Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shark Boy/Lava Girl glasses -> OT argument about what movies were released anaglyph

This is topic Shark Boy/Lava Girl glasses -> OT argument about what movies were released anaglyph 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=007248

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-06-2005, 05:35 PM:

Has anyone seen the glasses being sent out for Shark Boy/Lava Girl? Are they "red/left eye" (like Spy Kids 3-D was) or are they red/right eye?

Thanks,

Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions

[ 06-13-2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-06-2005, 06:01 PM:

Jeff

They are red/left and blue/right style.

I've been running it for the last few weeks.

There are two different types of glasses frames. One for Shark Boy and one for Lava Girl.

[ 06-10-2005, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-06-2005, 06:46 PM:

Interesting. The ad in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times showed the glasses... and they were red/right, not red/left. I presume the artwork in the ad is wrong, that's all.

Jeff

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-10-2005, 11:46 AM:

In his review of "Shark Boy...", Roger Ebert goes on at great length to criticize the 3D effect, or lack thereof. He also says the darkly-tinted glasses basically ruin what is probably a very good-looking film (he also incorrectly refers to them as "polarizing"). Anyway, his summation is "The DVD will probably look great".

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-10-2005, 06:00 PM:

I have not watched the entire film, but last night I sat in for about 20 min. I tried a couple different pairs of glasses and each time the red/left eye seemed darker to me than I remember from previous red/blue 3D films that I've seen. The same thing Ebert was complaining about maybe?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-10-2005, 06:17 PM:

Here's some of what he said.

quote:
...delightful children's tale that is spoiled by a disastrous decision to film most of it in lousy 3-D... looks more like 1-D to me, removing the brightness and life of the movie's colors and replacing them with a drab, listless palette, which is about as exciting as looking at a 3-D bowl of oatmeal... the left lens is such a dark red that the whole movie seems seen through a glass, darkly... Because the real world scenes are in 2-D and the dream and fantasy scenes are in 3-D, we get an idea of what the movie would have looked like without the unnecessary dimension. Signs flash on the screen to tell us when to put on and take off our polarizing glasses, and I felt regret every time I had to shut out those colorful images and return to the dim and dreary 3-D world. On DVD, this is going to be a great-looking movie.

Full Review

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-10-2005, 06:21 PM:

I can't see how anyone can enjoy a 3-D movie when the colors are all screwed up by the red/blue lenses. In theme park 3D rides like "Spider-Man" at Universal Islands of Adventure, the lenses are polarized, not colored, and don't screw up the colors. Why isn't this process used for theatrical?

I know, I know....$$$$$, right?

But I'll bet the DVD is going to come with the same kind of crappy glasses.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-10-2005, 06:37 PM:

$$$$$ for silver screens, polarized lens kits out of registration by untrained projectionists...being fed by too little lamphouse wattage [Confused]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-10-2005, 09:48 PM:

The Red/Blue method sucks ass. It's only mildly amusing for black and white 3D movies from the 1950's and actually works better for black and white 3D comic book artwork.

That would figure cost cutting baloney is responsible for derailing a better 3D method. The polarizing method worked pretty well. Even though the movie kind of sucked, I still prize my old 3D glasses from "Friday the 13th Part III in 3D." It was a pretty startling experience to watch Jason grab some dude and squeeze the guy's skull so his eyeballs would fly out at you. The effect would have probably been very lame in that stupid red/blue method.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-10-2005, 10:21 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Red/Blue method sucks ass.

Except when I do it for general photography (and I do it in color).

Also, the "method" is called ANALGLYPH, as it is based on the anus or something. Or maybe because it sucks ass?

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-11-2005, 12:46 PM:

Anyone else have logistal nightmares with GETTING the glasses?

Our print delivered on Tuesday along with a memo stating that we should have the glasses by Wednesday and if not to call Delux. Which I did on Wednesday night, they said a case of 2000 would arrive the next day.
Thursday night comes and they're still not there, so I call ETS (whom the memo says to contact if I've not received them by Thursday).
The rep says, 2000, no problem, I'll call you back in 10 minutes.
No call. Not on my cell or the office line.
So I call back again and get transfered to a voicemail with no outgoing message.
After yet another call, this time from our GM we got another call back, this time to my cell phone for no apparant reason, and they guaranteed they'd be at the theater at 10:00AM.
The glasses showed up at 11:00AM and we were fine.
Around 2:00PM another 4000 glasses showed up.

And this movie is stupid!

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 06-11-2005, 01:33 PM:

The Anaglyph process works best with two colors which are negative opposites. Red and Cyan for instance. With reasonably inexpensive filter lenses, the Cyan image appears black when viewed through the Red lens but appears non existant through the Cyan lens. The Red image looks Black through the Cyan lens but does not appear in the Red lens. Other colors may also work, Green and Magenta for example. Blue and Yellow are also possible but the Yellow image has little contrast on its own. Persons with color blindness are excluded from enjoying this process but can get steret vision with the polarized method of 3D.

The metallic screen with polarized light is best as it allows full color images but the process requires special equipment in the projector, screen and expensive polaroid viewing lenses.
KEN

Posted by Pete Apruzzese (Member # 1446) on 06-13-2005, 10:35 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's only mildly amusing for black and white 3D movies from the 1950's and actually works better for black and white 3D comic book artwork.

Anaglyph was *never* used on the black & white (or color) 3-D feature films of the 1950s during their initial release. All of the features of that era were done utilizing polarized double-system projection.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-13-2005, 12:38 PM:

quote: Pete Apruzzese
All of the features of that era were done utilizing polarized double-system projection.

Though quite a few were later re-released in the anaglyph process, and there are probably more people around today who've seen them in that form than have seen the original.

At its best anaglyph can work very well for black and white still photographic prints, where you are only looking at them for a few seconds, but i've never found it very good with moving pictures. One of the biggest problems is that the glasses are usually absolutely terrible; they look like they've been made out of bits of discarded stage lighting gel, anything of roughly the right colour, and sometimes not even a uniform colour, with light streaks and/or spots. the best ones I've seen were the ones made for the IMAX film 'We Are Born of Stars', I think that was the titls.

The National Film Theatre in London used to make a reasonable job of 3-D presentation in the days when they did 3-D festivals every couple of years or so. These usually included all of the main formats; Polorised, in two strip, over and under and side by side anamorphic single strip versions, and anaglyph. There was one thing they did to spoil it however; they used the usual cadboard disposable glases, but always collected them in for re-use, so that by the end of the festival they were in a pretty bad state. I'm also not sure that it was very hygenic, given that they couldn't be washed. Why they didn't use them just once, and charge a higher ticket price to cover the cost, I don't know. I don't think they've done any 3-D there for several years now.

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-13-2005, 01:04 PM:

Only TWO features were reissued in anaglyphic: Creature From the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space.

In the 1970s, a few porno films were released anaglyphic as well.

NO other "classic" 1950s 3-D features were ever released in that format.

Jeff

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-13-2005, 02:08 PM:

Does anyone know if the New Beverly's (L.A.) upcoming double-feature of CREATURE and OUTER SPACE are polarized or anaglyphic?

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-13-2005, 02:55 PM:

Anaglyphic.

Universal does not have dual prints of either of these titles.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-13-2005, 03:02 PM:

quote: Jeff Joseph
Only TWO features were reissued in anaglyphic: Creature From the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space.

Of those two I've only seen 'It Came from Outer Space'; It was a good print, about as good as you're likely to get with anaglyph. I've also seen 'Pardon my Backfire' in 35mm anaglyph, absolutely terrible print, and equally bad glasses. About the only worse thing I've seen was an 8mm print of the same film.

I've seem other films, but I can't remember which, we're talking about 25 years ago now. At least some, and possibly all, of the others were on 16mm.

If only the two titles you mention were re-released theatrically in this format, could others have been printed this way for television? There has been very occasional 3-D on television here, though it would obviously have to be after colour came in, which for regular broadcasting here was in 1967, I believe you had it rather earlier over there.

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-13-2005, 03:23 PM:

Oh, yes, some titles like Hondo, Gorilla at Large, some others were converted to anglyphic to television.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-13-2005, 03:46 PM:

Jeff, does Universal still have both negatives for each of those titles?

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-13-2005, 04:05 PM:

Presumably, they could be printed, yes.

We ran both titles at the Expo in dual system/Polaroid. Of course, we provided the prints.

Jeff

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-13-2005, 05:49 PM:

quote:
Only TWO features were reissued in anaglyphic: Creature From the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space.[...] NO other "classic" 1950s 3-D features were ever released in that format.

Jeff,

I remember seeing REVENGE OF THE CREATURE in Germany in the 1980s, distributed by Cinema International Corporation. They reissued CREATURE 1+2 (even part 3 in flat b&w) and IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE on Kodak stock, unfortunately all these 35+16mm prints have faded to an orange mishmash with only weak traces of green. This year I saw two screenings of old prints, and the stereoscopic effect was totally destroyed because the screen colors didn't match the glasses.

I have not seen any intact anaglyphic print for years except THE MASK (1961) with spliced-in anaglyphic sequences printed in two color Tech-IB.

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 06-13-2005, 08:10 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The polarizing method worked pretty well. Even though the movie kind of sucked, I still prize my old 3D glasses from "Friday the 13th Part III in 3D."

The movie did not "kind of suck", part 3 was awesome. I had a great time watching that in 3D back in 83. I still have 6 pairs of those glasses myself. Too bad they stopped using that format. The effect was stunning.

Little known fact: Of the Paramount Jason flicks, part 3 was the only one in widescreen due to the 3D over-under frame split. The other movies were all in flat format from what I remember.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-13-2005, 08:40 PM:

quote: Wolff King Morrow
Little known fact: Of the Paramount Jason flicks, part 3 was the only one in widescreen due to the 3D over-under frame split. The other movies were all in flat format from what I remember.

Actually there were scope prints made for drive-ins. It was also the only one that did not have rain in it.

quote: Wolff King Morrow
back in 83.

Original release was in 1982. I have a theatrical poster for it some where I got back when I was working at the theater for a summer job. in 82.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-13-2005, 09:51 PM:

quote: Jeff Joseph
We ran both titles at the Expo in dual system/Polaroid.

And what a great show it was. [Big Grin]

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 06-14-2005, 02:47 AM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
Original release was in 1982. I have a theatrical poster for it some where I got back when I was working at the theater for a summer job. in 82.

My mistake then. I guessed it was back in 83, but 82 sounds more likely. I was a little kid then, maybe 8 or 9 years old when I saw it.

Anyway, I have a "scope" version of the movie on DVD. I also have a VHS version with video-alternating 3D, where you have to wear glasses that hook into the VCR and time each eye shutter to the alternating images.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-16-2005, 12:23 AM:

I have every one of those godaweful 3D-TV Corp. alternating frame/LCD shutter glasses titles, and their maddening, cropped copies of the HOUSE OF WAX and DIAL M FOR MURDER. These were copies that looked like someone shot them using a $500 VHS camcorder. But bless our two eyes, the 3D effect was there and with excellent depth too, if it weren't totally marred by the horrible resolution of the copies and the fact that for whatever insane reason, the bottom half of the picture was blacked out, with the picture off-center vertically, sitting in the top 2/3rds of the screen. But still, to have THE HOUSE OF WAX in actual 3D, projecting an 8ft picture, hell, it still gives me goosebumps.

The downside with the alternating frame (sequential is it called?) system is that there is a noticeable flicker in the image, at least there is with this company's system. But then again, I have never seen this system pushed to as good as it can be. Maybe a really top-draw transfer wouldn't have as much flicker (you know, a Certified, THX 3D HD-DVD transfer -- who knows how good they could get it). Besides, the flicker didn't bother me all that much; I can just about stand anything if it gets me to see 3D! (except anaglyphic [puke]

)

If only someone would release all the original 3D classics on DVD in that format for home use. Perhaps now that this slew of Dementionalzed 3D stuff comes down the pike, they will no doubt want to expand their profit potential by releasing same to DVD. If they do that, then they will HAVE to do it with the shutter glasses; they can't release them in 2D....all the pazazz would be gone. Oh, I forgot, these will all be retreads, so without the added 3D, they will just be the same DVDs everyone already has. [Roll Eyes]

So to get us to spend our money yet once again on the same titles, they have no choice but to offer the DVDs in 3D. Now for THAT, I will run out to buy then all again lickity-split. And once STAR WARS I, II, III, IV, V, and VI, plus TITANIC and THE ABYSS et al, come out in 3D DVD, and everyone has already gone out and purchased the shutter glasses, then it would only make sense for every studio that ever released a 3D title to cash in and make sequential 3D DVDs of them as well. Ah, hope springs eternal.

And I promise, if they did that...if they released the original 3D titles and gave me back the 3D movies of my youth so I could play them for my kids, I promise, I would never ever say another nasty, sarcastic thing about any Hollywood studio again....except maybe Disney.

[Big Grin]