House on Haunted Hill 3D (AIPOP) Edition (1 Viewer)

[Capt D McMars]

Bob,
I was intriged with an outfit creating a 3D version of "House on Haunted Hill", a classic spookfest from childhood. Others on another forum are the diyed in the wool "traditionalists" that seem to be poo-pooing this as pointless, where others are willing to see and at least try and have some fun with it.

I went ahead and submitted some funds for the project, I'd love to see this come to life. It may not be as good as a fully created 3d feature, but from what I've seen of other examples of this technology, it sure is pretty close, but I'm no expert!!!
I also noticed that. on that other forum, you had some positive feedback for the project, do you know the gentleman from Scotland heading up the conversion?

Any of your thoughts might go a long way towards opening up a further dialogue on the subject of 3D conversion possibilities, with all the upgrades in AI tech today and the possibilties that could be gained.

Thank again!!

 

[Artanis]

Bob,
I was intriged with an outfit creating a 3D version of "House on Haunted Hill", a classic spookfest from childhood. Others on another forum are the diyed in the wool "traditionalists" that seem to be poo-pooing this as pointless, where others are willing to see and at least try and have some fun with it.

I went ahead and submitted some funds for the project, I'd love to see this come to life. It may not be as good as a fully created 3d feature, but from what I've seen of other examples of this technology, it sure is pretty close, but I'm no expert!!!
I also noticed that. on that other forum, you had some positive feedback for the project, do you know the gentleman from Scotland heading up the conversion?

Any of your thoughts might go a long way towards opening up a further dialogue on the subject of 3D conversion possibilities, with all the upgrades in AI tech today and the possibilties that could be gained.

Thank again!!

The demos I've seen that they posted are amazing. The House On Haunted Hill demo looks as if the film was shot natively in 3D, it's that good.

 

[Interdimensional]

Bob,
I was intriged with an outfit creating a 3D version of "House on Haunted Hill", a classic spookfest from childhood. Others on another forum are the diyed in the wool "traditionalists" that seem to be poo-pooing this as pointless, where others are willing to see and at least try and have some fun with it.

It's remarkable for what it is, but definitely not as good as true native Golden Age 3-D. So long as the original film remains available in it's unaltered form, it's harmless, and fun for some, especially in this time where there are just a handful of 3-D releases per year.

I definitely noticed some spatial distortions in Nightmare Castle, where the AI misinterpreted the correct depth or shape of some of the subjects. Perhaps as the process becomes more refined, such errors will become less conspicuous. There are many other shots where it would be hard to tell it had been converted, although these are typically shots that don't have as much going on dimensionally .

With the availability of such technology, it might be tempting to convert some of the occasional flat shots and 2d stock footage in vintage 3-D film restoration, but that's where the purist in me would be inclined to object. I appreciate that the film we are seeing is a true representation of what was captured by the cameras and technology of the time and put together as it was by the original creative team at the studio.

The kind of exception to that might be something like that lost in 3-D shot in Harmony Lane, which was a clearly intended as a blatant popout, but ended up on the cutting room floor when they cut the negative on one side to create a 2d version with no gimmick shots. Or something like the Hannah Lee trailer, where it's clear that intermittent missing footage would've been fully 3-D originally. Where complete elements exist and it's clear certain shots were originally 2d, I would leave them as they were.

 

[Capt D McMars]

It's remarkable for what it is, but definitely not as good as true native Golden Age 3-D. So long as the original film remains available in it's unaltered form, it's harmless, and fun for some, especially in this time where there are just a handful of 3-D releases per year.

I definitely noticed some spatial distortions in Nightmare Castle, where the AI misinterpreted the correct depth or shape of some of the subjects. Perhaps as the process becomes more refined, such errors will become less conspicuous. There are many other shots where it would be hard to tell it had been converted, although these are typically shots that don't have as much going on dimensionally .

With the availability of such technology, it might be tempting to convert some of the occasional flat shots and 2d stock footage in vintage 3-D film restoration, but that's where the purist in me would be inclined to object. I appreciate that the film we are seeing is a true representation of what was captured by the cameras and technology of the time and put together as it was by the original creative team at the studio.

The kind of exception to that might be something like that lost in 3-D shot in Harmony Lane, which was a clearly intended as a blatant popout, but ended up on the cutting room floor when they cut the negative on one side to create a 2d version with no gimmick shots. Or something like the Hannah Lee trailer, where it's clear that intermittent missing footage would've been fully 3-D originally. Where complete elements exist and it's clear certain shots were originally 2d, I would leave them as they were.

Clearly this venture is not your cup of tea, and being able to watch an 2dHD presentation is rewarding enough. But opinons are like navels, we all have them, thank God we are not all the same or have the same mindset. Thanks for yours, all I ask is not to lessen mine because I have a different talke on the situation.
For me nothing ventured nothing gained, it seems these guys are exploring new possibilities, in much the same way the early colorization attempts were exploring that possibility. And because of those infintile first examples, the whole idea of colorization was paned before it could raise it's head above water.

Good, Bad, indifferent...exploring the possibilites of the format is what drove those early pioneers of film to creat the Golden age of 3D that we talk about here. And I'm sure at that time there were plenty of disparaging comments about it as well...

 

[Artanis]

It's okay to be a purest. Many were furious when the Beatles mono were released in stereo.
Even I get heated when original aspect ratio is cropped to make it 16x9, but I understand why they do it. Or, colorization. I made a post some time ago about talking with some twenty-somethings that said, they absolutely refused to watch any movie in black & white. So colorization is a blessing for some.

After seeing the demo's, I could not be more excited.
I'm glad they're taking some public domain movies and converting them. Why not? Maybe more people will see them. And for us fans of classic movies and 3D, it's a double winner.
Whoo-Hoo!

 

[Capt D McMars]

Updates on AIPOP = HOHH -

 

[Malcolm R]

Films that are unrelated to Bob Furmanek or the 3DFA should probably not be included in this thread. [Clarification: this post was originally in the 3D Archive/Bob Furmanek thread and has been moved to this new thread.]

A separate thread(s) should probably be created by a moderator (@Robert Crawford) ?

 

[Capt D McMars]

Technology is a double sided tool, but it gets better over time. The first efforts of film augmentation, such as colorization, improved as the ability to access a wider spectrum of colors and the ability to apply them came into play. Case in point here is the AI application in the modifaction from 2D to 3D features. AIPOP is expanding the possibilites by recreating the visuals that mimic the visuals of a 3D feature (anaglyphic version). The early attempts showed promise, but were far from where they wanted them to be. the last feature Nightmare Castle was a very close attempt and House on Haunted Hill promises to top that!!

From the latest samples, the 3D effect is quite well done and I will have these and updates added here as they becaome available. They are also seeking additional backing if you are a mind to help support, so grab your anagliph glasses and enjoy!!

 

[Robert Harris]

Be interesting to know the financials on this. How many, dyed in the wool, 3-D fans are out there, that would purchase a conversion.

I’d want the faux skeleton on wires.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm probably not interested in an anaglyph 3D version.

 

[John Sparks]

Everybody shout now...NEW THREADS...NEW THREADS...NEW THREADS!

 

[Matt Hough]

I've always enjoyed the film for what it is and would welcome a look at a 3D conversion as long as it's polarized 3D and not anaglyph. When Fox did those conversions 7 or 8 years ago (I, Robot comes to mind, but there were some others), I found them pretty unsatisfying, but some of Disney's conversions of their 2D animated movies like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King were very enjoyable, and the conversion of The Wizard of Oz was aces! So, there is no way I'd dismiss this out of hand if done properly.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Those Fox conversions were done with a piece of automated equipment by JVC that cost about $30,000 a movie to use or something low cost along those lines. By comparison, the type of professional, done by hand conversions used on Lion King, Wizard of Oz, Titanic and new release titles cost a minimum of $30,000 per minute of footage, and sometimes a lot more.

On one hand you gotta figure automated processes are probably much better now than ten years ago, but on the other hand it’s hard to imagine it being as good as the $5-10 million efforts that major studios make.

I’m definitely curious about the effort but I’m also at a point in my 3D fandom where my expectation is higher than “if you squint it kinda almost looks like it might be 3D” which was my impression of the Fox titles done on the JVC system.

 

[Artanis]

I'm so glad Capt brought this to our attention. Stoked. But, I think Malcolm is right. Certainly AIPOP-3D is long overdue for it's own thread.

 

[Robert Harris]

Am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of 3-D simply for the sake of 3-D. If I’m watching 3-D, it had better be a terrific film.

Similar situation with large format, of which I’m a huge fan.

But have no interest in watching bad 70mm.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, that 3D conversion of The Lion King cost $10 million I seem to remember, but Disney was rewarded with a reissue that grossed over $100 million. They had similar expectations for Beauty and the Beast, but it didn't happen.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yes, that 3D conversion of The Lion King cost $10 million I seem to remember

That sounds about right - similar ballpark for Jurassic Park 3D. I think Titanic cost more but Cameron spent 9 months or so working on that where most of these are done in a fraction of that time, so that makes sense. I think generally the going rate for converting a summer tentpole to 3D is about $10 million added to post-production. For me it's money well spent but I get that that's a minority view these days.

 

[Interdimensional]

Clearly this venture is not your cup of tea, and being able to watch an 2dHD presentation is rewarding enough. But opinons are like navels, we all have them, thank God we are not all the same or have the same mindset. Thanks for yours, all I ask is not to lessen mine because I have a different talke on the situation.
For me nothing ventured nothing gained, it seems these guys are exploring new possibilities, in much the same way the early colorization attempts were exploring that possibility. And because of those infintile first examples, the whole idea of colorization was paned before it could raise it's head above water.

Good, Bad, indifferent...exploring the possibilites of the format is what drove those early pioneers of film to creat the Golden age of 3D that we talk about here. And I'm sure at that time there were plenty of disparaging comments about it as well...

I think in the early days of colorization, there may have been the concern that the original B&W versions of those films would disappear from circulation. There was the idea that younger people would change the channel if B&W content came on.

I wasn't expressing the sentiment you attribute to me. I'm not dogmatically opposed to such developments. I watched the Harryhausen colorizations. I'd seen the films before, so it was just a different way to watch it. They seemed reasonably accurate, of course it's a different look to Technicolor productions of the time.

I was so impressed with the Wizard of Oz 3D conversion, that I have little interest in watching it any other way. To my eyes it makes it a more seamless film. Even matte paintings have depth now.

I have the Nightmare Castle disc, and House on Haunted Hill is an easy sell for me. It's Vincent Price in 3D, can't say no to that. The Deep Vision crew know their audience, they won't get rich, but the demand is clearly there.

 

[Capt D McMars]

I've always enjoyed the film for what it is and would welcome a look at a 3D conversion as long as it's polarized 3D and not anaglyph. When Fox did those conversions 7 or 8 years ago (I, Robot comes to mind, but there were some others), I found them pretty unsatisfying, but some of Disney's conversions of their 2D animated movies like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King were very enjoyable, and the conversion of The Wizard of Oz was aces! So, there is no way I'd dismiss this out of hand if done properly.

They are offeering BOTH, for me I love the quirkiness of Anagliph, but they do offer both on this upcoming disc. Just FYI!!

 

[Capt D McMars]

That sounds about right - similar ballpark for Jurassic Park 3D. I think Titanic cost more but Cameron spent 9 months or so working on that where most of these are done in a fraction of that time, so that makes sense. I think generally the going rate for converting a summer tentpole to 3D is about $10 million added to post-production. For me it's money well spent but I get that that's a minority view these days.

Apparently AIPOP has found a more economic "work around" method over the older traditional methods.


All of these are better with the glasses~~~