This is topic Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007 in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000118

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-21-2005, 01:21 AM:
 
This is strange. I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but apparently there's a process to "convert" 2D to 3D...? How does that work??

Anyway, here's the article link.

And the text:

Five Major Filmmakers Support TI’s Digital 3D Cinema
by Joseph L. Kleiman

March 17, 2005 (Las Vegas) – Today at ShoWest, Texas Instruments DLP Cinema unvield their prototype 3D product. The images were shown on a 48-foot white matte screen, and projected on a Christie CP 2000 DLP Cinema projector with a Dolby surround sound system. Doug Darrow, Business Development Manager for TI DLP Cinema hosted, with filmmakers George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez and Randall Kleiser in attendance.

George Lucas and James Cameron each introduced a collection clips during the presentation. The first, introduced by Lucas, showcased the 2D to 3D conversion process perfected by In-Three. 2D to 3D conversion clips introduced by Lucas included the speeder chase from “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones,” Tony Scott’s “Top Gun,” Disney’s “Lilo and Stitch” and the entire first reel of “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.” The 3D conversions were spectacular, but even wearing the streamlined LCD glasses, ghosting occurred. Regardless this minor issue, Lucas feels that this 3D digital conversion actually outshines the original film. According to Lucas, a number of demos have been made to his company over the past 20 years by various companies, but In-Three’s was the first one to meet his standards. Lucas is planning to release his entire Star Wars saga in 3D for the 30th anniversary in 2007.

Lucas has been pushing digital solutions for almost eight years. According to the filmmaker, the more he’s used digital solutions, the more advantages he has encountered and the more possibilities he has discovered. Because 30-40% of films today utilize a digital negative, the preparation of films for digital cinema will be cost efficient. The advantages of a digital presentation are the lack of weave due to sprockets, scratches and tears. Whereas a film print degrades the more it is shown, a digital print retains its pristine condition.

After Lucas, Cameron introduced a selection of clips showcasing how digital 3D projection disregards the way the film was shot. Cameron’s montage consisted of clips from his 3D features “Ghosts of the Abyss” and “Aliens of the Deep,” both filmed with a combination of a 3D digital rig and CGI; Cameron’s “Terminator 2: 3D” from Universal Studios Theme Parks, shot on 5perf/65mm; Robert Rodriguez’ “Spy Kids 3D,” a hybrid of live action and CGI; CGI clips form Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films (following up Jackson’s appearance in 3D during the Lucas portion of the presentation, where Jackson lends his support to the new technology with his ultimate goal being hobbits in 3D); and Robert Zemeckis’ “The Polar Express,” filmed with performance capture and starring virtual characters. “Ghosts,” “Aliens,” and “Polar” have all been screened in 3D on IMAX screens, but this was the first 3D digital screening of scenes from “Spy Kids” utilizing polarized lenses which allowed for a full-color image and completely impressed its director, Rodriguez.

Cameron noted that we now exist in a production world where all parts of production (filming, post, CGI) are digital, and where, with digital projection, it’s possible for a movie to live its entire existence without seeing a single sprocket. This results in the most perfect 3D image possible. According to Cameron, the specs for 3D projection are outlined in the DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative) specs (this statement contradicts what Charles Swarz of USC’s Entertainment Technology Center stated at an earlier ShoWest presentation). Cameron said that 3D is currently available only in the IMAX format. He wants 3D to be available in every multiplex, pointing out that the IMAX version of “The Polar Express” grossed $45 million, meaning that 35% of the film’s revenue came from only 2% of its screens. By increasing the number of 3D screens available, distributors and exhibitors can drastically increase profit through offering a premium product. Cameron noted logistical issues regarding distribution still need to be overcome, such as whether 3D will be a day-and-date release with its 2D counterpart or if it will be released a few weeks prior. It’s also not certain if theaters will charge a premium price for the 3D product.

Each filmmaker continues his support of IMAX and IMAX 3D. Cameron noted that, to date, only 16 IMAX films have been released in 3D. He believes that by now IMAX should have thousands of 3D releases, but the venues are not there, much like he believes that by now there should be thousands of venues for digital projection. Additionally Cameron asserted that digital cinema will not act as competition to IMAX, but rather compliment it by providing more product for IMAX 3D. Audiences are looking for a premium theater experience, and all five filmmakers feel that, with its larger screen, IMAX provides that experience.

Lucas, Cameron, Zemeckis, Rodriguez and Kleiser embrace this new 3D technology. Kleiser, who directed “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” for Disney’s theme parks discussed seeing In-Three’s demonstration of 2D to 3D conversion for classic films, including “Gone with the Wind” and his own film “Grease.” As previously mentioned, Lucas is scheduling a 3D conversion of all six Star Wars films for Summer 2007, which Cameron noted would put them up against his own 3D feature, “Battle Angel.” In addition to wanting to convert “From Dusk to Dawn” to 3D, his original desire, Rodriguez has a 3D family film, “Shark Boy and Lava Girl,” scheduled for release this summer, and Zemeckis has two 3D productions in the works. Lucas also mentioned that he wants the fourth Indiana Jones film to be made in 3D, but first must turn Steven Spielberg to the 3D side of The Force.

Article © 2005 Joseph L. Kleiman/Amanda Gardner
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-21-2005, 02:58 AM:
 
Eh. It was a gimmick before, it'll be a gimmick again.

Beats coming up with new ideas though, I guess.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-21-2005, 04:08 AM:
 
>>Lucas also mentioned that he wants the fourth Indiana Jones film to be made in 3D, but first must turn Steven Spielberg to the 3D side of The Force.<<

Egad... will this guy wake UP for goodness sake? Spielberg will probably slap him hard and tell him the same thing......oh yes, I like the sound of that.

>>
The 3D conversions were spectacular, but even wearing the streamlined LCD glasses, ghosting occurred. Regardless this minor issue, Lucas feels that this 3D digital conversion actually outshines the original film.
<<

Well, of course it does Georgie Boy...it is DIGITAL ,after all... why dwell on quality when it can be screened in DIGITAL?
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-21-2005, 04:39 AM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

only 16 IMAX films have been released in 3D

---

There were at least 24 between 1986 and 2002.

Imax developed a method of converting 2D animation to large-format 3D and showcased it in 2000's CyberWorld 3D, including a converted sequence from Antz. Imax has also been working on a system to convert 2D live-action films to large-format 3D, but I don't think it's been completed yet.

So whoop-de-doo, Lucas wants to release his movies in digital 3D.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-21-2005, 04:53 AM:
 
Never let the facts get in the way of a good suck up to the DIGITAL media.

(WOW, that media must be good...)
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-21-2005, 06:50 AM:
 

quote: Adam Martin

---

There were at least 24 between 1986 and 2002.

---

Yeah, I don't doubt that. I mean, even in my meagre 7 years working with the format, I personally have run at least 16 different IMAX 3D films. I don't know where they like to scrape these facts ... oh, wait, that was according to Cameron, supposedly.

As for Cyberworld 3D's rendition of Antz, I thought it was re-rendered; not just "converted" from the 2D animation. I mean, with CGI, it's easy enough just to plop another "camera" there and turn on the render-farm, right?

Now, converting previously existing 2D live action to "3D"? I can't imagine that whatever digital "fudging it" that's taking place is going to be impressive, but apparently it passes Lucas' "standards", so I'm curious now.

I'm pleased however that Cameron is backing IMAX and its 3D format, even though I don't think he's ever actually shot a frame of FILM on the features he's released that way (or am I wrong?). Digital conversion must be the way to go these days. (Although, for the record, I'm sure it was plenty difficult and expensive getting digital 3D cameras down to shoot the actual Titanic, so nevermind the logistics of getting the beast that is the IMAX 3D camera down there!)
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-21-2005, 07:48 AM:
 
I don't think the 3D is going to go over very well -or even be reasonably convincing. Regardless of what media types may say, you'll want to see the actual results for yourself. When it comes to technology, the media will simply parrot whatever sales pitch the tech guys spoon feed them.

Aside from 3D being a gimmick, I don't think many audiences can tolerate 3D content for anymore than an hour. A 45 minute documentary in IMAX 3D really pushes the limit. 3D movies make viewers do something unnatural with their eyes. Normally the focal plane and convergence point for your eyesight stays targeted at the same point. A 3D movie makes you focus on the screen, yet shift the convergence point in front of and behind the screen. You can do that for a while, but not confortably for two hours. Eye strain can really become a problem after about an hour. When I was a teenager, I could not get all the way through "Friday the 13th Park III in 3D" without taking off the glasses and rubbing my eyes.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 03-21-2005, 08:44 AM:
 
Bobby H.
I agree with you. I see 3D as being very tiresome. I have had someone telling me just that. I am also surprised that they used an active stereo solution with the trouble of syncing projector and lcd-glasses. In addidtion the shutter glasses could be introducing artifacts. Why not a passive stereo solution and circular polarization. One big problem is light effience being reduced by about a factor of three.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-21-2005, 09:06 AM:
 
The 3D IMAX prints of "The Polar Express" show what a well-produced film in that format can do. One of the most successful IMAX releases, filling theatres for weeks after Christmas.

A running time of 100 minutes for "Polar Express" in 3D was not "tiresome" to me, but I agree 3D does not suit every movie.

Note that "Polar Express" was planned for a 3D release right from the start, and the high resolution CGI rendering and recording onto 65mm film was done specifically for 3D, rather than as an afterthought "conversion".

Now if you excuse me, I'll go watch my "colorized" VHS videos of "Casablanca" and "It's a Wonderful Life", followed by the digitally "enhanced" DVDs of the Star Wars trilogy.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-21-2005, 09:37 AM:
 
3D, if done correctly is not tiring on the eyes at all. I sat through 35 double interlocked full length 3D features in ten days, some days with five features back to back. The only eye strain I experienced was during "Gog" and I think that was because one eye had pretty good color and the other was faded. Even so, I only had a slight headache, and it went away in half an hour. The other three guys who were with me said it didn't affect them at all.

Now I'm not suggesting that every multiplex retrofit themselves for double interlock shows (althought that would be cool! ), but that polarized 3D is definitely the way to go. Shutter glasses are expensive and the trouble of keeping them charged all the time is just an added pain in the ass that isn't worth it. It's a shame that Kodak (I think Jeff said it was Kodak) stopped work on Vectograph (I think that was what it was called, although I might not be spelling it correctly) 3D when they did. That was a process where they used dye transfer film, and the polarity was printed on the film in the dyes. BOTH eyes were printed on one piece of 35mm film, and no special lense was required... only a silver screen and polarized glasses. Jeff ran a demo for us at the 3D show, and considering the fact that it was a "work in progress" process, and they hadn't quite perfected it yet, it still looked incredible. I can't imagine what that would look like today had they continued developing it.

Now, anaglyph for two hours... yeah that hurts.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-21-2005, 10:01 AM:
 
Kodak does have 3D systems that do not require glasses:

Kodak 3D R&D

quote:

---

Kodak Autostereoscopic Display finds applications in Industry, medicine, education - and more
The Kodak Autostereoscopic Display technology is intended for applications that call for prolonged viewing of detailed, three-dimensional images, such as medical evaluations or scientific analysis. Several industries are evaluating Kodak's stereoscopic imaging technology as a tool to study detailed imagery with increased resolution and less eye fatigue.

---

quote:

---

Kodak Autostereoscopic Display eliminates Barriers to displays
The world of three-dimensional displays is about to change.

Most conventional 3-D display systems rely on barrier screens placed over an existing monitor - and barriers invariably reduce image resolution and clarity. Technologies such as parallax barriers and lenticular screens reduce the resolution of the image to present some of the data to the right eye and some of the data to the left eye.

The Kodak Autostereoscopic Display is a new concept that maintains full image resolution. Users need not wear different-lens glasses or headgear to "trick" the eyes. Instead, a proprietary new Kodak optic ball lens technology creates high-resolution display images, in an extremely wide field of view that delivers a 3-D experience.

---

 

---

Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 03-21-2005, 10:40 AM:
 
Talk about money for old rope

People may know that I am not the greatest Star Wars fan. I come after dead people as a fan.

What's the betting the sad people will be parked out side of the theatres, days before the opening of this .
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-21-2005, 11:19 AM:
 
In some places they already are Jonathan. They already are.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-21-2005, 03:05 PM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

3D, if done correctly is not tiring on the eyes at all. I sat through 35 double interlocked full length 3D features in ten days, some days with five features back to back. The only eye strain I experienced was during "Gog" and I think that was because one eye had pretty good color and the other was faded. Even so, I only had a slight headache, and it went away in half an hour. The other three guys who were with me said it didn't affect them at all.

---

I forth that emotion, Mark. I too was at Jeff's amazing 3D festival and sitting through four 3D features back-to-back, much to my amazement what with all the talk I used to hear about 3D giving people headachs, didn't cause me any eye discomfort or headaches whatsoever. But then again, that was probably the closest to a perfectly tuned 3D system as one could find anywhere. Ghosting was almost non-existant and image brightness was never a problem. And these presentations were of old material which is subject to base shrinkage problems; new prints of newly shot 3D material should go even further to perfect the system.

And yes, the Kodak polarized dye system was astounding -- single strip 3D without sacrificing half the film geography and halving the resolution and without reduction of light caused by the traditional polarization filters on the projectors. This system would go a long way to that goal of getting 3D into mulitplexes where dual projection is now only a 3D lover's wet dream due to the fact that so many screens today are outfitted with only a single projector. If indeed 3D is to make a come-back (I mean REAL 3D, not old 2D film somehow "converted" to look like 3D [to some blind directors]), then the Kodak system could make it an easy reality. And gee, you STILL wouldn't have to outfit every screen with a $150,000 video projector. Which reminds me of that old Ethel Merman song, "Film can do anything vid' can do better....yes it can."
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-21-2005, 04:30 PM:
 
I hardly can wait to see the very people (sadly, the majority of directors and DPs) who have nearly destroyed the cinema experience by giving us nonstop shaky, grainy, desaturated, murky colored, shallow-focus cinematography making 3D movies!

 

---

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 03-21-2005, 05:53 PM:
 
A long time ago (about 1969) I saw a demo of an "artificial" 3-D system - basically, each frame was projected for the left eye while the next frame was projected for the right eye. Still shots appeared flat, but any shot with motion presented something the brain interpreted as 3-D (the numbers don't add up on paper, but the brain got the impression and that's what counted) - always wondered why someone didn't give it a commercial shot, because it would work with even the oldest film from the library, but the bottom line (I guess) is that 3-D is a gimmick AT BEST and doesn't add enough (more than gimmick value) to any film to make it a better experience.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-21-2005, 08:40 PM:
 

quote: Wayne Keyser

---

3-D is a gimmick AT BEST

---

quote: Adam Martin

---

Thank God I don't have to walk around all day every day looking at things in 3D.

---

That's why Phil wears that eye patch!
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-22-2005, 02:36 PM:
 
It's the story damn it!

It's the story stupid!

Which would you pay for?...

Angelina Joli naked in 3D reading the phone book? or...

Angelina Joli getting beaned by the phone book, and her cloths falling off?

One has a story and the other is just special effects.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-22-2005, 05:44 PM:
 
Interesting that you bring up Angelina Jolie ... I was watching the extra features on Tomb Raider the other night and damn! she is *so* not hot when she's not made up.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-22-2005, 06:26 PM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

By that I mean that there was a certain depth of room to the pictures, but while some objects were in the foreground and some in the background, they all appeared themselves to be flat, like animated paper cutouts arranged at various distances from the viewer.

---

Wasn't the IMAX 3-D conversion process they were working on way back in the 80's (early 90's?) create a similiar effect. I think they rotoscoped out each individual object using a computer and then were able to place them on a plane with 15 levels, so the images would be indifferent Z space from each other, but would remain flat themselves.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-22-2005, 06:49 PM:
 
Most actors are flat nowadays anyway.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-22-2005, 06:53 PM:
 
I can think of some actress's that are not
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-22-2005, 06:56 PM:
 
The ghosting everyone is talking about seeing is likely caused by the particular technique being used. I'd love to see these demos in polaroid double interlock ala IMAX or even 35mm.

3D can be gimmicky, but it isn't necessarily. In a lot of the films at the 3D fest, when the main actor / actress would make their first appearance in the film, the audience clapped and sometimes cheered. For Kiss Me Kate, the audience applauded after EVERY single musical number. Kinda silly when you think about it, but at the time, we felt like we were watching a play, so applauding felt natural.

3D adds something to the experience when done properly and makes everything seem more real. As far as wearing the glasses and that being a hassle, well, I wear glasses anyway. So, clipping a $12.00 pair of polarized lenese to the front of my glasses was easy for me, and I didn't even notice I was wearing them.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Frisby (Member # 2927) on 03-23-2005, 08:01 PM:
 
I have a feeling George Lucas will probably freeze his head like Disney, and once ILM has the power, he will be a film hating Cyborge from a hell, far far away.

3d is a novelty. 3d is a gimmick. 3d can be cool, but it is still a novelty.

I want holographic 3d, not some over rated eye candy and optical tricks.

Holograms will impress me, Jaws 3-D 2 will piss me off.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-23-2005, 10:57 PM:
 
Jaws 3D was a gimmick film. Dial M For Murder wasn't.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-24-2005, 11:23 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

When I was a teenager, I could not get all the way through "Friday the 13th Park III in 3D" without taking off the glasses and rubbing my eyes.

---

quote: Charlie Frisby

---

3d is a novelty. 3d is a gimmick. 3d can be cool, but it is still a novelty.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Why is seeing an image the way you see life 24/7 a gimmick? You see 3D all the time, you just are so use to it (it is so NATURAL) that you don't even realize it. Just cover one eye and you'll realize it immediately.

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Friday13th was a difficult one as there were two different camera lens systems used

---

quote:

---

Imax to release 3-D live action films within a year
(Requires registration)

Tim Dams in London 04 February 2005 04:00

Imax is developing technology which will allow it to convert traditional 2-D live action films into 3-D features – and is in discussions with Hollywood studios about releasing its first 3-D feature within the next year.

“Imagine, for example, if films like Star Wars or Harry Potter were in 3-D,” said Imax co-chairman and co-chief executive Richard Gelfond. “We think this could have enormous potential at the box office.”

Gelfond said that Imax had recently made strong advances in the technology which allows it to convert live action films into 3-D.

The company has recently enjoyed huge success by remastering animated feature Polar Express into 3-D. The bfi London Imax said yesterday that it has taken $1.2m for the film – recording its highest ever admissions for one month in its five year history during December 2004 with the film.

Gelfond was speaking to ScreenDaily.com before presenting footage of the new technology to the industry and press in London last night (February 3).

---

 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-28-2005, 01:57 AM:
 
As much as I would reserve judgement on this 2D to 3D conversion process, I can't imaging that the result will come anywhere near what real 3D looks like. My gut feeling tells me it will be akin to converting black and white into pseudo color and converting mono into pseudo stereo. We all know how far from the mark those all fall. It simply goes against what we all know as the universal rule of physics: you can't make something out of nothing. If it isn't there to begin with, it won't be there after the "process." The best you can hope for is trickery. Granted, sometimes trickery can work pretty well, but enough not to be distracting, that will be the acid test. If I see a bunch of layers of images which are all moving in their extracted planes but are still 2D (how can they be otherwise?), it sure will be distracting to me. That 2D look where objects in different depths, it can also happen in real 3D, but only when the scene is shot incorrectly with cameras too widely spaced; it is not inherent in the 3D process. I bet it will be inherent in this conversion process.

But as I said, I'll withhold judgement (sort of) until I see it.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 03-28-2005, 02:48 AM:
 
I was there and saw the demo. They ran portions of TOP GUN, EPISODE II and IV and LILO AND STITCH in 3D using NuVision 60GX shutter glasses. The image amazing. Episode II was stunning and felt very "real" and seeing the first half of reel one for A NEW HOPE was like sitting in the theatre in 1977 all over again. The gimmick factor was not an issue. There was no eye strain whatsoever. From what I saw, it looks like they got it right.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 03-28-2005, 02:01 PM:
 
It still seems like the time would be better spent making NEW movies in 3-D instead of faking it out of older ones, though most movies shot in 3-D thus far have been pretty awful (though I will admit to going to see "Spacehunter" before "Return Of The Jedi", which were out at the same time, because Spacehunter was in 3-D and Jedi wasn't!)
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-28-2005, 03:05 PM:
 
i, too, fail to see the sense of mucking with old 2-d features to release them in 3-d. sure, it might make some commercial sense, just as a sequel will have a ready-made audience regardless of any merits it might have in and of itself. but it doesn't make aesthetic sense. the relation between the elements in a 2-d composition is fundamentally different from that of those in a 3-d one.

just as with releasing a silent film with sound, an academy film scope, or a black and white film in color, there is some novelty gained, but unless the whole is substantially reconceived from scratch, it just won't work right.

carl
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2005, 09:07 PM:
 
In the new Entertainment Weekly, in an article about the 3-D thing, Brad "The Incredibles" Bird says:

"People are not going out to see movies because they're going, 'Oh, I'll just wait for the DVD.' It's not just because they're lazy. It's because in many cases their home system is better than the theater's."

HELLO! Brad?! The main reason people are waiting for the DVD is because they know it's coming out in three months or less! Bring back the one-year video window and watch the movie industry's sales increase.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-28-2005, 09:45 PM:
 
Agreed, but with an extended waiting period also bring more bootlegging (meaning we have to listen to the MPAA klansmen drone on about it, usually in the same speech proclaiming how many bazillions of dollars the industry made last year).

Honestly giving people a presentation that simply can NOT be had at home is THE single best thing we can do and this has been proven in many situations. Dirty and scratched prints, old or dirty lenses, shaky projectors, cinching on the sound system and it's proper tuning, acoustics, screen brightness, etc are all things that the typical theater fails to deliver on. Indeed if theaters would put their #1 attention into the projection and make the concession stand the #2 priority, more profit would be had all around. Places like Northpark proved this, and other theaters I have worked at also saw a substantial increase in business as I got the booths cleaned up and presentations tweeked, then in EVERY instance business fell after I left as the presentation started to decline.

Theater business could be improved just about anywhere once the money crunchers get it through their head that the customers are coming to see the MOVIE, not the concession stand. Every aspect of the presentation must be their #1 priority for them to succeed at their highest level. The prices at the concession stand are highway robbery as it is. Give the customers a less than phenomenal presentation of their movie and you can damn well bet they will start staying at home!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-28-2005, 10:20 PM:
 
I like 3-D in principle but I think that people who make movies in 3-D treat it like a gimmick. As long as they treat it like a gimmick it always will be.

If a movie was to be directed, composed and photographed in 3-D at the outset to look as natural as we see in real life and stay away from gimmicky effects that make objects jump off the screen at the viewer unless they contribute to the plot I think a lot of people would like it. I bet they'd want to see more 3-D movies.

I fooled around making 3-D photos (anaglyphs) with my digital camera for a while and I learned a lot about composing for 3-D.

For example:

1) A 3-D pic of a sharp pencil pointing directly at the camera so that it looks like it's going to poke the viewer in the eye. It looks great if you do it properly but it is hard to look at for more than a few seconds. It makes you want to squint your eyes for fear of getting poked. It's good as a gimmick but it wears off quickly. Then you have the afformentioned eye convergence problem. As your eyes move throughout the picture, to look at the eraser end of the pencil for instance, your eyes do get tired. You can't maintain that for long before you have to quit looking at the picture.

2) A 3-D pic of a golf ball on top of a tee, close-up. The picture is composed so that the ball appears to be just behind the surface of the paper. (Screen) You can count the dimples on the ball. You can see the grain in the tee. A picture like this you WANT to look at. It's still a gimmick, per se, but you are more engaged by it. It doesn't tire you out looking at it.

3) A 3-D pic of a bunch of stuffed anaimals setting around as if at a tea party. (The only remotely humanoid objects I could find which could be made to sit still long enough to take two photos of. ) Some of the Teddy Bears are in front of the plane of the paper/screen. Some are behind. There are a range of objects in between. Properly composed, set up and photographed, the viewer might be engaged by the picture for quite some time. They want to see the texture of the fur on the Bears. The relationship between the objects tells a story. The picture is not JUST about being 3-D. This is what 3-D SHOULD be.

The problem is that composing pictures, be they simple stills or movies, in 3-D adds at LEAST 1/3 more work to the composure time. I would say that most directors' (and DP's, etc.) eyes are trained for 2-D composition. That's where their bread and butter is and has been for most of their lives. When such a director composes in 3-D he will almost naturally compose for the gimmick aspect of the medium. He may not go for example #1 above but I venture that most of his composition will as in example #2. Either that or it will be quasi-normal composition that was simply photographed in 3-D.

Until we can get some good directors who compose 3-D movies as in example #3 above which ALSO have good plot lines, I don't think we'll ever see a 3-D movie that isn't a gimmick. And, so, there will always be a "chicken and egg" battle going on with the treatment of 3-D movies... Film companies won't spend a lot of time making "good" 3-D films because the audience will look at it as a gimmick... Audiences will look at 3-D movies as gimmicks because film companies only seem to make gimmicky 3-D films.

Therefore, remaking all the Star Wars movies as 3-D will probably be seen as noting more than gimmicks, I think, mainly because they were originally composed as 2-D flicks. It's unlikely that they will be engaging as 3-D flicks solely on that level.

Probably nobody but die hard fans will have anything more than a passing interest in them.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-29-2005, 12:04 AM:
 
I wonder if LFL will go through the trouble of re-rendering some of the effects including the sets and stuff for the other eye instead of running the entire film through the "process". Something like the pod race in Episode I has soooo much CG stuff in it anyway, it might just make more sense to do that.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-29-2005, 05:18 AM:
 
Add to the point that the major draw will be the non-3D aspects of the movie (story, acting,etc.) that after the initial draw of the novelty of 3D on the marquee, people just won't care. That's probably the main reason for the short cyclical nature of 3D releases. People don't really care if something's shot flat or scope, for example.

Add to that also that at least 10% of the population don't see in 3D anyway (most don't know it), & its magnificence as an industry-shaking phenomenon is diminished some more.

I can see it as a packaging tool for re-releases to an existing fan base for additional revenue generation from a specific title, like IMAX releases of mainstream hits with strong core followings, GWTW in 70mm, DVD Special Editions, etc.

In volume 2 of _American Theatres of Today_ (1929 or 1930-ish), there's an essay by an architect on "The Theatre of Tomorrow" & what will be required architecturally for upcoming technical things directly associated with film that will be an issue - sound, 3-D --

Yeah, they've been building around that feature all since then...

[ 03-29-2005, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: William Hooper ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-29-2005, 11:43 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Lots of 3D movies I've seen tend to look sort of tiny

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

In the new Entertainment Weekly, in an article about the 3-D thing, Brad "The Incredibles" Bird says:

"People are not going out to see movies because they're going, 'Oh, I'll just wait for the DVD.' It's not just because they're lazy. It's because in many cases their home system is better than the theater's."

---

quote: William Hooper

---

Add to that also that at least 10% of the population don't see in 3D anyway

---

quote:

---

Give the customers a less than phenomenal presentation of their movie and you can damn well bet they will start staying at home!

---

quote:

---

Add to that also that at least 10% of the population don't see in 3D anyway

Huh? Never heard that stat before. Where did you get that figure?

---

quote: William Hooper

---

Add to that also that at least 10% of the population don't see in 3D anyway...

---

quote:

---

It's just a standard number,

---

What's that supposed to mean? Do you work for the government or something?

Politician: 25% of people cheat on their income taxes, so we are going to raise taxes 25% to make up the loss.
Reporter: How do you know that many people are cheating?
Politician: It's just a standard number.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Frisby (Member # 2927) on 03-31-2005, 08:38 PM:
 
To Frank "the tank" Angel

Basically, my feel is that when color came out people freaked out, but since then improvements came in to place, and i would never be one to stop the evolution for the movies (as if i could). I remember my first 3-d movie was Nightmare: freddies Dead, and I thought it was pretty cool. But it had a huge cheese factor. Cheese is fun sometimes, but I'd probably hate to watch Phantom Of the Opera in 3-d.

Lets just call it an evolution of film. It's not quite DVD, but its better than VHS. Lets call it Lazer Disk.

And I still wait till the day we have 3-d holograms.

That will rock.

Oh and Mark J. Marshall mentioned if they LucusFilm Would re render a bunch...

I'd put money on it, the dvd ep I and II where re rendered and touched up before release. They remodeled Jaba for the dvd, and actually remodeled more than you would notice unless you watched the movies side to side.

Lucus will probably re-re-re-release Star Wars until it has no original film anymore. For a company with the word film in it, he seems to hate it. he has to keep his title of "State of the art blah blah blah " Basically he would paint over the same painting everythime a new brush, or color of paint comes out.

Sad thing is I am the fool with Digital Re mastered, Special Edition, and Dvd versions of star wars. I get the same birthday present every 5 years.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-01-2005, 12:34 AM:
 
The ironic thing is that with the first Star Wars, even George Lucas thought that stereo was a novelty, and the MONO mix would be the definitive mix for the movie.

And after seeing Kiss Me Kate in double interlock 3D... TWICE, I would LOVE to see Phantom Of The Opera in 3D!
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 04-04-2005, 03:41 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

What's that supposed to mean? Do you work for the government or something?

---

You're right, it was a very fast & poor spew of words & no explanation.

It's just the number I'm familiar with batted around everywhere in textbooks treating it generally & by optometrists, like about 10% of the male population is colorblind.

http://www.calpoly.edu/~lfreberg/p430mini.htm
'Don't feel badly if you can't see SIRDS images. Approximately 5-10% of the population is "stereoblind."'

This one's very interesting;
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/arts/design/16remb.html
"Ten percent of the population is stereoblind, Dr. Livingstone said."
The writer decided on a cool project of trying to isolate from self-portraits physical features (causes of stereoblindness which have no physical signs couldn't be done that way, of course) which would preclude stereo vision (like strabismus), & saw that Rembrandt had a wonky eye. The writer is a professor of neurobiology whose area of study is visual systems at Harvard Medical School, she might know where the number comes from.

http://www.mit.edu/~jpfautz/masters/background.html
"In addition, a significant percentage of the population is stereoblind; a survey of 150 students at M.I.T. showed that 4% could not use stereopsis and that 10% had great difficulty in perceiving depth in a random dot stereogram. Somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 people are stereoblind (Yeh, 1993). Other details and difficulties in presenting stereoscopic images are treated by Edgar and Bex (1995), Hodges and Davis (1993), Lipton (1991), Robinett and Rolland (1992), and Wann, Rushton, and Mon-Williams"

That's interesting because of a couple of things: They give a figure from a previous study that "Somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 people are stereoblind", & their little MIT survey came up with "4% could not use stereopsis and that 10% had great difficulty in perceiving depth in a random dot stereogram." So even discounting if their statistical populations can be applied to the larger population, there's a huge numerical disparity between "4% could not use stereopsis" & 10% had great difficulty in perceiving depth in a random dot stereogram." So there's a reduction in effectiveness in stere vision in a good size chunk of the population that's not stereoblind.

The references to the 70s study suggesting up to 30% are stereoanomalous
www.phys.uu.nl/~vanee/vanEe2003.pdf
match up with that. I'd never heard of "stereoanomalous" before,
"(i.e., have a deficit in stereopsis)"
www.ijsselsteijn.nl/papers/IEEE_TCSVT_2000.pdf
matches pretty well with the MIT student survey that there's a LARGE population difference between stereoBLIND & stereoDON'TDOMUCH.

So with that around 30% of the population which is steroanomalous, having a deficit in stereo vision, that's around 30% of the population that don't get much out of 3D movies, & 30% of the population that's likely not to give a rip about 3D movies. It's a much larger percentage than just 10% of the male population is colorblind. Colorblind people at color movies are probably not missing as much as stereoanomalous people at 3D movies, & color movies aren't as dependent on color for marketing as 3D movies.

Edit:
I just remembered that there's a growing population of stereoblind people *above* that segment. A lot of people *choose* to give up stereopsis with monocular contact lenses. Instead of getting bifocal glasses, which have a lower part of the lens for viewing near subjects & the upper part of the lens of a focal length for viewing far subjects, many people who want contact lenses go the monocular contact lens route & get the lens for one eye for close subjects, & the lens for the other eye for far subjects. They adapt quickly to shifting the use of the eyes as needed, but of course lose stereo vision. Going down stairs must be packed with thrills for a while.
 

---

Posted by Tracy Bellar (Member # 3049) on 04-04-2005, 03:49 AM:
 
I just can't see why Lucas doesn't make a new movie and do it in 3D. Is it lack of ideas for a new film? You know Picasso had more than one canvas. Michealangelo had more than one piece of marble. Our Theater in the early eighties bought the lens adapter for 3D which was used mabey three times. Then they came up with the 3D without a special lens equipment and we still only played a max of three 3D since. Star Wars is six movies. I think people would be tired of the 3D by the time the third movie was released.
I wish Lucas would do something original in 3D. Or mabey Howard the Duck.
 

---

Posted by Oliver Pasch (Member # 1335) on 04-04-2005, 06:01 AM:
 
Sorry, probably a strange sounding question, but is this "new" digitally created 3D-format restricted to digital projection or could it be transfered to 35mm prints too? I mean if it's "only" a 2K-projector plus the glasses needed to do so it should be possible on 35 as well, doesn't it?

I'm not asking if anybody really want's to do so, it's just technically speaking.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-04-2005, 07:17 AM:
 
The 3-dimensionalizing process basically creates images for the left and right eye which are fired at twice the regular frame rate and are viewed with timed LCD shutter goggles. Just like Imax 3D with the left and right eye prints running simultaneously. The googles are much lighter though, hardly any bigger than regular glasses. The process of generating the 3D images from 2D material is new, the delivery is not. They didn't explain how the 3-dimensionalizing is done though. It should be possible to do it on regular 35mm, but only with double projectors. With digital projectors, it is possible to play back the 3D material since the projectors are all capable of playing at double frame rate. No additional hardware or alignment is needed. I don't know if both SDI inputs have to be used in parallel.
But frankly, I am not holding my breath here. We will see what happens in the summer when the first promised feature (I think it will be Rodriguez' new family picture) comes along. I don't believe what they said about release schedules that bring the 3D version to digital cinemas before others. After all, it's more important to hit the market with 3 bazillion screens on the first weekend...

quote: Tracy Bellar

---

I just can't see why Lucas doesn't make a new movie and do it in 3D.

---

That's a really scary thought

quote: Tracy Bellar

---

I wish Lucas would do something original in 3D. Or mabey Howard the Duck.

---

That's even scarier!!! Please remember, children might be reading this
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 04-15-2005, 12:01 PM:
 
There are a few issues with the digital 3D system. One of the primary ones I noticed was horrible ghosting on black background. I've been talking with Michael Kaye of In-Three about this and they finally determined the problem lay not with the LCD glasses, as first thought, but rather with the projector itself. According to Kaye:

"We finished testing every single pair of glasses at In-Three that were used at Showest. Low and behold, we found NO Ghosting whatsoever. What we had assumed was a circuit design fault of the glasses (causing them not to extinguish all the way) was incorrect. The glasses were working correctly. As it turns out, the ghosting was actually caused by a slight timing difference between the DCinema projector and the glasses. This timing, by the way is totally adjustable in the TI software in the projector. At the time of the show we were convinced that the problem was the glasses, we never thought of timing, an even simpler solution. What apparantly was happening was that the signal that the projector puts out to sync the glasses was slightly out of time such that the glasses were being caused to switch a tad bit early catching the prior frame ending resulting in a slight ghost image. Obviously from now on we will emphasize to all involved to make it a point to ensure that the projector's software timing is set to precisely to coinside with the images outputted by the projector. Once that timing number is established, there will be consistancy across all DCinema projectors."

Regarding Oliver's question, In-Three converted 2D images from the rover into 3D for "Ghosts of the Abyss," so yes, their work could be printed on film.

Finally, if Lucas makes his next film with 3D cameras it should be interesting. He mentioned in a 60 Minutes interview a year ago that his next project would be a documentary on slavery.

[ 04-15-2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Joseph L. Kleiman ]
 

---

Posted by Charlie Frisby (Member # 2927) on 04-15-2005, 07:05 PM:
 
The more i read about this, the more excited i get.

I cannot wait to watch a movie in 3-d.

I know i have been talking crap on it, but i have not seen it yet.

I am one of those wierd guys who loves the Star Wars trilogy remakes. But they really should label them re-re-re edited version.

Does anyone have any good sites about this subject(other than stats on 3d)?

Frisby
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 04-15-2005, 09:32 PM:
 
For info on the digital 3D technology, try the following (shameless self plug):

www.worldenteractive.com/dlppresssession.htm
www.worldenteractive.com/cameron%20questions.htm
www.worldenteractive.com/dlpinterview.htm
and www.worldenteractive.com/christie.htm

You can access supplemental material through our Clarity and DLP Cinema pages.
www.worldenteractive.com/clarity.htm
www.worldenteractive.com/dlppage.htm

For info on 3D photography and conversion, try Ray Zone's site,
www.ray3dzone.com

I'll be at the Digital Cinema Conference at NAB tomorrow and Sunday, so look for additional reports in the evenings.

JLK
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-14-2005, 12:00 AM:
 
Here's their web site:

http://www.in-three.com/home.htm
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-14-2005, 02:18 AM:
 
I was at the ShoWest screenings. It wasn't so great (see above). Nothing to write home about. In the meantime, Rodriguez' new movie in 3D is out and all the blabla about special release schedules for digital projection systems turned out to be just that: blabla (although I think in English people say yadayada). Some of our digital locations didn't even get the movie in digital. Forget the whole thing.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-14-2005, 02:57 AM:
 
Here come the hype....here come the hype.

From In-Three site....

quote:

---

Dimensionalized™ 3D content looks extremely realistic, typically better than if it had been originally photographed in 3D.

---

quote:

---

Precise and accurate repeatability for each and every showing. No change at all in quality of the image over time, over any number of showings.

No artifacts: no scratches, no dirt, no fading colors, no film weave, no film flutter, no accumulated hairs in the gate, etc.

Exceptional quality that matches or exceeds that of a film based “answer print.”

---

quote:

---

The question is not if it will happen - but only when it will happen. In-Three believes that all the signs point to the answer as being “very soon now”.

---

How's that for precision....very soon now; that's right up there with the news report I heard circa 1997 - "Digital Cinema will revolutionize the way we see movies. In another three years, there will no longer be any film running through projectors in movie theatres."
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-14-2005, 08:01 AM:
 
Well, of COURSE In-Three believes it! It's what they do! Doesn't make it true, does it?

Maybe if they believe REALLY HARD ... ("I DO believe in fairies ... I DO believe in fairies ...")
 

---