3D Is Back!

[charlie W]

Here we go again with the 50 year old gimmick from the movie industry. What's the cause this time?

http://www.news.com/Dolby-stakes-its-claim-in-3D-movie-tech/2100-1026_3-6212112.html?tag=nefd.lede

[drh]

... What's the cause this time? ...

Same as always: money--as in, the studios think they can make a bunch.

The article, of course, indicates that the studios hope to stem the shift of audiences from theater-comma-brick-and-mortar to theater-comma-home, and I can't imagine that they are also hoping to make something harder to copy and shoot around the Internet on the sly.

One line from the article (which was most interesting--thanks for posting it) did catch my eye, and if it's true I say "bring on the stereo renaissance NOW!":

"... [In stereo,] MTV-style fast cuts from one scene to another are a no-no because audience members must refocus. "

[Chip Z]

I saw "Nightmare Before Xmas" in 3-D in a local theater and it was very impressive. It is worth noting that this film was not originally made to be in 3-D but 3-D was added "after the fact."

Seems to me that the films actually made contemplating a 3-D release should be even more impressive. The 3-D trailers shown before Nightmare certainly were.

[Pinknik]

It's good to read that Stereovision is upping the artistic ante. :)

[tommy-thewho]

I saw the Chicken Little movie in 3-D and enjoyed it...

I'm for anything to improve cinema....

More 70mm movies would help out also.

[Jack Theakston]

"... [In stereo,] MTV-style fast cuts from one scene to another are a no-no because audience members must refocus.

Yes and no. If shot correctly with the convergence points set identically, fast cuts can be done because the eye's focus is maintained on that particular distance.

The problem as it exists today is that very few of these film makers who are making these films take the time out to study 3-D and what is necessary of it, similar to the issues that the Over/Under systems of the early '80s' films had. Hyper-stereo effects can be very uncomfortable viewing, and unfortunately, few people understand why it's not a good idea to have stuff stuck out of the screen all of the time.

[NIKE SQ 460]

I saw the Chicken Little movie in 3-D and enjoyed it...

I'm for anything to improve cinema....

More 70mm movies would help out also.


saw behind the green door in 3-D. what a mess that was.

[PinballMars]

I hope it comes back, if only because I'd like to see some older 3-D movies actually released on 3-D on DVD.

It's annoying to watch the supplements on the It Came From Outer Space DVD make a big deal about the movie being on 3-D... while the 3-D version is NOT on the disc, or on any disc.

[Mal]

Here we go again with the 50 year old gimmick from the movie industry. What's the cause this time?

Seems a rather negative attitude.....

I love 3D photography which was perfected over 100 years ago. The logical next step has always been 3D moving images but the problem has always been how to get everyone in the theatre to get a different image in each eye. The red/green filter approach ("anaglyph") was a terrible idea as it gave poor image separation and destroyed the colour palette. These new polarised image methods work brilliantly :agree:

Just pop down to your local IMAX cinema to see how great it can be nowadays.

I remember seeing a 3D visualisation system in the Chemistry department at my University around 5 years ago called "Crystal Eyes" (geddit? ;)) and it was very impressive :yikes:. It used a set of glasses with a single segment LCD screen for each lens. The "lenses" were made alternately opaque/clear many times a second and the image on the computer monitor was interchanged to coincide with the alternating lenses so each eye only saw the image it was supposed to. That way you could rotate these complex molecular structures and see where each atom was perfectly. I wonder if that approach has been considered for theatres? The only problem is that the glasses have to somehow communicate with the projection equipment - not a big deal but maybe more complicated than necessary since the polarised light method simply involves passive glasses at the user end.

Anyway - a subject dear to my heart :agree:

Can't wait to see Beowulf in 3D :goodie: (hope it happens in the UK!!)

[Pinknik]

I wonder if that approach has been considered for theatres? The only problem is that the glasses have to somehow communicate with the projection equipment - not a big deal but maybe more complicated than necessary since the polarised light method simply involves passive glasses at the user end.

Anyway - a subject dear to my heart :agree:

Can't wait to see Beowulf in 3D :goodie: (hope it happens in the UK!!)

Indeed it has, by Imax, in fact. Solido, I think they called it. The headsets at the time were quite large and quite expensive. Supposedly, the results were very good, but I can't imagine it competing with cardboard glasses, on a large scale.

I love 3-D movies, but I can understand a cynical take on them. The industry has the same type of enthusiasm every time they truck it out, and every time, it lasts a while and then goes away again. Only time will tell. I don't think it is the kind of thing that someone would want to see every movie made in. It's a special occasion type of format.

[ROLO46]

I think DLP projection can enable 3D with no glasses

The liquid crystals can change polarity instantaneously

[Pinknik]

saw behind the green door in 3-D. what a mess that was.

Being an amateur historian on porn and 3-D, I wonder if it wasn't some other title. :D

[charlie W]

Seems a rather negative attitude.....
Because I sat through a number of bad 3-d movies in the late 1970's and early 80's(did anyone see Spacehunter).

Just pop down to your local IMAX cinema to see how great it can be nowadays.

I've seen 2 movies in IMAX 3D-the horrible Elvira movie and the other about the rainforest. And they are great and just long enough not to give me a splitting headache after the movie. But if Beowulf follows recent Hollywood big budget CGI movie trends, it probably has a running time between two and half to three hours and that's far too long w/out bearing a painful headache(perhaps they have an intermission?). I wish theaters would spend the dollars on digital projection systems.

[Pinknik]

Because I sat through a number of bad 3-d movies in the late 1970's and early 80's(did anyone see Spacehunter).

Yes, when I was in the 6th grade, and it was awful, and I loved it. Got it in 3-D on DVD now. :)

I've seen 2 movies in IMAX 3D-the horrible Elvira movie and the other about the rainforest. And they are great and just long enough not to give me a splitting headache after the movie. But if Beowulf follows recent Hollywood big budget CGI movie trends, it probably has a running time between two and half to three hours and that's far too long w/out bearing a painful headache(perhaps they have an intermission?). I wish theaters would spend the dollars on digital projection systems.

Well, aside from Imax, the new Disney 3-D, and Real D stuff is done with digital projection, so you'll be happy, at least when they aren't showing 3-D.

[Jack Theakston]

If you haven't seen even one of the films for the '50s projected properly in their original dual-strip, Polaroid 3-D, it's unfair to judge 3-D so harshly. I cannot speak on the behalf of a lot of modern 3-D, but the films from the '50s are extremely well done technically. I would make the comparison to audio mastering techniques of yesterday and today. Somewhere in the digital mix, the method for the "sound" or in this case, the "look" was lost.

Films such as HOUSE OF WAX, KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON... heck, even ROBOT MONSTER, are extremely well photographed and when projected properly, cause no headache or eye strain. And you'll find, most of all, the stereoscopic effect brings a tremendous element to an already good film.

[Pinknik]

If you haven't seen even one of the films for the '50s projected properly in their original dual-strip, Polaroid 3-D, it's unfair to judge 3-D so harshly. I cannot speak on the behalf of a lot of modern 3-D, but the films from the '50s are extremely well done technically. I would make the comparison to audio mastering techniques of yesterday and today. Somewhere in the digital mix, the method for the "sound" or in this case, the "look" was lost.

Films such as HOUSE OF WAX, KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON... heck, even ROBOT MONSTER, are extremely well photographed and when projected properly, cause no headache or eye strain. And you'll find, most of all, the stereoscopic effect brings a tremendous element to an already good film.

I can vouch for this. They look pretty incredible. Jack, were you at the last 3-D Festival in Hollywood?

[JohnG]

The Polar Express was very nice in 3D IMAX.

[Jack Theakston]

Jack, were you at the last 3-D Festival in Hollywood?

Yes, in fact you'll find that I wrote the notes for the program book that was sold at the Expo. It was the most fun I've had in years.

[Pinknik]

Yes, in fact you'll find that I wrote the notes for the program book that was sold at the Expo. It was the most fun I've had in years.

Awesome. As it turns out, I've enjoyed your writing. My first 3-D was a neighbor's stereoscope and, later, my own Viewmaster. All I knew was that they looked really neat. My introduction to 3-D movies came with the anaglyph TV broadcast of Revenge of the Creature from 3-D Video Corp. Soon after that I got Amazing 3-D by Dan Symmes and got to see the real thing in theaters with the 1983 single strip boom. Too bad they weren't better movies, but I still had a good time. :) I literally had a dream that I went to a 3-D film festival one night, so when I missed out on the first one, I COULD NOT miss the second one. It's quite possible I saw you there. It's was very cool meeting Ron & Bob Furmanek, Steve, Dan Symmes, Jeff Joseph and Joe Dante. I even got to meet Leonard Maltin and Sybil Danning. If there's ever another one, and I'm not flat broke, I'll be there.

[EddieVanHalen]

I heard some time ago that George Lucas was to release Star Wars on 3D, any news on that?

[tas]

Seems a rather negative attitude.....

I love 3D photography which was perfected over 100 years ago. The logical next step has always been 3D moving images but the problem has always been how to get everyone in the theatre to get a different image in each eye. The red/green filter approach ("anaglyph") was a terrible idea as it gave poor image separation and destroyed the colour palette. These new polarised image methods work brilliantly :agree:

Just pop down to your local IMAX cinema to see how great it can be nowadays.

I remember seeing a 3D visualisation system in the Chemistry department at my University around 5 years ago called "Crystal Eyes" (geddit? ;)) and it was very impressive :yikes:. It used a set of glasses with a single segment LCD screen for each lens. The "lenses" were made alternately opaque/clear many times a second and the image on the computer monitor was interchanged to coincide with the alternating lenses so each eye only saw the image it was supposed to. That way you could rotate these complex molecular structures and see where each atom was perfectly. I wonder if that approach has been considered for theatres? The only problem is that the glasses have to somehow communicate with the projection equipment - not a big deal but maybe more complicated than necessary since the polarised light method simply involves passive glasses at the user end.

Anyway - a subject dear to my heart :agree:

Can't wait to see Beowulf in 3D :goodie: (hope it happens in the UK!!)

Crystal Eyes - I have these - the NuVision version on my PC. Being a photogrammetrist it is mandatory.

There is a version for a wide area use such as a theatre or lecture room. The only thing stopping them from being ore widely available is cost. Each pair is delicate and relatively expensive for consumer use such as in a theatre.

You can see the IR emitter on top of the monitor. The right screen is stereo mode you can see the two images.

[fjhuerta]

Imagine if the original post said something like...


Multichannel is back!
Here we go again with the 50 year old gimmick from the movie industry. What's the cause this time?

http://www.news.com/Dolby-stakes-its...?tag=nefd.lede
__________________

...back when mono movies were common (I believe it was the 70's).

:D

BRING ON 3D!

[stereoptic]

Too many people dismiss stereo films ("3-D") as gimmicky, based upon memories of the 1950's releases that cashed in on the trend. There have been many excellent releases in recent years (many mentioned in the posts above) as well as theme park attractions (Terminator 3-D at Universal studios had a higher per minute budget than any movie at the time). There are some great examples of stereo movies where the effect is an integral part of the film experience, just as relevant as use of color or music score.

[stereoptic]

I heard some time ago that George Lucas was to release Star Wars on 3D, any news on that?

this site has the latest information that I have read (from April 2005!)
3d review online magazine (http://www.rollanet.org/%7Evbeydler/van/3dreview/3dr0504.htm#starwars)

[Derek Gee]

I heard some time ago that George Lucas was to release Star Wars on 3D, any news on that?

A friend who lives in San Francisco (where Lucasfilm is headquartered) told me that the 3-D Star Wars conversions have been postponed until there are more 3-D theaters to play them.

Derek