scene must be shot with two cameras — mimicking the pair of eyes that give viewers their depth perception — and then projected with the two images overlapped. Special glasses, with either the decades-old red lens and blue lens or newer polarized lenses (used by IMAX), unscramble the images and create the illusion that things are popping off the screen.

The problem had been that it was difficult to adjust the focal depth between the two cameras while filming. Moviemakers had to guess, and really didn't know how close they had come until the film came back the next day. "It was like painting blind," Mr. Rodriguez said.

Now, with digital videotape, moviemakers can watch a monitor and see exactly what the cameras are seeing. And Mr. Cameron's lightweight, dual-camera system allows an operator, looking at that real-time image, to adjust the focal depth simply by twisting a knob.

One result, Mr Rodriguez said, is that a 3-D movie can be shot in a matter of weeks. Mr. Rodriguez got his movie into theaters only six months after he started working on it, even though 90 percent of "Spy Kids 3" contains 3-D images, and almost all of those involve computer-generated effects. And he did the whole thing for about $37 million, just what "Spy Kids 2" cost.

ANOTHER problem with previous 3-D movies using the anaglyph red-and-blue glasses — as Mr. Rodriguez's film will — is that the tinted lenses distorted the colors on the screen. He said he had gotten around that by setting his 3-D scenes inside a video game (into which the heroes are sucked by an evil genius played by Sylvester Stallone), and then using unrealistically bright, computer-generated hues to make it seem as if the color distortions were part of the movie.

It is said that when audiences saw the first dramatic motion picture — "The Great Train Robbery" — they gasped in shock, and some fainted. It didn't take people long, though, to realize that the speeding trains and leaping lions would not actually pop out of the screen, no matter how realistic they seemed. So filmmakers began almost at once to find ways to break through that final barrier. The anaglyph process, for instance, was developed in the silent-film era. Another company, Teleview, overlapped two negatives to give a 3-D effect in a short film released at Christmastime in 1922.

Something called the Spoor System was used to inject 3-D into a 1930's short called "Campus Sweethearts" and a 3-D movie became one of the top attractions at the 1939 New York World's Fair. But it was not until 1952 and the release of an unlikely blockbuster called "Bwana Devil" that 3-D became a craze.

Using the anaglyph system, "Bwana Devil" had crowds lined up around the block to see spears fly off the screen. Copy-cat movies were made by almost every studio, including the 1953 releases "House of Wax," "Hondo" and "Kiss Me Kate."

But the craze died as fast as it began. Alfred Hitchcock spent much of 1953 shooting "Dial M for Murder" in 3-D, but by the time it came out in 1954 audience interest had waned so much that it was released almost everywhere in old-fashioned 2-D.

There have been several attempts to resuscitate 3-D in the intervening years, from "13 Ghosts" in 1960 to "Friday the 13th Part 3: 3-D" in 1982 and "Jaws 3-D" in 1983. None caught on.

"In its 50's heyday, 3-D was a desperate attempt by the Hollywood studios to provide novelty to battle off the nemesis of television," Mr. Thompson said. "Now the return of 3-D is a desperate attempt to provide novelty again, but this time the enemy is the industry's own aesthetic inertia."

Mr. Rodriguez says he thinks that such skeptics will be proved wrong as it becomes clear how the new technology at last makes 3-D more realistic — if filmmakers can justify the screen-popping images.

"One reason 3-D burned out in the 50's is that those movies felt so forced, with everyone aiming things at the camera," he said. "To make this work, filmmakers will have to do better at the storytelling part."
 

---

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 07-21-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
Mr. Rodriguez needs to learn a few things about 3-D movies of the 1950's. Most of his comments are incorrect.

Maybe he should buy a festival pass for the World 3-D Film Expo, and get some education on the subject!
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-21-2003, 07:26 PM:
 
Pet Peeve Time:

From the NYT article above:

quote:

---

There have been several attempts to resuscitate 3-D in the intervening years, from "13 Ghosts" in 1960 to "Friday the 13th Part 3: 3-D" in 1982 and "Jaws 3-D" in 1983. None caught on.

---

quote:

---

you are not going to get that eye popping 3-D effect with anaglyphic imaging like you do with polarized imaging because it does not utilize the light throw back for the left and right eye. Basically it is just going to give you a 3 dementional feel and that is all.

---

quote:

---

It is said that when audiences saw the first dramatic motion picture — "The Great Train Robbery" — they gasped in shock, and some fainted.

---

quote:

---

The "shocking" scene in the 1903 GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY comes at the end

---

quote:

---

But I doubt it held as much surprise as something like "Train Arriving at Station", which caused people to flee for the exit years earlier. In 1896, no one had ever seen lifesized moving pictures before.

---