Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: T2 3D

This is topic T2 3D in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=000650

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 09-24-2003, 09:20 AM:

While in Hollywood, be sure to go to Universal studios. Amongst the great things to do there is the Terminator 2 3D show. This is an absolutely amazing display of 3D technology. It uses the polaroid type 3D and had the wife and I ducking a few times out of reflex. These effects actually reach out into the audience. During some of the explosions, chunks would seemingly fly by your head causing the "knee jerk reaction". I've never seen 3D so vivid. Where you sat didn't seem to have an adverse effect, as we were over to one side a bit. If there's a line, it's worth the wait.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 09-25-2003, 10:09 PM:

I think, in addition to the 3-D, the water effects and the smell of gunpowder add to the realism of this ride........

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-25-2003, 11:26 PM:

SPOILER!!!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ah yes, an interactive show using 70mm Polaroid 3D with a Cinerama twist. Six, yes, count 'em, SIX interlocked 70mm projectors.

It doesn't get any better than that! [thumbsup]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-26-2003, 02:27 AM:

One of the challenges in that show was that only 2 of the (570 3D format) projectors run for the 1st part of the show, then later in the show, the other 4 are started and brought up to speed to be in perfect frame-sync with the original two. Then all 6 run in sync for the rest of the show.

>>> Phil

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-26-2003, 06:06 AM:

Oh c'mon Phil. Whaddya YOU know? It's not like YOU were part of the team or anything!!!

OK maybe you were.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-26-2003, 08:12 AM:

I often wondered if they were started later, or if they ran with black leader for the first 2/3 of the show. They probably don't need to be in frame sync because there's never a cut. As long as each of the eye pairs are interlocked.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-26-2003, 03:44 PM:

Actually they do. Not only for screen-to-screen efx but also for the physical effects.

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-29-2003, 12:42 PM:

I'm must be missing something, Phil... Why do the three screens need to be in frame sync? I would think that if they were off by a frame or two or maybe even three, it should be undetectable to the audience given the huge gaps between the screens. But like I said, maybe I'm missing something.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 10-08-2003, 12:35 PM:

doesn't the bad creature robot thing go between the screens if i recall, hence need to be in sync, otherwise legs would be left on one screen when they should be on the other etc.

Darren

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-08-2003, 12:49 PM:

There's a huge gap (of like four or five feet at least) that separates the screens, (remember where the actors stand between the right screen and the center screen?) which I would think would allow for things to be a few frames out of sync. Since it's not like Cinerama where things have to come together exactly on the screen joins. And, there are no cuts. But I could be wrong. I guess I'm just curious and looking for definitive clarification. It may be necessary, but I can't think of why it would be.

It might be that there's no way to ensure that they are "close enough" without just ensuring that they're "exact."

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-08-2003, 07:02 PM:

Well Mark, it's called "showmanship".

While it's true there are mullions separating the screens, it still would look REALLY bad if the screen-to-screen action was delayed so as to appear ealier/later than if in real time. Sorta like looking thru a divided window in life. Darren sites a good example.

The producers spent umpteen $ in digital distortion correction, size, and action correction to make this one of the best ever 3D shows. The films of each projector was specifically corrected and printed for the lenses and screen sizes...taking into consideration the mullions.

>>> Phil

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 10-08-2003, 10:09 PM:

T2 3D is truly the finest example of 3D Technology I've ever seen and I've been running interlock for close to 30 years. My hats off [beer]

to all the brilliant work that went in to its' creation BUT, get yourself a good set of polarized glasses and bring them with you as the oft recycled ones distributed in the park can really diminish your enjoyment of the show. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-08-2003, 10:54 PM:

quote:
Well Mark, it's called "showmanship".

Well, I guess that clears it up. Thanks Phil! [Razz]

With all due respect, showmanship has nothing to do with it. If the show doesn't require a six projector interlock, and yet your eyes are fooled enough to think that it was achieved, isn't that good showmanship?

Having said that, I'm at the point where I don't really care enough to keep arguing. It is a great show. But nothing said here has convinced me that they're all in frame sync with each other. I still don't see why it would be necessary. I do agree that you should bring nice high quality glasses if you can. [thumbsup]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-08-2003, 11:16 PM:

Hmmm...well, not arguing, just confused by your consistent lack of understanding of why they must be interlocked. Especially when it has been explained in several different ways.

I agree, at this point, I don't care if you or anyone else gets the point. I was responding to a question. Whether the/my answer is accepted or not...I could care less. [beer]

>>> Phil

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 10-09-2003, 10:46 AM:

I agree with Phil,
better to have a high hurdle which you cleanly clear each time than to have the same bar sitting on the ground so you can trip over it.....good magic tries to be perfect so the audience is not distracted by the details. A famous Spanish director at a premiere I handled in the USA noted that his film was being presented at too slow a speed ( 24 frames vs than the shot at 25 frames ) which his producer thought he would not notice...he did. A silent festival with a live orchestra, the conductor had me ramp the film to 19.5 fps, which he verified visually ( and matched my tachometer reading )
...he knew. I have worked with sound guys noting 1/2 DB errors and cinematographers dead on regarding light levels. I have run two strip 3D where one frame off was enough for your brain to fart.......so keep the bar up to the high level...end of rant [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-09-2003, 10:49 AM:

quote:
.......so keep the bar up to the high level...

Otherwise known as "Film Done Right"! [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-10-2003, 01:02 PM:

quote:
I have run two strip 3D where one frame off was enough for your brain to fart

Very very true... but it's not the same thing. I watched Gorilla At Large at the 3D festival and the last 1/4 or so of the film had that problem, and you're right. It is very hard on the eyes if that happens.