Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science

This is topic 3-D Making A Return According To Popular Science in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=004656

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 05-30-2006, 02:51 PM:

I was reading an article today in Popular Science that was detailing two California companies that have come up with two different processes to be able to turn old films into 3-D. It said that James Cameron and George Lucas were just two of many more directors who are ecstatic about the new technology. Several have vowed to never make another film in 2-D again. Stars Wars Ep.I is due for re-release in 3-D next year. Hey, go figure. George has found yet another way to re-release his old films to make more money. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-30-2006, 03:01 PM:

I wonder if that means that they vow to never shoot using one camera (eye) again, or if they vow to convert everything they shoot with one camera into 3D using one of these digital fakery methods.

Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 05-30-2006, 03:55 PM:

I think it is just a another way for George to vow to never make another movie again!!
[Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2006, 07:11 PM:

I have no interest in looking at something that was previously 2D in 3D. There is no way they could do an awesome job with it.

Regardless, I LOVE taking real 3D pictures that require red and blue glasses. Below is a crappy JPEG version of a 3D picture of Red Rocks that I took that I really like (full size version is 1680x1050, no compression). Left eye is red, as always.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-30-2006, 07:24 PM:

quote:
George to vow to never make another movie again!!

We should be so lucky.

I heard he was developing a special "4-D" process. That's where part of the picture is behind you. Of course it's only there when you're not looking. [Roll Eyes]

(NOTE: I've been reading a Dilbert book today so my sarcasm meter is on overload.)

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-31-2006, 07:19 AM:

Hey!! I actually installed a 4D system!!

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-31-2006, 11:22 AM:

"Several have vowed to never make another film in 2-D again."

I know one of them is James Cameron. He is currently working on a 3-D film with a projected 2007 release. I wonder how many screens will carry it across the country?

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-31-2006, 12:53 PM:

3-D has been a passion of mine since an elderly neighbor gave me an old Stereo Realist camera and viewer set. Lately, I've gotten into polarized projection of my slides, and am totally hooked. My Realist is my most used camera now.

I hope more (true) 3-D movies will be made. It would seem simpler, cheaper and more effective to have two cameras shooting together than spending hours fiddling on a computer to create a pseudo-effect.

Having said that, I was impressed with the effect of the vintage Titanic pictures in the Cameron IMAX (video) film that were presumably turned into 3-D. The old photos showed a solidity I did not expect from a faked stereo image. Please correct me if they were actual stereo images taken during construction--but you MUST also tell me where I can find copies of them!

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 05-31-2006, 02:06 PM:

While Popular Science is nothing more than an electronics industry boasting rag, to me, I think 3D could be the extra spice needed to make the inadequate/unoriginal stories Hollywood has resigned itself to creating seem just enticing enough to watch. [thumbsup]

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-31-2006, 05:14 PM:

Joe, that picture's pretty cool. I happen to have a red/blue pair of glasses by my computer. They came with my copy of Chessmaster 10th Edition, in which you can fully experience the 3D real-time boards in stereoscopic vision. The trouble is, and I'm probably not alone here, the red/blue format isn't good for my eyes. I wear them for 10 seconds and my eyes are biased with that afterimage discoloration for 10 MINUTES or more.

I think they should fully develop a system that converts movies into 3D, without the use of glasses to view it. Just turn each frame into a MagicEye image, where you have to "relax" your eyes to see "past" the image! Those people who never could see those things would just see STATIC. They deserve it.

But seriously, has that technique, so far as anyone knows, ever been applied to animation?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2006, 06:13 PM:

quote: Steve Scott
3D could be the extra spice needed to make the inadequate/unoriginal stories Hollywood has resigned itself to creating seem just enticing enough to watch.

For a couple of weeks, anyway. Then people would be griping that there are no good 3-D movies.

The bottom line will always be, if a movie is GOOD, it doesn't matter what you watch it on. I can get enthralled by a GOOD movie watching it on our crappy 13" bedroom TV with the sound turned way down and the subtitles on so it doesn't disturb my sleeping wife.

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 06-01-2006, 11:05 PM:

Here is a link that the article cites. The article is titled "The Return of 3-D"

I would encourage anyone interested to pick up a copy of the Popular Science June 2006 issue and read the article. It describes both processes in detail.

[ 06-02-2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Joshua Waaland ]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-02-2006, 01:42 AM:

Check you link, Joshua... one too many "p"s in there!

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-02-2006, 08:14 AM:

I don't think the MagicEye technique would work in motion. It takes the brain awhile to fight through the static and make sense of the image. I don't think it would work with 24 different pictures a second.

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 06-02-2006, 09:03 AM:

quote:
Check you link, Joshua... one too many "p"s in there!

Sorry. Fixed.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-02-2006, 08:19 PM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
It takes the brain awhile to fight through the static

Although I was just joking, I don't think it would be too difficult to see 3D this way. I (unlike many people) have never had a problem seeing those MagicEye images immediately. I just understood how to view it, and viewed it. The eyes don't have to "relax" so much as cross just the right way, and once the eyes align things, the brain was right there with them.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2006, 01:08 AM:

The problem with Magic Eye is that you're limited to shapes, silhouettes and the like. You could never make a detailed picture out of one. Even if you could, people would come out of the movie crosseyed and try to drive home that way resulting in the death of many innocent babies. Nobody likes dead, innocent babies.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-03-2006, 04:26 AM:

Their eyes wouldn't tend to cross any more than if they viewed any other 3D movie with 3D glasses, which force your eyes to focus on a point that's not the screen in the same way. But yes, very little, effective detail, and no color to speak of at all.

Now, the matter of innocent babies ... what benefit did THEY ever contribute to society? [Big Grin]

I think the argument could be made that ...

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-03-2006, 08:55 AM:

Innocent babies? Yeah right! Have you ever changed a FULL DIAPER? [bs]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-03-2006, 11:45 AM:

Some people can't do the Magic Eye thing. There was an old American Cinematographer issue that was dedicated to 3D. In it they printed quite a few left/right images side by side. I was able to see them in perfect 3D with the cross-eyed method. Once I got the convergence right, they locked in very solidly. I tried to get my girlfriend to see it, but she couldn't. Plus she got really piss at me for insisting that she keep trying.

I would love to try to see if it would work on moving 3D images. It would be a good experiment. I imagine that if it did work, there would probably be a limited distance-to-screen where people could actually get the convergence right and lock it in so they could see the whole movie. Then, what toll would that take on eye muscles?

BTW -- This is an effin LAW OF THE UNIVERSE -- you can't make something from NOTHING, unless you are God, and even He has a hard time doing it. So this idea that you can make 3D from a 2D image, i.e., creating information that isn't there will look just like what it is. Remember what computer "colorization" looked like? Now imagine that crap up on a 40 foot screen.

Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 06-03-2006, 01:05 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke.

WOW! Pretty bold statement to make on a public forum.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2006, 06:16 PM:

Why? Are they gonna come and get 'im?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-03-2006, 06:47 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke.

quote: Richard Hamilton
WOW! Pretty bold statement to make on a public forum.

The Internet has made it too easy for people to make "bold" statements that they might otherwise not make face to face. One troublesome aspect to the bashing of Lucas, Cameron, Spielberg, insert name of any successful filmmaker, etc. is that it seems like one of those biting-the-hand-that-feeds things if it comes from an exhibitor since those filmmakers have been responsible more than any for putting butts in seats year after year, film after film.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 06-03-2006, 07:36 PM:

Michael, very well put.

quote: Joe Redifer
Why? Are they gonna come and get 'im?

Interesting comment..If someone can sue the tabloids for libel or slander, can they sue an internet site?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-03-2006, 07:45 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Lucas and Cameron have become an industry joke.

How so? I've heard all the complaints against Lucas (even though I don't agree with most of them), but what about Cameron? I mean there are good filmmakers and great filmmakers, and then there's James Cameron, who more than anything else may be the best storyteller the industry has ever seen. I know that's a bold statement, but I believe it to be accurate.

One of the reasons for this is that he knows how to use all of the tools at his disposal. And when a tool doesn't exist, he takes a few years off and builds it.

But the great thing about Cameron, and the reason why this "dimensionalization" technology is not something to be feared, is that he knows when not to use particular tools. Much like colorization, there is nothing conceptually evil about this new technique. It's a question of who's using it. If Ted Turner wanted to colorize CITIZEN KANE, that would be wrong, and he should be ashamed of himslef. But if Orson Welles wanted to do it, aside from the fact that he'd be a zombie, who are we to stop him?

But the thing is, Welles was a pretty smart guy, and he'd know that colorizing CITIZEN KANE was a bad idea, and he wouldn't do that. In much the same way, Cameron has indicated that "dimensionalizing" certain movies in his body of work would be inappropriate. According to an article a few months back on aintitcool, He's only planning on doing this to TITANIC and and TERMINATOR 2. When asked about ALIENS, he said that he wouldn't do that, essentially because it would be out of place aesthetically.

I guess I rambled on a bit too much, but my point is that if someone like James Cameron says, "I want to do this. It'll be cool," then you let him do that, because 99% of the time, he's right. Worst case scenario, we still have the originals.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-21-2006, 07:51 AM:

Here's a shot from our wedding almost two years ago. This was a first attempt to convert any of my Realist slides to anaglyph, and was done at work because I don't have Photoshop! [Eek!]

Because this was new to my co-worker who did it, please note that the RED lens goes over the RIGHT eye. Sorry Joe.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2006, 12:32 PM:

Weird "layered" effect goin' on there. How did your friend do it?

Here is a picture my friend and fellow forum member Jeff Skallan took in Telluride. Once again red eye goes on the left:

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-21-2006, 12:54 PM:

As much as I hate anaglyph, it's the best way to present these here, as cross-eyed or freeviewing is not very convenient.

Both original (full-color) stereo slides were scanned, and each image was turned into a monochrome corresponding to the colors of the glasses I bought. She transposed the colors, but for my purposes, it didn't matter. Then she layered both images on top of each other with my husband and myself as the convergence point. The color that results is kind of an old two-color Technicolor look.

The 3-D effect suffered a bit by downrezzing it for posting. My original file looks much better, and the original slide better still! This was done for our 2004 Christmas card. We included a pair of red/blue glasses in each card. [Cool]

Someday, I will get Photoshop, and play around with this technique to get more color into it like yours.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2006, 02:18 PM:

So were there two cameras that went off at the same time? I never really understood how the monochrome anaglyph 3D images were even possible. For me I have no choice but to do them in full color.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-21-2006, 02:36 PM:

Dual-camera stereo is one way to do it, but I use a vintage Stereo Realist camera that records two images simutaneously. 99.9% of the itme, I shoot slide film, mostly Kodachrome. The images are narrower than a normal 35mm frame (5 perforations wide as opposed to 8), and I get 29 stereo pairs on a 36 exposure roll. Ideally, they're viewed with a viewer kinda sorta like a View-master, but usually self-illuminated with better optics.

You can see the camera at Dr. T's Realist Page.

For our purposes, the wedding picture came out well, but I'd like to tweak the process to put back more color in the anaglyph. Compared to the slides, though, the colored glasses sap so much of the spectrum.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2006, 05:56 PM:

Interesting camera. Send me the left and right full-size/full-color scans if you have them and I'll give you a full color 3D analglyph picture without compression. Compression of analglyphs result in artifacting of the red eye, making things look nasty. That's why when I do 3D my pics stay uncompressed every step of the way.

JPEG sucks, and so does JPEG2000. Anyone who likes JPEG2000 should get chronic diarrhea.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-22-2006, 09:16 AM:

Joe, I sent you each scan separately. The files should be big enough to make it work better. Have fun!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2006, 01:52 PM:

OK here is my version of Hillary's wedding pic. Red eye = left.

That camera is pretty neat, but I think I like the dual camera (or single camera moved between shots) setup a little better since you have more control over depth and can exaggerate it if ya like... though that way is more of a pain in the ass.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-22-2006, 07:11 PM:

That is awesome! Great job, Joe!

I like the Realist because of the assured simultaneous exposures (and I'm too cheap to seek out two matched camera/lens sets), and of all the accessories (old and new) and support materials available for the format. However, the narrower image has always been an issue. I personally would like it a little wider. Some people have converted certain models to produce wider images. And there's a company that twins regular 35mm cameras so that full-size 35mm stereo frames can be produced. If anyone watches the production diaries for "King Kong," Peter Jackson can be seen photographing a pile of fake camel poop with one of these.

Whenever I'm doing still subjects, or when I need to change the interocular distance, I use my Nikon and a slide bar. However, I just came back from a wedding in which I took about two rolls with my Realist. Whatever works best. I'd really like one of those RBT cameras though...

Thanks for the great work. When I finally get PS, may I pick your brain to learn your anaglyph technique?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-22-2006, 08:07 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
The Internet has made it too easy for people to make "bold" statements that they might otherwise not make face to face.

One, I don't see that as a "bold" statement. Two, there seems to be an assumption here that I wouldn't make that statement to either of them face to face; that assumption is incorrect. And not for nothing as we say here in Brooklyn, I don't think there is anything bold about saying two people who seem to be hell-bent on denegrading and slamming motion picture film at every opportunity, the very medium that has given them the monetary resources to get where they are today, that such individuals are an industry joke, at least to the exhibition industry.

Funny they didn't think video was the way to go when they wanted millions of potential viewers to shell out $10 a pop to see their films. They could have easily opted for made-for-tv movies, yet both chose film while out of the other side of their mouths tell of the heavenly day when that aweful film which does nothing but mar their great works will be a thing of the past, being replaced entirely with digital -- the sooner the better and good ridance to it. And now it's not only digital, but 3D that's gonna put nails in film's coffin and give the world what it didn't have before, a way to really appreciate the filmmaker's art. To me, this is a joke, and they are the butt.

And if that's slander or libel, I plead guilty. I simply have no respect for a filmmaker who trashes the medium on which the greatest works of our truly indiginous American art-form were created over the last Century. And I will tell either of them that any time, anywhere.

quote: Michael Coate
One troublesome aspect to the bashing of Lucas, Cameron, Spielberg, insert name of any successful filmmaker, etc. is that it seems like one of those biting-the-hand-that-feeds things if it comes from an exhibitor since those filmmakers have been responsible more than any for putting butts in seats year after year, film after film.

This is a two way street. They can only put those butts in seats year after year if exhibitors invest in and maintain motion picture theatres for the filmmakers to play their films in. Without those seats, they would be making made-for-TV-Movies, Pay-per-view and direct to DVD releases. If Mr. Cameron thinks he could have mustered 60 million in the first weekend of TITANIC without those theatres and without those film projectors, he should have tried selling his movie to Time-Warner and let them put it on cable.

Seems that their rhetoric point squarely to the fact that they have distain for film and exhibitors and would happily release day-and-date if they think it is more profitable to do so, regardless of the impact on exhibition. Seems to me that anyone who thinks the digivangelists filmmakers think of themselves as partners with exhibitors or are friends of exhibition, are a tad naive.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-22-2006, 08:49 PM:

I don't think that Cameron and Lucas are pushing digital as a way to get rid of film because it's evil. They're pushing digital because it is the best way for them to present their work. The reason why they've supported film up until this point is because it was the best format out there. Realistically speaking, that's no longer the case.

If nothing else, these two have pushed movie technology as far as possible throughout their careers. Why should they stop now?

And maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it's about money. It's about being cool. When TITANIC came out, Cameron paid for 70mm prints out of his own pocket because he knew that that was the coolest way to show the movie. He could be making millions of dollars a year by directing movies like AQUAMAN, but instead he has chosen to spend the last decade developing 3D technology, shooting documentaries, and pimping the space program. He's just cool like that.

Movies > Money

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2006, 09:30 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles
When I finally get PS, may I pick your brain to learn your anaglyph technique?

Sure.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-23-2006, 01:51 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
The reason why they've supported film up until this point is because it was the best format out there. Realistically speaking, that's no longer the case.

K Mike... Show me a digital shooting system as good as 5/65.... and lets not forget there is 15/70. SHDTV is not even close to either of these yet.

Mark

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-23-2006, 09:10 PM:

Mark, I said realistically.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-24-2006, 09:09 PM:

5/35 isn't so shoddy either, compared to DC.

However, can we realistically expect people to wear glasses for regular theatrical features? They gave up on that in the 50s and accepted CinemaScope instead.

Till someone invents 3D without glasses it might remain a recurring novelty, except for IMAX (an occasional event for audiences).

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-19-2010, 05:15 PM:

It has been 1333 days since the last post.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 03-19-2010, 05:15 PM:

quote: Joshua Waaland
Stars Wars Ep.I is due for re-release in 3-D next year.

hmm, interesting. [Smile]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2010, 07:23 PM:

No one ever picked my brain for my anaglyph technique.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-20-2010, 10:48 AM:

Sorry 'bout that Joe. [uhoh]

I must sheepishly admit that not too long after my question, I learned of the Stereo Photo Maker freeware. It's just so dang easy, I forgot about my request.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2010, 04:05 PM:

quote: Joshua Waaland
Stars Wars Ep.I is due for re-release in 3-D next year.

I think it was at the 2006 Rocky Mountain convention that they showed us a 3-D demo of the Star Wars conversion. The picture at that demo was dark and pretty unimpressive. I'd guess they have put it on hold until they can make it look better.