Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bolt Released Digital Only

This is topic Bolt Released Digital Only 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=009532

Posted by Vaughn Hamrick (Member # 4092) on 09-30-2008, 09:07 AM:

We are in the process of attempting to start a drive in theater in town since the only one left recently closed. My booker tells me that the new Disney 3D film Bolt isn't going to be released on 35mm 3D, but digital only. Who knows anything on this and can more of the same be expected from Disney? We recently came a cross a set of brand new 3D lenses for our projection system and were very dissapointed to hear that it won't be released on 35mm 3 D. Does this mean that no 35mm prints at all will be available?

Posted by Danial Simmonds (Member # 4638) on 09-30-2008, 09:14 AM:

There has been rumours of this going around,

Bolt 3D - Digital Format

Configuration we are going to use will be CP2K Projector with Dolby 3D... However still waiting for more info from Disney.

Movie is expected to be released somewhere in November i heard.

Regards
Dan

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-30-2008, 09:57 AM:

You can still get a 2D 35mm print. The current generation of 3D films all use digital. Additionally, I would not recommend 3D for a drive in as screen luminance may already be an issue. 3D cuts perceived light in half.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 09-30-2008, 10:59 AM:

quote: Vaughn Hamrick
We recently came a cross a set of brand new 3D lenses for our projection system

As far as I know, the only "3-D Lenses" I'm aware of were made by Paramount in the late 1950's & early 60's and by STEREOVISION in the late 1970's & early 80's.

All the other 3D systems used the theatre's regular lenses with polarizing filters attached either to the front of the lens or on the projection ports.

Both the PARAMOUNT and STEROVISION systems used the "over-&-under" process where the left and right images were printed as two two half-height (2-perf high) frames into the space of a standard 35mm 4perf high frame.

The "3-D Lens" then superimposed the two images as one onto the screen.

To the best of my knowledge, the 'over & under' system is not currently being used by anyone anymore and is pretty much obsolete.

(And if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure someone here will correct me)

Both the PARAMOUNT & STEREOVISION systems introduced some significant light-loss due to the extra prisms,etc necessary to their operation. (I've heard the PARAMOUNT lenses were the worst as far as light loss goes) As several other people here have pointed out, this would make the use of either of these systems impractical or in many cases impossible for drive-in use.

Tech literature for both systems also stress the absolute importance of having good screen masking for proper perception of the 3-D effect. I don't think I've ever seen a drive-in screen with masking.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-30-2008, 11:02 AM:

I'd agree with all the above... especially the part about trying 35mm 3D at a drive-in.

We've got really good lamps, really good reflectors and really white screens. The last 3D film we tried was "Spy Kids 3D", and content aside, the 3D was TERRIBLE... and yes, you do lose a lot of light. I wouldn't do it again.

Congrats on your project. Hope you can get your drive-in open soon.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-30-2008, 11:20 AM:

I wouldn't hold my breath for any film 3D ever again. For all its weaknesses, digital is a much better 3D technology (in my opinion) and nobody is going to strike a dual inventory of 2D/3D 35mm prints. I also wouldn't count on having it in 3D making you any more money, because if it sucks, it sucks, and people will only sit through so many gimmicky and substanceless movies before they tire of 3D. To put it another way, if it is going to do well, it will do well regardless of how many "D"s are involved. If it will do poorly, well, you can't have forgotten Journey to the Center of a Plotless Gimmicky Piece of Crap already, nor Fly Me to the Cheesy Idiotic Piece of Crap.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-30-2008, 12:27 PM:

Since no one has mentioned it, I'll point out that polarized 3D requires a silver screen. Has anyone ever tried painting a drive-in screen silver and, if so, how did it work out? The angle of view would be reduced due to the higher gain, which might be an issue in most drive-ins.

For what it's worth, Surplus Shed sells the Paramount 3D mirror boxes cheaply. These are for the over/under system. The mirror boxes for the side-by-side system are similar but not interchangeable. Someone (Stereovision?) rents these and would probably sell them expensively if you wanted them.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 09-30-2008, 02:52 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
For what it's worth, Surplus Shed sells the Paramount 3D mirror boxes

WoW! Cool!
Looked at the website and I'm definately ordering one of these to play around with. I have access to some over-under stuff and also a bunch of over-under camera tests shot in the mid 1980's.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 09-30-2008, 03:37 PM:

For Spykids 3D (and the later film Sharkboy & Lavagirl), they produced 35mm anaglyph prints in addition to the digital 3D versions. The anaglyph worked by taking the red channel from the left camera, and the blue&green channels from the right. I had the (mis) fortune of seeing the anaglyph versions at the Sheffield VUE...

While the 3D effects were pretty good and worked well, the 'ghosting' you got around the images was very distracting. That's probably why they don't make anaglyph prints any more.

The advantage is that the theater doesn't have to upgrade any of its equipment; it's just a normal 35mm print run through the projector like any other. But the disadvantages far outweigh this small advantage.

Full-color 3D systems are the only way to go forward, and in these days that often means digital projection.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-30-2008, 04:40 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Has anyone ever tried painting a drive-in screen silver

Isn't a lenticular surface also required? [Confused]

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 09-30-2008, 04:54 PM:

The screen doesn't need to be lenticular, it only needs to preserve polarization. I don't know if any old silver paint would suffice for that, but there might be some that do.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-30-2008, 05:42 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
For Spykids 3D (and the later film Sharkboy & Lavagirl), they produced 35mm anaglyph prints in addition to the digital 3D versions.

All of those shows were anaglyph, even DLP shows. The current string of "Digital 3D" films began with Disney's Chicken Little.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-30-2008, 05:45 PM:

Disney's current knack of having 'In selected cinemas in Disney Digital 3D' on the trailers is annoying. It's OK if I have it, but if I don't...why on earth would I want to advertise the opposition?

[Confused]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-30-2008, 07:01 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Surplus Shed

Scott, you're good!

Although, I did NOT need to know about this place... nor that it's right in my back yard! I'm spending enough money as it is! [Wink]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-30-2008, 07:46 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
For all its weaknesses, digital is a much better 3D technology (in my opinion)

I would say "cheaper" and "easier", but not necessarily better. Especially when you're talking about one projector putting both eyes on the screen, which results in the eyes being slightly out of sync. Admittedly, most people don't recognize that as a problem, but some people do.

A properly run and perfectly tuned single projector digital 3D setup can not compare to a perfectly tuned and properly run dual strip 35mm setup. The digital setup is certainly easier to run though, and for a lot of people, the end result on the screen is also "close enough".

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-30-2008, 07:50 PM:

Ah 3D [puke]

As for 3D lenses...there have been several out there throughout the years. The 1980s vintages are the ones I'm most familiar with.

The Paramount lens that most people think about (blue beam splitter/polarizer) was brought out for Friday The 13th Part 3-D and, to the best of my knowledge, was only used for that film though there were a gaggle of them out there. It also had a nifty shipping case.

Stereovision has had split lenses for a long time...however the kickoff film for the 80s 3D craze was Coming At Ya!. This film didn't use Stereovision but a lens by the Marks Corporation. It looked similar to the Paramount lens in that you had this large contraption on the front to split the image and then combine. They issued various wedges for the front in order to allow sufficient range of adjustment...remember, back then you had everything from large movie palaces with throws over 100-feet and dinky theaters. The Marks lens did okay but was a bit fussy to set up and hold its settings. It also really stuck out from the projector. It was also unfriendly to some projectors of the day (Norelco AA2) and probably wouldn't play nice with the turrets of today.

The Paramount lens was very similar to the Marks lens but the box was notably lighter. It also had the real benefit of having a removable polarizer card that fit on the front of the box. This allowed one to set up the lens without fear of buring a polarizer (quite easy to do...even easier than burning a prime lens).

The Paramount lens also had a real nifty feature of allowing one to tweak one image to better match the other to compensate for keystone. I believe it skewed one mirror. Normally with this sort of 3D lens...all you can do is rotate the lens to center the two images left/right and adjust the mirrors to get a bullseye for up/down and let the corners fall where they fall...the Paramount box got you closer to a perfect match.

Stereovision started out sending (renting) customized lenses on a theatre-by-theatre basis for each film. Each film had a particular frame spacing that Stereovision would calibrate their lenses for. You gave them your theatre particulars and they would send you a customized lens that pretty much just went in and worked (they actually really did seem to hit the mark most of the time).

For side-by-side 3D, the theatre would use their own Anamorphic attachment to the supplied Stereovision prime lens...again, it worked pretty darn well...all things considered.

Later in life, Stereovision came out with a universal lens for over/under that had a much smaller image splitter than the Paramount or Marks lens...in fact, I remember ads showing it on a AA2. It had a knob on the top to allow proper vertical alignment between the two images.

When Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone came out...another player in the lens craze hit the streets...Sirrus (not the radio guys) brought out a real niftly lens. It had a fixed focal length and allowed one to adjust the vertical spacing on a film-by-film basis. However, unlike the others, you could also adjust each "eye's" focus independently. Its polarizer was also quickly detachable for safe set ups. All one had to do is click in back on the front.

Stereovision also came out with an attachable side-by-side lens that allowed one to use their normal scope lens and clamp the attachment onto the barrel of the anamorphic attachement.

To answer the question of screen paint for 3D....Oh it is absolutely available. Technikote sold tons of it, for sure. Also, to this day, IMAX paints their 3D screens on site. They don't come from the factory in Silver.

As for Drive-Ins....in the day, Studios struck "Drive-In" prints for both 2D and 3D. In a 2D feature, a drive-in print meant it was timed so they didn't look so dark. If the the feature was 3D, then it meant that the drive-in print was 2D but in CinemaScope since the 3D over/under process had a wide ratio (scope).

Why won't 3D work in a drive in with a Silver screen? Look at the projection angle...most all I've seen have the projector pointing up. Thus that silver screen will be reflecting most of the light up, up, and away.

As for light-loss...regardless of Digital or Film...it is about a 10-times reduction. In film, you have the light being cut in half by the lens so each eye only gets half of the light...then it gets polarized (which looks like an ND filter)...and then after it bounces off the screen, you go through another polarizing filter in the glasses.

Digital has an advantage (in a single projector system) in that each eye gets all of the light coming out of the lens as they are only shifted in time (with triple flash). For now, the 1.2" imagers can't use all of the imager so you will loose some light due to the extra enlargement (this will be corrected soon though it will require an upgrade to existing system; the .98" DLPs don't have this problem)

Dual projection 3D has distinct light advantages for both film and digital...though it does present some alignment issues as both images can't be at the same point in space. Lens shifting can correct for keystone though it will add some linearity issues...albeit minor. You also need to get the studios to time their 3D movies for more than 5fL (the current target is 3.5-5fL or the colors will over/under saturate).

Steve

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 09-30-2008, 08:01 PM:

I've never sat down for a full 3D digital feature (we have a company theatre 40 miles away that runs 3D, I caught a few seconds of Beowulf).

Our sound tech loved Monster House 3D and praises Nightmare Before Christmas.

From what I've seen, I hope Real D becomes the standard (seems like less cost and better presentation). Regal & Disney seem to be backing Real D... with those giants that should be enough to see it through.

side note, my father is glad to see 35mm 3D disappear. He had surgery as a kid to correct a lazy eye, it worked perfectly, but he's never been able to see red/blue 3D images (always sees both images separately). I want to get him to a digital show to see if the new era of 3D will work on him.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-30-2008, 08:39 PM:

Actually, Dolby 3D is in many ways more profitable and definitely superior for the 3D part. One gets properly balanced and color corrected images for each eye. Also the 3D affect works well EVERYWHERE in the theatre.

As to the cost...with Dolby, its the glasses...at $27.50/pair (list), they aint cheap yet but getting cheaper. The hassle of cleaning them and keeping them at the theatre adds into the cost.

Real-D, since you don't own the system...they are partners for life....so the return on investment is quicker but likely not going to be as much as a system you own.

Now what would make sense for this 3D thing to last (and I don't think it will...history says it wont) is if people start buying their own "Theatre Glasses"...at that point, the cost of showing the stuff goes way down...people get glasses that can even be perscription for them too! Think of it like bowling shoes...if you are only going to do it once in a while...I guess Alley shoes are okay (or alley balls)...but if you are going to bowl regularly...wouldn't you rather have your own shoes and ball? Same with 3D glasses. There could be a whole 3D eyewear market with cool-ass designer stuff and so on. They could work with games/movies/TV...you name it...oh wait...we don't want TV to have what we theatres have...too late.

Steve

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-30-2008, 09:42 PM:

If 3D survives and Real D and the Dolby 3D system both make it, the only issue left if people buy their own glasses will the customers bringing the wrong glasses.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-30-2008, 09:52 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I would say "cheaper" and "easier", but not necessarily better. Especially when you're talking about one projector putting both eyes on the screen, which results in the eyes being slightly out of sync. Admittedly, most people don't recognize that as a problem, but some people do.

A properly run and perfectly tuned single projector digital 3D setup can not compare to a perfectly tuned and properly run dual strip 35mm setup. The digital setup is certainly easier to run though, and for a lot of people, the end result on the screen is also "close enough".

Well, the 35mm 3D setups I've seen did not compare favorably with the Real D setup at my old theater (and my opinion on that issue is well documented). I am normally not an advocate of 2k DLP, but I think this is one arena where even a reasonably well run booth would benefit from it.

It certainly may be possible to produce better results with 35mm 3D, but I have never seen it done, in contrast to most 35mm 2D presentations I have seen having surpassed the 2k DLP 2D shows I've seen.

As for the light loss that Steve mentions, that is my biggest complaint. It certainly doesn't help if you are using an already lossy projector. I have not seen a Dolby show to compare to Real D, so I guess I'll have to do that at some point.

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 09-30-2008, 09:59 PM:

Good analogy, Steve. But please humble me. What I'm used to is a 3D ticket for Real D will cost you over $10 for the ticket PLUS glasses (considering I'm not in a major metro area, this is a big cost), and you keep the glasses. With Dolby, is it $27ish for a ticket plus glasses that you have to return? Then have staff clean/disinfect?

Biased & personally, I go to movies more than bowl. If I was to consider buying glasses for all movies to be released and buying shoes and/or a ball for all bowling, I'd be more likely to snatch up glasses.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-30-2008, 10:01 PM:

Has anything been released in Dolby 3D?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-30-2008, 10:20 PM:

Galen,

Out of curiosity, what 35mm 3D setups and movies have you seen?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-30-2008, 10:55 PM:

I remember Marks Polarized made big waves in the 3D market back in the mid-80s. So much so, that the guy was receiving death threats.

Just found this obit, from nearly 4 months ago...
------------
Alvin M. Marks, a prolific inventor who held 122 patents on polarized film for sunglasses, a 3-D moviemaking process, a generator the size of a grapefruit that could produce enough electricity for a house, a windmill with no moving parts and a trillion-dollar "space train," died May 25 in Gardner, Mass. He was 97 and lived in Athol, Mass.

The cause was liver and pancreatic cancer, said Molly Bennett Aitken, his former wife.

An expert in optics, he developed several variants of polarized film that were used in sunglasses and to reduce glare on television screens; a headlight system to aid night driving; and window panels that change gradually from transparent to opaque and back.

In 1951, he was granted a patent for a "three-dimensional intercommunicating system" that could be used to make TV shows and movies. He was president for many years of the Marks Polarized Corp., based in the Whitestone section of Queens, where, along with his brother, Mortimer, who died in 2006, he invented many improvements on his original device, even though three-dimensional moviemaking never became the widespread technique he hoped it would.

Alvin Melville Marks was born in Brooklyn on Oct. 28, 1910. His father, Alexander, was a lawyer. He studied at a variety of colleges and universities, including Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, Harvard, MIT and New York University, receiving a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from Cooper Union.

After his first two marriages ended in divorce, he married Molly Bennett in 1967; they divorced a decade later, and she subsequently married Gerard Aitken III, who became Mr. Marks' business partner, helping to raise money to support his research. Aitken died in 1987, and Mr. Marks adopted the two young children his partner and friend had had with his former wife.

All told, he had five children, two stepchildren and two adopted children, all of whom survive him.

In 1989, Mr. Marks received a patent, with Peter G. Diamandis, for perhaps his most audacious invention, a plan to circumvent conventional space travel with a 6.6-million-pound, 180-foot train that would be propelled into outer space in an electromagnetic tunnel. It would cost trillions of dollars and take a decade to build, he said, but once complete, it would cut the cost of space exploration drastically.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 09-30-2008, 11:37 PM:

When comparing a 2D Film presentation with a 2D D-Cine presentation in a theater where there is the capability for Dolby 3D system, the D-Cine 2D will always look brighter. The reason is that to use the Dolby 3D system you need almost double the light output you already have so in a theater where you have a 3K bulb for 35mm projector, you will have a 6K bulb on the D-Cinema projector± I think that the best investment would be the Dolby 3D for anyone. It might look that it costs more but in the long term is better than any other 3D system out there. Not having to deal with royalties and stuff.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-01-2008, 12:26 AM:

Tyler: The $27.50 mentioned is the theatre's cost for the glasses, which are kept by the theatre and reused. Theatres normally charge around $2 or $3 extra for tickets to 3D movies to cover the cost of the glasses and/or the 3D system.

quote: John Wilson
Disney's current knack of having 'In selected cinemas in Disney Digital 3D' on the trailers is annoying.

It sure is. For one thing, they say "selected" implying that THEY selected the theatres. The same thing happened with sound - "Dolby Digital in selected theatres." It should have said "In better theatres."

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-01-2008, 01:58 AM:

quote: Tim Reed
In 1989, Mr. Marks received a patent, with Peter G. Diamandis, for perhaps his most audacious invention, a plan to circumvent conventional space travel with a 6.6-million-pound, 180-foot train that would be propelled into outer space in an electromagnetic tunnel. It would cost trillions of dollars and take a decade to build, he said, but once complete, it would cut the cost of space exploration drastically.

Umm...wow. Just wow.

Tim--you should come visit. We can watch "Starchaser 3D" in under/over. It is "The Greatest 3D Movie Ever Made" (it says so right on the poster, so it must be true).

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-01-2008, 04:34 AM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Well, the 35mm 3D setups I've seen did not compare favorably with the Real D setup at my old theater (and my opinion on that issue is well documented).

Simple -- then you haven't seen 35mm 3D setups worth diddly-squat. "Well documented" by whom? Not by the thousands of people (most of whomwere in some manner connected with the industry and more than a little critical) who saw the 30 plus original dual strip titles via double 35mm projection at the 3D World Expo I and II. Those two weeks of back-to-back 3D presentation of dual projection 3D proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that 35mm polaroid 3D could be simply remarkable when done correctly.

Almost all of the negative myths I hear people spouting about the pioneering, original 50s 3D craze, come from people who weren't even born yet and talk about it as if they have first- hand knowledge; you know, the ones who still think all those 50s titles were shown red & blue anaglyphic. That glaring mistake comes up so often that I finally have given up and don't even make an effort to correct it.

In this case, Galen, youth isn't on your side. If you had seen the original 3D films of the 50s (HOUSE OF WAY, KISS ME KATE, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, etc), and back then, you could see them in almost every theatre in the country because the process was so hot that even the small local neighborhood theatres had to run them in 3D, you would know that when you hear these negatives, they are predicated on hearsay and usually based on the worst presentation someone vaguely remembers from the 80s (which is like judging all automotive design based on a a few rides in a Ford Pinto), and not on the flagship theatres that were doing "3D DONE RIGHT" in the 50s.

The next time Jeff Joseph puts together a 3D film festival in the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, get there by hook or by crook and see what 35mm real 3D can look like. Or just wait until Disney starts putting everything they release in 3D onto the new, just over-the-horizon 3D Blu-ray for your Home Theatre 3D system. [Eek!]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-01-2008, 07:28 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
We can watch "Starchaser 3D" in under/over.

Scott! Thanks for the invite... I'll definitely put that on my "to-do" list. [Smile]

It's great you have a print of that show. I DO remember being impressed by it - seeing what went into making it. I was expecting they'd just shift the background to get the L/R pairs, but no...

Thanks, again!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-01-2008, 08:23 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As to the cost...with Dolby, its the glasses...at $27.50/pair (list), they aint cheap yet but getting cheaper. The hassle of cleaning them and keeping them at the theatre adds into the cost.

Actually now with the lower price the Dolby Glasses actually cost less per use than the Real-D glasses cost. Real-D glasses cost the theater .75 per pair and with well over 100 uses out of Dolby Glasses that works out to about .45 per use so they actually cost less even counting the dishwashing cycle and labor which adds about .10 cents. Total Dolby Glasses cost per show .55 total cost per cycle. Dolby's glasses are better made then all the others and the theaters here have not had any pairs stolen but they have lost two pair amongst three equipped screens where the lenses have popped out. With no re-occuring fees it's the only system that makes sense at all. The only re-occuring part is the glasses but not till after a couple of years and the theater can always be buying some of them to spread out that cost.

Mark

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 10-01-2008, 10:12 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Galen,

Out of curiosity, what 35mm 3D setups and movies have you seen?

Spy Kids 3D is the only thing that comes to mind. I can't recall where I saw it, and since I didn't work in theaters at the time, I have no idea what their setup might have been. It was probably a Showcase, and the Showcases in my area are not highly reputable.

quote: Frank Angel
"Well documented" by whom?

Frank, I was referring to my general contempt for the DLP that was in use at my previous theater. If you do a little digging, you'll probably find a half dozen threads where I discuss that and the 2.5-3.5 effective FL it supposedly presented.

I'm not saying that there isn't a magnificent 35mm 3D system out there, I'm just saying that for almost all theaters, digital is the way to go. Most people don't have the expertise to run a two projector setup, and the investment is only useful for running 3D. I happen to think there is not much other reason to go 2k DLP, but chain owners seem to think there is. Clearly I prefer 35mm to 2k DLP, and I truly believe that it will continue to have a place in exhibition for the foreseeable future, but for all but the most exceptional theaters DLP 3D is probably better.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-01-2008, 10:26 AM:

With all due respect, you're comparing apples and oranges, Galen. Spy Kids 3D was anaglyphic in 35mm. You could easily show that anaglyphic movie on a DLP projector in anaglyphic 3D, and the 3D would still suck. That's not the 35mm projector's fault.

I agree with Frank. Get yourself to see a dual strip 35mm 3D show or two when you can. They come up from time to time. I think you'll be surprised at how good it can look.

I for one would like to see a live action movie that was shot in 3D projected on two DLP projectors. I bet that looks pretty cool when done right.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 10-01-2008, 01:13 PM:

I suppose it isn't an even comparison, but I think it holds some credence since anaglyph seems to be the most widely used form of 35mm 3D, and Real D and Dolby are the common DLP formats. I don't even know of any theaters in my area equipped to show dual strip, although the museum may be. I can't see into their booth at all and I don't think I give them enough money for a tour, although I guess I could try asking.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-01-2008, 04:09 PM:

To be fair, though, your first comment in this discussion was directly responding to someone mentioning dual-strip 3D. That's why they jumped on your case about it even if you are completely right about the anaglyph method sucking.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-01-2008, 11:09 PM:

Also, the analglyphic style of 3D for 35mm is not the most common nor most popular. Yes it was used recently but that was to avoid having to equip the theatre with a silver screen and printing over/under prints. But it certainly would be doable in this day and age...for a lot less cost than digital.

Steve

Posted by Vaughn Hamrick (Member # 4092) on 10-02-2008, 01:16 PM:

Thanks for all the informative replies, folks. We ran Shark Boy and Spy Kids when they came out, but not in 3 D.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-02-2008, 01:18 PM:

I didn't realize that they were available as 2D.