quote:

---

UNITED STATES (Released Oct 20, 2006)

ALABAMA
Birmingham: Carmike Summit 16
Hoover: Rave Patton Creek 15
Huntsville: Rave Valley Bend 18
Montgomery: Rave Festival Plaza 16
Orange Beach: Rave Wharf 15

ARIZONA
Mesa: Cinemark Mesa 16
Peoria: Harkins Arrowhead Fountains 18
Tempe: Harkins Arizona Mills 24

ARKANSAS
Little Rock: Rave Colonel Glenn 18

CALIFORNIA
Chula Vista: UltraStar Chula Vista 10
Corona: Regal Edwards Corona Crossings Stadium 18
Daly City: Cinemark Century 20 Daly City
Dublin: Regal Hacienda Crossings Stadium 20
El Centro: UltraStar Imperial Valley 14
Fontana: UltraStar Fontana 8
Glendale: Mann Glendale Exchange 10
Irvine: Regal Edwards Irvine Spectrum 21
Long Beach: Regal Edwards Long Beach Towne Center Stadium 26
Los Angeles (Hollywood): Pacific Walt Disney El Capitan
Los Angeles (Universal City): AMC Loews Universal City 18
Los Angeles (Van Nuys): Mann Plant 16
Los Angeles (Westchester): National Amusements The Bridge: Cinema de Lux
Moreno Valley: Harkins Moreno Valley 16
Porterville: Galaxy Porterville 9
Poway: UltraStar Poway Creekside Plaza 10
Riverbank: Galaxy Riverbank 12
San Diego (Gaslamp Quarter): Regal UA Horton Plaza 14
San Diego (Mission Valley): UltraStar Mission Valley Hazard Center
San Francisco: AMC Loews Metreon 15
San Jose: Cinemark Century 20 Oakridge
Santa Barbara: Metropolitan Arlington
Santa Monica: Mann Criterion 6
South Gate: Regal Edwards South Gate Stadium 20
Thousand Oaks: Mann 9 at Janss Marketplace
Tulare: Galaxy Tulare 10

COLORADO
Colorado Springs: Cinemark 17 at Carefree Circle
Lakewood: Regal UA Colorado Mills Stadium 16

CONNECTICUT
Manchester: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Buckland Hills
Milford: National Amusements Connecticut Post 14: Cinema de Lux
North Haven: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas North Haven

DELAWARE
Wilmington: Regal Brandywine 16

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington: AMC Loews Georgetown 14

FLORIDA
Boca Raton: Muvico Palace 20
Davie: Muvico Paradise 24
Destin: Rave Destin Commons 14
Lake Buena Vista: AMC Loews Pleasure Island 24
Melbourne: Premiere Oaks 10
Melbourne (Viera): Rave Avenue 16
Orlando: Cinemark 20 at Festival Bay
Orlando: Regal Waterford Lakes Stadium 20
Pensacola: Rave Pensacola 18
Port St. Lucie: Rave St. Lucie West 14
St. Petersburg: Muvico Baywalk 20
Sunrise: Regal Sawgrass Stadium 23
Tampa: Muvico Starlight 20

GEORGIA
Buford: Regal Mall of Georgia Stadium 20
Cartersville: Carmike 12

HAWAII
Honolulu: Regal Dole Cannery Stadium 18

IDAHO
Boise: Regal Edwards Boise Stadium 21

ILLINOIS
Lincolnshire: Regal Lincolnshire Stadium 20
Oak Park: Classic Lake
Peoria: Rave Grand Prairie 18
Schaumburg: AMC Loews Streets of Woodfield 20
Skokie: Crown Village Crossing 18

INDIANA
Evansville: Kerasotes Stadium 16
Fort Wayne: Carmike 20
Fort Wayne: Rave Jefferson Pointe 18
Indianapolis: Kerasotes ShowPlace 16
Indianapolis: Regal UA Galaxy Stadium 14
Plainfield: Rave Metropolis 18
Schererville: Kerasotes ShowPlace 12

IOWA
Davenport: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas 53

KANSAS
Leawood: AMC Loews Town Center 20

KENTUCKY
Louisville: Cinemark Tinseltown USA
Louisville: National Amusements Cinema de Lux 20: Stonybrook

LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge: Rave Mall of Louisiana 15

MARYLAND
Annapolis: Crown Annapolis Mall 11
Hanover: Muvico Egyptian 24

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston: AMC Loews Boston Common 19
Millbury: National Amusements Blackstone Valley 14: Cinema de Lux
Randolph: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Randolph
Revere: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Revere

MICHIGAN
Auburn Hills: AMC Loews Star Great Lakes Crossing 25
Brighton: MJR Brighton Towne Square Cinema 20
Canton: Emagine Canton 18
Flint: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Flint West
Grandville: Cinemark 20
Kalamazoo: Goodrich Kalamazoo 10
Kentwood: Loeks Celebration! Cinema Grand Rapids South
Novi: Emagine Novi 18
Southgate: MJR Southgate Cinema 20
Sterling Heights: MJR Marketplace Cinema 20
Waterford: MJR Waterford Cinema 16
Ypsilanti: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Ann Arbor

MINNESOTA
Coon Rapids: Kerasotes ShowPlace 16
Oakdale: Carmike Oakdale Stadium 20

MISSOURI
Lees Summit: Dickinson Eastglen 16

NEVADA
Las Vegas: Regal Colonnade Stadium 14
North Las Vegas: Galaxy Cannery

NEW JERSEY
Edgewater: National Amusements Edgewater Multiplex
Elizabeth: AMC Loews Jersey Gardens 20

NEW YORK
Albany: Regal Crossgates Stadium 18
Farmingdale: National Amusements Farmingdale Multiplex
Gates: Cinemark Tinseltown USA
Holtsville: National Amusements Island 16: Cinema de Lux
New Rochelle: Regal New Roc City Stadium 18
New York (Brooklyn): Access IT Pavilion
New York (Brooklyn): National Amusements Linden Boulevard Multiplex
New York (Brooklyn): Regal UA Sheepshead Bay 14
New York (Manhattan): AMC Loews 84th Street 6
New York (Manhattan): Regal UA Union Square Stadium 14
New York (Queens): National Amusements College Point Multiplex
New York (Queens): National Amusements Jamaica Multiplex
New York (Staten Island): Regal UA Staten Island Stadium 16
Westbury: AMC Loews Raceway 10
White Plains: National Amusements City Center 15: Cinema de Lux

NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte: Regal Stonecrest at Piper Glen 22
Wilson: Carmike 10

OHIO
Columbus: Rave Polaris 18
Maumee: National Amusements Maumee 18: Cinema de Lux
Milford: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Milford 16
Springdale: National Amusements Springdale 18: Cinema de Lux
Valley View: Cinemark at Valley View
West Carrollton: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Dayton South
West Chester: Rave West Chester 18

OREGON
Springfield: Cinemark 17
Tigard: Regal Bridgeport Village Stadium 18

PENNSYLVANIA
King of Prussia: Regal UA King of Prussia Stadium 16
Moosic: Cinemark Tinseltown 20

RHODE ISLAND
Warwick: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Warwick

SOUTH CAROLINA
Greenville: Regal Hollywood 20
Myrtle Beach: Carmike Colonial 12

TENNESSEE
East Ridge: Rave East Ridge 18
Franklin: Carmike Thoroughbred 20
Knoxville: Regal Pinnacle Stadium 18
Memphis: Malco Paradiso

TEXAS
Austin: Galaxy Highland 10
Austin: Regal Gateway Stadium 16
El Paso: Carmike 16
El Paso: Cinemark Tinseltown USA
Fort Worth: Rave Ridgmar 13
Hickory Creek: Rave Hickory Creek 16
Houston: AMC Loews Willowbrook 24
Houston: Rave Yorktown 15
Houston: Regal Grand Palace Stadium 24
Hurst: Rave North East Mall 18
Katy: Cinemark 19
Plano: Cinemark Legacy 24
Plano: Cinemark Tinseltown 20
San Antonio: Santikos Silverado 16
Tyler: Carmike 14
Webster: Cinemark 18
The Woodlands: Cinemark Tinseltown 17

UTAH
Provo: Carmike Wynnsong 12
Provo: Cinemark 16
Sandy: Larry H. Miller Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons
West Jordan: Cinemark 24 Jordan Landing

VIRGINIA
Alexandria: Regal Potomac Yard Stadium 16
Fairfax: National Amusements Fairfax Corner 14: Cinema de Lux
Sterling: Regal Countryside 20

WASHINGTON
Auburn: Regal Auburn Stadium 17
Lacey: Regal Martin Village Stadium 16
Monroe: Galaxy Monroe 12
Vancouver: Regal Cascade Stadium 16

CANADA

ONTARIO
Mississauga: Cineplex Galaxy Famous Players SilverCity Mississauga
Scarborough: Cineplex Galaxy Coliseum Scarborough
Vaughan: Cineplex Galaxy Famous Players Colossus Woodbridge

QUEBEC
Montreal: Cineplex Galaxy Famous Players Paramount

---

[ 10-26-2006, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 10-01-2006, 10:25 AM:
 
I run the Colorado Mills 16 in Lakewood, CO and I will be getting it. I am actually excited about it because I have a cultish love for the movie. Besides that, I have been hearing an incredible amount of buzz about the movie from people coming into the building wanting to see it mostly in the mid 20 to late 30 age range like myself. The moment we put the promotional items up, the interest spiked. However, the real proof in the interest will opening day when the BO numbers start coming in.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-01-2006, 06:06 PM:
 
This is my highlight film for October. I remember spending $80 on the laserdisc box (I think it retailed for $100, but there was that wonderful Ken Crane discount!). A beautiful set that came with a rather elaborate book on the design of the film.

For the record, since Mike loves to put the exact locations of the theatres , here are the cities these locations are near.

OHIO
Beavercreek: National Amusements Cinema de Lux 14: The Greene (Dayton area)
Columbus: Rave Polaris 18 (Far north Columbus Ohio)
Maumee: National Amusements Maumee 18: Cinema de Lux (Toledo area)
Milford: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Milford 16 (Cincinnati area)
Springdale: National Amusements Springdale 18: Cinema de Lux (North Cincinnati area)
Valley View: Cinemark at Valley View (Cleveland area)
West Carrollton: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Dayton South (South Dayton, near the late, great Dayton Mall I theatre)
West Chester: Rave West Chester 18 (Cincinnati area)
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 10-02-2006, 04:50 AM:
 
There we are, right on the list, as usual.

We have a poster and a standee for this, and they clearly say Disney Digital 3D, or Real D, or whatever it is. Or, rather, what I should say is that it clearly DOES NOT say "IMAX" anywhere. Yet, to my dismay, lots and lots of people come through the lobby, see it, read it intently, get excited, and say to their friend "Hey, look, it's in IMAX; we have to see it in IMAX 3D!"

Would it be professional to post a sign next to the posters saying, "Sorry, dumbasses, but 3D doesn't mean IMAX! Do you see IMAX? It doesn't say IMAX!!!"

We're a high profile theatre, and comment cards don't look good if idiot customers complain that we "advertised it in IMAX and it's not in IMAX".

Anyway, I'm not looking forward to this as much as some people. I adore Danny Elfman, and the soundtrack in general, but the film itself never held my interest. And 3D (especially this "fudging" 3D conversion crap) is hardly going to win me over.
 

---

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 10-04-2006, 01:33 AM:
 
The lack of good digital theaters in or around Chicago is what won’t win me over. The crown Village Crossing, closest to Chicago set to play this in Skokie has digital in a rather small theater with an unimpressive screen size and an average at best sound system.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-05-2006, 09:44 PM:
 
Alex, the DLP setup at the Lake in Oak Park isn't bad (not that I'm biased ).
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-10-2006, 06:51 AM:
 
Can anyone give a quick description of the 3D process --is it alternate frame, is it dual projectors (not likely, but that's why I'm asking) and what's the difference between the Disney and the Dolby process? All are polaroid, but by what method do the two images get to the screen? And I also take it these use the regular passive glasses, not the LCD shutter things, right?
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 10-10-2006, 12:33 PM:
 
Of special note is that In-Three has been assisting ILM with the 3D conversion of Nightmare.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-10-2006, 12:53 PM:
 
I'll try.

Single projector with a unit called the Z-Screen from Real-D. It appears to act as a shutter. You can feel it vibrating back and forth. With a 24fps image running through it, you can see the shuttering on screen. That is why you have to have 48fps 2-D trailers to play.

There is also a 1U rack piece of Real-D equipment that handles the phase of the images. If the phase is wrong, the glasses must be worn upside down to have it look correct.

The server must have a dual connection to the projector.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 10-10-2006, 02:55 PM:
 
Anyone know why it's not listed to play at Downtown Disney in Anaheim? It doesn't make sense...
Does that theatre not have a video machine or what??
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 10-10-2006, 05:43 PM:
 
This is the exact same thing as the Chicken Little 3D release last year, as far as projection and equipment and the 3D technique. I'm pretty sure that there's no Disney "process", versus a Dolby. "Disney Digital 3D" is just a name they slapped on, like "Disney DVD" isn't really different than any other DVD. Anyway, all this was covered extensively, I recall, in this thread.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 10-16-2006, 08:25 PM:
 
A Broadcast Newsroom interview regarding the 3-D conversion.

quote:

---

A New Dimension for ''Nightmare Before Christmas''
Producer Don Hahn talks about transferring Tim Burton's cult classic to 3D
By Frank Moldstad

Converting Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas from 2D to 3D was a labor of love, as Producer Don Hahn relates in this interview. An Oscar-nominated producer whose works include The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and many other Disney classics, Hahn is a big fan of both Nightmare Before Christmas and 3D movies.

One of the objectives for the 3D conversion was that the original film should not be altered by re-cutting it or adding new scenes. Since the release of Nightmare Before Christmas 13 years ago, it has become a cult classic that is perenially re-released, Hahn notes. The film was written by Burton and directed by Henry Selick, both of whom were extensively consulted during the 3D conversion, which took more than a year of work by a team of people from Industrial Light & Magic and Disney. The film opens in theaters October 20.

The end result is better than anyone hoped for, Hahn says, placing viewers in the midst of the film's animated puppet characters with the aid of green polarized 3D glasses. Here he describes the 3D transfer process and talks about the promise of a new generation of digital 3D technology.

How does the look of Nightmare Before Christmas 3D differ from what people are familiar with from old 1950s sci-fi movies?

Well, it's quite different actually. There were some great 3D movies back in that era, and 3D goes back even to the 20s. But this is special on a couple of levels. It's digital 3D, which certainly you've seen -- Chicken Little was the first digital Disney 3D movie out there. The frame rate and the quality of the 3D is pretty astounding. And secondly, this is the first film in motion picture history that's been created from an original classic movie. So it's a chance to take a movie that's 13 years old now, and through a lot of digital magic tricks, with help from ILM, we've been able to turn it into this wonderful digital movie. So it's a first on a couple of levels -- the digital cinema aspect, and the fact that it's the first movie that's been turned into a 3D movie.

What's involved in the transfer process of a 2D movie to 3D, and how complicated is it?

It's really complicated. In the case of Nightmare, you take the original movie and scan it into a computer. That gets cleaned up and restored, and then it becomes your left eye. So when you look at the movie, if you want to see the original version, you just look with your left eye. But then we have to create a whole right eye version that's three inches over, so you can get the dimension of 3D. And that's done by rebuilding the whole movie as a digital picture. In other words, if you have a shot of Jack Skellington, you have to build Jack, and you have to build the background behind him, his house and the snow, or whatever is behind him in a digital world. And then we project a movie on to that digital geometry and then move the digital camera over to the right and rephotograph that for the right eye version.

That's a lot of work.

Yeah, it's really complex, and oddly it's as simple as the Madame Leota effect in the Haunted Mansion, where they project onto a featureless mannequin. That's the really simple version that I can understand. And that's literally how it works, but it's obviously far more complicated than that because it involves really making it pristine and an exact replica of the movie on the screen.

These days you would just shoot the movie in 3D using a second camera, right?

Yeah, if you are shooting a movie like that today, you would use two cameras side-by-side, which is what was done in those old 50s movies. Now, of course, you would shoot with two digital cameras side-by-side and you would have this wonderful pristine 3D movie. And people are starting to do that. Henry Selick [Nightmare, James and the Giant Peach] is working on a movie that won't be done for a couple of years, but he's starting to think about shooting in 3D.

It seems like more theaters are adding digital projectors for screening 3D films, too.

Yeah that's the other thing, as digital cinema has become more and more prevalent and available, you need a special screen and a special projector to do this. Our exhibitors have been fantastic. We had 80 screens for Chicken Little and probably close to 200 on this movie that are the state-of-the-art in digital projection. And that's part of what makes the experience so wonderful, because in the 50s you had to wear one red glass and one blue glass, and you got a headache. And now you wear glasses, but they are very lightweight effortless things. And the frame rate is so high -- as opposed to 24 frames per second, you are getting probably five times that. You don't get the flicker and you don't get a headache.

That's what I associate with the old ones.

Yeah, I know, we all do. I watched Dial M for Murder last night, the Hitchcock 3D movie. We projected it here at the studio. And boy, it really hurts after a while. It's a a great movie, though.

Yes it is! But this 3D process is more believable because it has a more realistic depth of field, right?

Yeah, I mean the thing about a stop-motion movie like Nightmare is you really feel like you're in there with the puppets. And you see things that you've never seen before. When we started working with Tim Burton on this -- we wanted to include the original filmmakers at every step of the way, because it's their movie -- we wanted to make sure that he liked what we were doing. And he was amazed that you could really feel like you were standing there in the same space as the puppets are.

I suppose he saw things that he would have done differently had he been creating it for 3D.

Yeah, that's the truth with any movie when you revisit it after a while. But I think this is a real treat for everybody to revisit the movie and be able to see it through two eyes instead of one.

Will this process be transferable to home video on DVD?

It's not today, but the technology is close. Although I think that the great thing about Nightmare is that it's a perennial, it comes out every year. People love it, and it's turned into this cult movie. But the technology for home theaters is catching up, because people are working on it with Blu-ray discs and things that hold more. So we'll probably get to the point where you can actually enjoy 3D movies in your home pretty soon.

You mentioned Chicken Little, which was released in both 2D and 3D. Did moviegoers show a preference?

I don't have any facts or figures off the top of my head, but the 3D experience is terrific because it's more immersive. So the theaters that were showing Chicken Little in 3D were really successful. That's why we continue to do it, and in fact next year, when our next movie Meet the Robinsons comes out, it will be in 3D as well.

Is the 3D experience better with animation than with live-action?

Well, I don't know if I would make that argument. In essence, Nightmare Before Christmas is a live-action movie. It's animation, stop motion animation. But it had sets that were built, and lights, and instead of actors we had puppets. But it was very much shot in a live action way. I think they both can be great. James Cameron has done some amazing 3D IMAX movies that were live action, and I think they are breathtaking. So I think with the right filmmaker, they can both be great.

Do you think the market for 3D films is going to grow quickly over the next few years?

I hope it does, because I'm a fan. Open Season from Sony has just come out, and they have a 3D release. There is a little 20-minute segment of Superman that was in 3D. I think it's an experience that theatergoers can enjoy, one that makes it special to go to the movies, not unlike it was in the 50s when you got a chance to go see 3D movies.

Somebody should take a photo like the great one Life magazine had in the 50s, with the entire audience wearing 3D glasses.

I know! I think that the one-sheet for Nightmare Before Christmas 3D is a little bit like that, with the characters wearing their glasses.

Are there any differences with the way the sound is mixed for a 3D movie, or remixed in this case?

Yeah, in the interests of making the best possible version of the movie, we went back to Terry Porter, who was the sound mixer on the original movie. He did a remix of the film with 3D in mind, so that the sound envelopes you, because when you watch the movie you're really in the movie. We felt that the sound should be immersive also. So he restored and remixed the movie to be appropriate for 3D.

I guess he would mix differently in response to characters that were deeper into the field.

Yeah, and you can make small adjustments to that. And the other thing we did was that we brought the music out into the house a little bit more. Instead of the music being on the screen, you feel like it's coming out at you from the surround speakers a little bit more. So you're in the middle of the orchestra and the music as well.

When is the premiere?

There's a premiere I believe on October 16 in Hollywood, a black carpet premiere, which is appropriate. And then everywhere October 20.

How long has this taken you?

Oh boy, we started talking about it a year ago, and doing some tests with our friends at ILM, who are amazing. I can't say enough about them. Really, they are the ones who have found some amazing technical approaches to the problems of doing this. We just finished our last shot yesterday. as a matter of fact. And it's taken about a year and a real concentrated three or four months here to finish the movie.

Is editing the movie equally difficult?

It's not, because one of the things that we all agreed we started out is that it's a classic film by this time. And if not a classic, you can at least agree that it's a cult film, because it has a huge following internationally as well as domestically. In Japan, it is absolutely huge. So we decided that we really didn't want to touch the original, we didn't want to add to it, or add sequences we hadn't seen. We didn't even clean up some of the mistakes. If there was a camera bump or a light bulb went off on the original movie, we left it, because we felt that was part of the its charm.

It's an affectionate approach, right?

It is, it absolutely is. We didn't want to mess with the original. So editing it was, I won't say a breeze, but really more of a labor of love. It was really about restoring it, we didn't change a frame of the original.

Internationally, is there a good population of theaters with digital 3D projectors and screens?

Not as much as here, but it's growing fast. This movie will be released certainly in Japan and in Europe, particularly in London and Tokyo. It might be two or three or four screens, as opposed to more. But that's really what 3D is, since it does require special equipment, you find these will be probably in the best venues in those cities. So if you go to the best multiplexes or local theaters you'll be able to see this.

And it will probably have long runs in the theaters where it plays.

Yeah, that's the idea. The cool thing about the story is that it's a Halloween movie but it's also a Christmas movie, so you can get out and enjoy it for a while.

Well congratulations, it sounds like a lot of fun.

Thanks! I hope you enjoy it when you see it. It's pretty cool, I have to admit. We went into it very cautiously, wanting to make sure it was really great, and kind of celebrated the original movie. And it came out a lot better than any of us had hoped for.

---

quote:

---

The end result is better than anyone hoped for, Hahn says, placing viewers in the midst of the film's animated puppet characters with the aid of green polarized 3D glasses

---

quote:

---

this is the first film in motion picture history that's been created from an original classic movie. So it's a chance to take a movie that's 13 years old now, and through a lot of digital magic tricks, with help from ILM, we've been able to turn it into this wonderful digital movie.

---

Oooh...gotta love those DIGITAL magic tricks. But not to nit-pick, for a car to qualify as a "classic," at least here in NY, it has to be at least 25yrs old. But then again, Disney's not one to quibble -- they call ANY re-release of theirs a "classic," so I guess Hahn can't be faulted. But I can ask, does he think it a "wonderful digital movie" because it was a wonderful movie first or because now it's a wonderful DIGITAL movie. Plus, I love the fact he thinks this film is "a first on a couple of levels -- the digital cinema aspect, and the fact that it's the first movie that's been turned into a 3D movie." Hmmmm..... 1) it's DIGITAL, wow....that's gotta be a first, and 2) it's been turned into 3D....phony, never-intended-to-be-seen 3D. Seems to me, all those arguments about why it was wrong to colorize classic films that were never conceived in color apply equally to films never conceived to be 3D....but that's all about aesthetics and when there's money to be made, well....on to 3Dization!

And someone must have told him that film isn't pristine, only digital is pristine: "it involves really making it pristine and an exact replica of the movie on the screen.....Now, of course, you would shoot with two DIGITAL cameras side-by-side and you would have this wonderful pristine 3D movie."

One has to wonder about Mr. Hahn's technical grasp of what is actually going on when you hear him say " in digital projection. And that's part of what makes the experience so wonderful, because in the 50s you had to wear one red glass and one blue glass, and you got a headache. And now you wear glasses, but they are very lightweight effortless things." It's pretty scary to me that this guy is making a 3D movie and has that misconception about the process which was used for the 3D films of the 50s, confusing the anaglyphic and polaroid processes, a misconception that even those who have a passing knowledge about 3D history know to be patently incorrect.

And how much more lightweight can these new "green" polarized glasses be than the cardboard or plastic polarized glasses of the 50s?

Then he says this, which really shows a prejudice that comes from a lack of knowledge "And the frame rate is so high -- as opposed to 24 frames per second, you are getting probably five times that" probably? can we be just a tad more accurate is five times? maybe four? what?!

"... you don't get the flicker and you don't get a headache.....I watched Dial M for Murder....projected it here at the studio. And boy, it really hurts after a while.

Well, if the guys setting up that presentation knew as much as Mr. Hahn about the original dual projection 3D, it's no wonder he got a headache. Evidently he wasn't at the Egyptian Theatre in September for the 2nd 3D Expo where they actually knew what they were doing and showed DIAL M correctly, as well as all the rest of the original 50s titles and no one got headaches, even after watching triple bills. And by-the-way, flicker is not an issue with 24fps, either 3D or 2D -- that's the frame rate at which we watch movies all the freakin time.

Sorry for the nit-picking, but I just hate it when people with less than a complete grasp of it feel they've got to piss on everything that's gone before them in order to make their project seem important. No respect for the past.

Oh and that whole section on remixing the sound to "match the 3D," like a lot of this interview, sounds like just a lot of bs. Just like the explanation of how they rendered the 3D...does anyone have a better picture now of how this is done after reading this guy's gibberish? Oh sorry, my stupid -- you move the camera over two inches -- now I get it. But wait -- when the image has been scanned into the computer, there is no effin digital camera.

OK, I'm done now.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-18-2006, 01:39 PM:
 
I'm tired of posting the same stuff here refuting these stupid comments from un-informed 3D people.

So I posted my response over there instead.


 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-18-2006, 06:06 PM:
 

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

The Pixar short KNICK KNACK will be shown with this, according to the display ad in the NY Times. This short was originally made in 3-D. We'll have to see if this is the original version, or the "diminished" one shown with FINDING NEMO.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

And how much more lightweight can these new "green" polarized glasses be than the cardboard or plastic polarized glasses of the 50s?

---

I took about ten pairs away with me from Chicken Little 3D, they are green plastic, sturdier than cardboard but still light. A bit like free sunglasses in a kids magazine. The left lens seems to be more green than the right one (sorry for the simplicity) although this isn't obvious. They are good for the duration of the performance, guess that is what matters. However to say they are far better than the glasses of IMAX or ones of the 50's is pushing it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-19-2006, 12:10 AM:
 
If Christopher Duvall lets me in, I'll see this. I've never been to his theater but that is probably because I hate the Colorado Mills mall and their "mall tax" even though they claim it is not a mall tax. I hate these trendy "upscale" malls like it and Park Meadows. Now if they were full of zombies, that would be cool.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-19-2006, 08:13 AM:
 
That would be cool.

What's a "mall tax?" Is that like McDonald's "Dine In" tax?
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 10-19-2006, 11:52 AM:
 
Come on down Joe...
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 10-19-2006, 03:40 PM:
 
So I still want to know why the nearest location showing this is 16 miles away from Disneyland.

They show all kinds of DLP stuff at the theatres by Disneyworld, but to my knowledge, no DLP is shown at Downtown Disney in Anaheim.

What gives? Someone reading this must work there or have friends there, EXPLAIN.

Danny
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 10-19-2006, 04:02 PM:
 
Dan,
One explanation: film distribution and equipment installation matters are not a science. Politics and weird decision-making get in the way!

What's the big deal about Downtown Disney, anyway? Disney the movie company is not based in Anaheim; they're based in Burbank, where there will be several "Nightmare" engagements within a few miles.

According to your profile, you reside (or work) in Seal Beach. If driving distance is the issue, why not simply see "Nightmare" at the Towne Center in Long Beach? That's a lot closer to you than Downtown Disney. Or is it you'd rather see the movie at an AMC??
 

---

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 10-19-2006, 11:58 PM:
 
Uh, I went to the AMC in Downtown Disney back in February.

I'd been to a movie in the United States only once back when I was much younger. It was in Yuma, Arizona, and its long gone now.

I thought it was a very nice theatre, good presentation, nice staff.. I really enjoyed it, especially since my movie was set in L.A. and I was in Anaheim and went to L.A. the next day.

Besides being pastey white (which would have given away the fact that I was a tourist), the concesion girl was very nice to me when i sked if there was ketchup seasoning for the pocorn and she directed me to the condiment stand for hot dogs.

I've never been to an AMC before and I actually thought this theatre did a great job (especially considering the bad rap they have here on this forum).

One thing though: I found the admission to be quite high ($10 or something) but concessions to be low ($9 something or large corn/drink with free refills) compared to theatres in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

We don't have any DLP theatres here, but rumours are going around that it wil hit IMAX (which I don't think is happening).
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 10-26-2006, 11:56 PM:
 
The 3-D re-issue has been out for a week now. This thread is dead...hasn't anyone gone to see the movie??!!

(I've seen it. But then, no one seems to care about my opinion. I am, however, interested in what others have to say.)
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 10-27-2006, 01:54 AM:
 
I have seen it and it looked awesome. I am not the only one either. I sold out almost all shows this last weekend and had a decent turnout all week long.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 10-27-2006, 02:53 AM:
 
I went to see it last week. I was never a fan of sitting through this movie before, but I took someone who wanted to see it, so I went. I was told beforehand from co-workers that the 3D was rather subtle, with nothing much jumping out at you. The trick, I realized, is to sit CLOSE to the screen. It's much more effective, in a small auditorium, which is where we have it. Things did jump out. Of course I'm biased by IMAX, but this presentation wasn't bad at all. The audience liked it and reacted well to the 3D. It must have been a lot of work, and a heck of a project, for ILM to convert this as well as they did, given the process I'm understanding them to have used.
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 10-27-2006, 02:42 PM:
 
I saw the movie on Saturday and I was impressed. Certainly much better seeing it in Digital 3-D than when I first saw it when the movie originally opened. The movie presentation was great.
 

---

Posted by Forrest Lee (Member # 4035) on 10-29-2006, 08:57 PM:
 
I really wish my theater was getting it but we aren't set up for D cinema
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-30-2006, 09:08 PM:
 
(Hey, Rave Columbus...check out that right channel. There is some light dimmer noise leaking through...pretty noticeable. Changes pitch as lights go up and down, then goes away entirely when Movie Tunes cuts in. Thanks)

OK, that out of the way, I have quite a bit to say about Nightmare 3D.

What a joy to have a sense of wonder and amazement again. Watch the 10 Commandments, and see all of those REAL PEOPLE head across the desert. Not bits in a computer...REAL PEOPLE.

Someone touched every frame of this film. Real hands moving real objects creating a real story and some real screen magic. HOW DID THEY DO THAT? has a much more complicated answer here then today's "They moved a mouse around".

The 3-D image is clear and crisp, with a nice subtle sense of depth. Only a few gimmick shots, most shots give a very realistic effect. This must have taken a LOT of work!

A couple of problems, though, of a very subtle nature. First, there is an occasional jump to the image, possibly caused by a burp in the processor. Something more interesting is noticeable "veil" that seems to sit in front of the screen in certain shots. Most obvious is when Jack is standing in front of the moon. It is very subtle, but it looks like the natural grain of the photographic image was somehow brought forward during the 3-D process. There are other scenes, but these are the most obvious. Not something everyone will notice, but something I haven't seen in a 3-D film before.

Special note must be made of the sound. This is a very active track, with lots of "panning" and use of the surrounds. This presentation requires a very well tuned system. This is some of the sweetest sound I've ever heard in a theatre, especially the string sound. The music almost sounded live. I would have liked a bit more dynamic range (a little louder at times), but this is one great sounding picture.

Not as powerful a 3-D experience as POLAR EXPRESS, but mighty good. Best non-Imax 3-D I've ever seen.

And, its one sure way to keep people from pirating it in the theatre!
 

---

Posted by Jared Thornton (Member # 3580) on 11-01-2006, 09:09 PM:
 
I went and saw this the other day at the new Galaxy Theatres inside the Cannery hotel and casino, and I was really impressed by the way it turned out.
The 3D was really well done and I liked the way it gave a new depth to the film that was missing in the original, it actually felt like you were in the film with the characters. I agree that this was a good choice for the conversion process and all the hard work put into this film really paid off. If your anywhere near someplace showing this its worth checking out.
 

---

Posted by Tom Hayes (Member # 3932) on 11-05-2006, 07:13 AM:
 
I left the UA Horton Plaza becasue the film was misframed and *everything* was being cut off at the bot and bottom of the screen. Seems like 1/2 of the movies I go to see are projected improperly.

The glasses they gave out with this film were too small to wear over my prescription glasses. The glasses for Monster House were much bigger and better.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-05-2006, 01:35 PM:
 
Misframed with D cinema?
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-05-2006, 02:25 PM:
 
Is the film flat? Perhaps they were using a zoom lens and projecting in the scope format, that would cut off the top and bottum without showing any other visible signs of being 'misframed'.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 11-05-2006, 02:39 PM:
 
Yes the film is flat.

Glasses are exactly the same as were being used for Monster House.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-05-2006, 02:58 PM:
 
But I guess that proves that D cinema is no guarentee that it will be done right any more than with film
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-05-2006, 03:45 PM:
 
Personally I think a threading monkey is more likely to 'get it right' when all they have to do is select 'flat' or 'scope' as opposed to say trying to properly frame a flat movie without hard matting.

But yes, D Cinema is not a gaurantee of 'film' done right.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 11-05-2006, 04:34 PM:
 
Every bar or club I go into now has a widescreen plasma tv. I know we have an obesity epidemic and the people on those screens confirm it.

So if nobody can press the right button on a tv I suppose it must be more difficult on one of those DC machines.
 

---

Posted by Tom Hayes (Member # 3932) on 11-06-2006, 02:31 AM:
 
Misframing: The film (even the previews and the short before it) had the TOP and BOTTOM projected above and below the screen. The width seemed fine. You could see parts of the film on the black portion of the screen.

The glasses for Nightmare were the small green ones while the Monster House ones were more like black Ray-Ban type glasses. The black Ray-Bans fit over my big adult head with glasses while the green ones required me to remove my prescription glasses and then would fog up because they were so tightly pressed against my face. Very uncomfortable plus everything was out of focus for me.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2006, 04:03 AM:
 
I saw this movie and I liked the 3D effect. I don't think it makes the movie any better than it used to be, but it certainly is fun since I am a big 3D fan (not a 3D movie fan, just a 3D fan). I spent 99.9% of the time looking at the 3D rather than paying attention to the story. They remixed the sound and now the voices go all over the place and they are unnaturally loud in the surrounds (but then again I was sitting towards the back). As always, the trailers were about 3 to 4 times as loud as the feature. I guess DLP can't even get trailer sound levels right. This makes my bowels rumble with explosive diarrhea.

The show I watched was out of frame as well. The top was cut off significantly. When letterboxed trailers came on, there was a ton of black on the bottom and very little on the top. The credits on "Knick Knack" were really cut off. I was informed that when it runs in "scope", it is framed perfectly, but this is the first "flat" digital movie ever or something like that. The theater is not capable of reframing the image. An expensive team of technicians must be flown in from California just to do that. Also the team that set up the show for Nightmare (I think they flew a team out to do that, not sure) must all completely incompetent if they can't even get the framing right. These things should be checked on installation, and the inadequate "technicians" who set it up were obviously too lazy to do that, otherwise it'd be fine. And judging by previous posts in this thread regarding framing issues, it seems to be a common theme to have an improper digital presentation with this movie.

Goes to show you how pathetic Digital Cinema can be. Anyone care to disagree?
 

---

Posted by Mike Babb (Member # 1379) on 11-06-2006, 06:10 AM:
 
If it was set up properly you shouldn't see this type of thing. Sometimes a zoom is used format to format, occasionally a touch of lens shift, occasionally a lens change, but you should see as much of the image as the masking allows and crisp edges.
There are definitely trailers being sent out that don't match the feature aspect and are letterboxed. Same for Knick Knack, it was letterboxed left and right.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-06-2006, 08:44 AM:
 
What does "letterboxed left and right" mean?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-06-2006, 09:05 AM:
 
It's "pillarboxed" to 1.66.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-06-2006, 01:27 PM:
 
Ok, that's what I thought.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2006, 02:22 PM:
 
The edges were all very sharp, nothing overflowing onto the masking. I don't think it is/was a case of the trailers not matching the aspect of the feature since the feature was cut off as well. At the end of the movie, there is a little Disney-animated star that twinkles in the sky. You could only see the very bottom of it. That is the best example I can think of from the movie, though many times the tops of characters heads were cut off in scenes when they aren't even if I zoom in the 1.66-formatted LaserDisc version to 16:9 (and my CRT HDTV has plenty o' overscan where even more of the image hides).
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 11-06-2006, 10:57 PM:
 
I actually found a way to fix the framing Joe. There are these very sensitive but stubborn adjustments to move it side to side and up and down. All is right in the world now. After being totally embarrassed about that, I did what somebody should have done...RTFM. I am still learning how to tinker with the digital since I have only had 4 months of exposure to it as opposed to the 20 years of the "old and outdated" equipment.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2006, 12:03 AM:
 
LOL! Great to hear!
 

---