3D Creature from the Black Lagoon 3D (1954) (3 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

The number of 3-D films shown theatrically in anaglyph between 1952 and 1980 is miniscule. Off the top of my head:
A DAY IN THE COUNTRY short 1953
COLLEGE CAPERS short 1953
BANDIT ISLAND short 1953
Various burlesque shorts 1953: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths/1953-anaglyph-films
THE MASK segments 1961
BELLBOY AND THE PLAYGIRLS segment 1961
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON reissue 1972
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE reissue 1972
Then you get into the porn titles which I have zero interest in.
Do you think he was referring to the porn films of the 1970's?

 

[lukejosephchung]

Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek /t/321783/creature-from-the-black-lagoon-3d-1954/210#post_3983614
The number of 3-D films shown theatrically in anaglyph between 1952 and 1980 is miniscule. Off the top of my head:
A DAY IN THE COUNTRY short 1953
COLLEGE CAPERS short 1953
BANDIT ISLAND short 1953
Various burlesque shorts 1953: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths/1953-anaglyph-films
THE MASK segments 1961
BELLBOY AND THE PLAYGIRLS segment 1961
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON reissue 1972
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE reissue 1972
Then you get into the porn titles which I have zero interest in.
Do you think he was referring to the porn films of the 1970's?

Well...Ebert DID write "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls" for Russ Meyer back then...

 

[lukejosephchung]

duplicate post deleted

 

[JamesNelson]

To illustrate just how bad some of the vertical alignment gets in this release, I threw together a quick-and-dirty anaglyph conversion for comparison. The BD is, of course, in full HD 3-D, not in anaglyph.
Disclaimer: these images are rough anaglyph conversions of the BD. They are not intended to in any way represent the overall image quality of the BD. They are intended solely to illustrate the vertical stereoscopic misalignment issues present on the BD and no other implications regarding the disc's quality should be inferred or construed.
This is one of the worst case scenarios:
The same shot with a simple vertical alignment correction:

 

[Richard--W]

how frequent is the vertical misaligment? is it a matter of seconds two or three times or is the disc riddled with it?

 

[Table Top Joe]

The number of 3-D films shown theatrically in anaglyph between 1952 and 1980 is miniscule. Off the top of my head:
A DAY IN THE COUNTRY short 1953
COLLEGE CAPERS short 1953
BANDIT ISLAND short 1953
Various burlesque shorts 1953: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths/1953-anaglyph-films
THE MASK segments 1961
BELLBOY AND THE PLAYGIRLS segment 1961
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON reissue 1972
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE reissue 1972
Then you get into the porn titles which I have zero interest in.
Do you think he was referring to the porn films of the 1970's?

Not to deviate from the Creature discussion, but am I to assume based on this list that The Mask(1961) was originally released in anaglyph and not polarized 3D? Also who owns the rights to this film? I have fond memories of seeing this film on TV as a kid in the mid to late 80's and being very impressed with the anaglyph presentation. I've noticed that a company called cheezy flicks is selling a copy of the movie in anaglyph and while the print quality was decent the 3D was completely underwhelming and nowhere near as impressive as when I saw it on TV those many years back. I would love to see a proper version of this film again.

 

[JamesNelson]

how frequent is the vertical misaligment? is it a matter of seconds two or three times or is the disc riddled with it?

That's tough to quantify, as I certainly haven't done a shot-by-shot analysis of the entire disc. The particular shot I posted is about as bad as it gets. That shot lasts about 10 seconds. There are are few more shots I'm aware of that are just as bad. There are lots more that are only slightly misaligned and probably aren't even worth mentioning.
I'm really not trying to malign the overall 3-D quality. Most it is very good. Some of it is jaw-dropping excellent.
The pity is it all could have been stellar.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Not to deviate from the Creature discussion, but am I to assume based on this list that The Mask(1961) was originally released in anaglyph and not polarized 3D? Also who owns the rights to this film? I have fond memories of seeing this film on TV as a kid in the mid to late 80's and being very impressed with the anaglyph presentation. I've noticed that a company called cheezy flicks is selling a copy of the movie in anaglyph and while the print quality was decent the 3D was completely underwhelming and nowhere near as impressive as when I saw it on TV those many years back. I would love to see a proper version of this film again.

THE MASK is tangled up in a legal mess. Yes, it was anaglyph only. BELLBOY AND THE PLAYGIRLS was offered to exhibitors in both and anaglyph and single-strip Polaroid versions.
So, I'm still wondering, do you think Ebert's anaglyph quote was in reference to the titles on my list or the 1970's porno films?

 

[Todd J Moore]

Hard to say, Bob. I forget the exact source, it was either one of his reviews or one of his rants against 3D but he even claimed the 80s fims were anaglyph. Again, I don't have the patience to go through every reiew and every anti-3D rant of his to find it, but I do remember seeing it a few years ago.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm not going to spend any time looking either. Perhaps it's in here: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/01/two_thumbs_two_dimensions.html

 

[Richard--W]

That's tough to quantify, as I certainly haven't done a shot-by-shot analysis of the entire disc. The particular shot I posted is about as bad as it gets. That shot lasts about 10 seconds. There are are few more shots I'm aware of that are just as bad. There are lots more that are only slightly misaligned and probably aren't even worth mentioning.
I'm really not trying to malign the overall 3-D quality. Most it is very good. Some of it is jaw-dropping excellent.
The pity is it all could have been stellar.

Well done and thank you.
There should be no misalignment whatsoever in a 3-D transfer from a major studio.
Reviewers, then, should itemize the technical flaws in the transfer and make a clear distinction that they're not cinematography flaws. Timecode and illustrate the flaws so there can be no doubt where they occur. This will tell the home video division of the studio that they have to engage someone with expertise in 3-D -- and perhaps with a specialized knowledge of the film -- rather than rely on their in-house man. Stereoscopic transfers require a stereoscopic consultant. I reiterate: stereoscopic transfers require a stereoscopic consultant. But the studios won't hire an outside consultant unless their shortcomings are publicly documented.
I'm sure more good will come out of this release than bad. As consumers and film biz people become acclimated, a lot of misunderstandings and mis-information about classic 3-D films will clear up.
The sooner 3DArchives gets one of its films out on Blu-ray, and everyone sees how it's done right, the sooner the studios will start listening and engaging you guys, who are the real experts. To push the point, perhaps the membership of HTF and various 3-D organizations can help fund a 3D Archives blu-ray by subscribing to limited editions in advance of publication. If that can be organized somehow, I will make the first payment.

 

[Doctorossi]

There should be no misalignment whatsoever in a 3-D transfer from a major studio.
Reviewers, then, should itemize the technical flaws in the transfer and make a clear distinction that they're not cinematography flaws. Timecode and illustrate the flaws so there can be no doubt where they occur. This will tell the home video division of the studio that they have to engage someone with expertise in 3-D -- and perhaps with a specialized knowledge of the film -- rather than rely on their in-house man. Stereoscopic transfers require a stereoscopic consultant. I reiterate: stereoscopic transfers require a stereoscopic consultant. But the studios won't hire an outside consultant unless their shortcomings are publicly documented.

Yes!
This cannot be broadcast loudly enough!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you for the encouragement, I really appreciate that.
Between Greg Kintz and myself, we have nearly fifty years of experience in working with vintage 3-D materials. I would hope that would mean something to the people making these decisions.
Some may not have seen this page on our website, but here's my background: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/history-of-the-archive

 

[JamesNelson]

A couple other badly misaligned shots:
Disclaimer: these images are rough anaglyph conversions of the BD. They are not intended to in any way represent the overall image quality of the BD. They are intended solely to illustrate the vertical stereoscopic misalignment issues present on the BD and no other implications regarding the disc's quality should be inferred or construed.
Original:
Corrected:
Original:
Corrected:

 

[ahollis]

The miss-aligned shots are really disheartening, in that some of the first reviews and discussions talked about how good the 3D was. Now it seems that there are problems and I wish I had known about them before I purchased the set. Not that it would have changed my mind, for I would have purchased it anyway for the other Blu-ray titles, but I would not have had high expectations. It really is a shame that the two classic 3D titles out this year have some problems that I understand could have been solved easily and we have all these other 3D titles from this time that appear to be good, such as, heavens forbid Piranha 3D.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I know these are rough examples, are you saying this is what we will see while watching in 3D?

 

[JamesNelson]

I know these are rough examples, are you saying this is what we will see while watching in 3D?

By "rough" I mean the anaglyph conversions themselves are rough. The 3-D BD is obviously not in anaglyph, and viewing it in true HD 3-D will looks worlds better than these anaglyphs. Again, I'm not trying to illustrate anything about overall image quality -- only about the vertical misalignment issues I'm seeing.
In that regard yes, these images accurately represent the amount of vertical misalignment present on the disc in these specific shots and a few others. But again: these are the worst case scenarios I've found so far. Most shots are properly aligned. Many are not, and of the ones that are misaligned not all are this egregious.
To be clear: I am not trying to dissuade anyone from buying this disc. Most of it is wonderful.

 

[GregK]

It will be a bit before I am able to take a peek at CFBL (as its coming from the UK), but the screenshots are not encouraging...

 

[jquirk]

Wow ... I can't believe what I'm reading here. I've not noticed any of these alignment issues that you're talking about here. As far as I can tell, the movie looks awesome on my 106-screen via my Epson 3D 1080p projector.

 

[jquirk]

The WHOLE THING, as far as I'm concerned, is wonderful. I've watched it twice already and the whole thing to me presented no alignment issues. It all seems crystal clear.