Can 'Spy Kids 3D' work on DVD?

It can and it will.

I'm hoping they offer a "no-3D" option, because, frankly, the analglyph glasses give me a headache.

It may work, but images will be quite dark. A no 3D option would mean a separate version of the film.

I'm hoping it's in 3D. I don't understand why some titles are being stripped of 3D like House of Wax (still a wonderful release despite) upon their dvd release. I heard somewhere that 3D could not be done on dvd....but I'm assuming that is just not true. Especially since my Freddy's Dead DVD includes a 3D segment that though I find overly cheesy and dumb....is still 3D. Anyone know what it is used to get this 3D on dvd?

Since the 3D effects for the theatrical release was created using the red/blue "Anaglyph" format, my guess is that it will be provided in 3D, (with perhaps a 2D version available as an extra).

The anaglyph format of 3D presentation is the only one that will easily convert over for viewing on DVD, and will be visible on the greatest variety of displays.

Other methods of 3D effects;

"Pulfrich" method using one darkened lens (invented by a man with only one good eye by the way) works works with motion so the camera must always be in movement around the subject. The Judds had a 3D music video created with this process... very cool effects, but one tends to get nauseous after too long viewing a spinning video. I have a "Wet & Wild 3D" DVD and the "effects" really "pop-out" at ya!

"Polarized glasses" as used with "Amityville 3-D", Friday the 13th part 3-D" and the terrible "Jaws 3-D" cannot be projected from a CRT.

"LCD" (a.k.a. IMAX "shutter-glasses") glasses require that the display be interlaced in order to correctly synchronize with the LCD lenses for accurate reproduction. Most HD and HD ready televisions have built in line doublers so interlacing the signal cannot be done due to hardware limitation.

Anaglyph, while far from perfect, can be easily and inexpensively ported over to DVD. It is viewable on all types of televisions with simple inexpensive glasses. If done well (which with recent technological developments thanks to James Cameron I am sure this will be as good as is currently possible), the movie will come off as well as the theatrical release. If done poorly, it will look like the crappy conversion to DVD done on "Comin At Ya!".

I say that "perhaps" they will include a 2D version on the DVD, but what I really mean is that "I hope" that they do. 3D is not for everyone. I am also a fan of 3D (see my anaglyph photos on www.spencesplace.com), but it is nice to have the option of watching the movie "flat", even if for only the purpose of comparison.

I believe that "Freddy's Dead" was done with the anaglyph process, but I have never seen the movie.

While the 3D anaglyph effect might be cool (mostly lost on me) the first time, after the 3rd or 4th viewing even the kids won't want to bother with the glasses anymore. They're certain to get lost or destroyed too.

Too bad they didn't do an Imax shutter-glasses version. Now that would have been cool.

I smell a two disc set coming then. One disc is 3d, the other is standard

That is what I was going to suggest. I think that it would be a really good selling point for the DVD. This move would especially make sense for the rental market, because the Blockbusters and Hollywood Videos would most likely not want to deal with 3d glasses and making sure that people get them when they rent it. Then there might also be a health concern with distributing the same 3d glasses with the rentals. The only problem I can see with including the 3d version of the film on the DVD set, is that the company would also have to include a bunch of 3d glasses wtih the DVD.

Artur, try out .

EDIT:

Anyone know what process they use for the T2-3D attraction at Universal Studios?

T2-3D uses polarized projection, with viewers wearing simple polarized glasses.

T2-3D was still under construction when I was last down there, but if it is anything like the other 3D shows that I took in while in Orlando that year (Honey I Shrunk the Audience, Muppets 3D), it would probably be using the "Polarized" glasses.

This method of 3D provides perfect stereo effect (albeit a bit darker) and yet retains somewhat accurate color (the red/blue (ore read/green) anaglyph distorts colors).

By using the polarized glasses, hardware and maintenance costs are minimized. The glasses look like over-sized sunglasses (over-sized to fit those wearing prescription glasses), but require no electronics, so they are far smaller and lighter than the LCD "Shutter Glasses" in that you may find in most IMAX 3D theaters. One lens is polarized to allow a particular light wave through, the other lens is polarized in the exact opposite direction. Corresponding filters on the projection system (which is projecting two images) work in the same way as the anaglyph method to filter images directing them to one eye or the other. If you ever have the opportunity to check out a 3D presentation using the polarized glasses, take two pair of glasses and try looking through the right lens of one and then hold the left lens of the other over the right lens that you are looking through. Kind of cool!

I thought the movie was horrible (it was very blurry). Watching the movie with the glasses on was not much better than having them off !!

It's 100% not true. There are several DVD packages out there that use the field sequential LED glasses, but unfortunately all of the ones that I see on sale are f**king horror movies, which I absolutely despise!! But get me IMAX Space Station in field sequential 3D and it's MINE!!

I also have John Wayne's Hondo in red/blue 3D on VHS. All that I have to do is to transfer it and it's on DVD.

Time to get detailed here. Why not? I've been wondering about this for a while. What do polarized projection lenses do that prevent proper replication on a CRT?

To Me, polarized projection is the only 3D method that works.

I took the kids the see SK3 at the cinema and found 1 3 second segment in the whole film that worked (where they are snowboaring down the lava).

After seeing the polarized projection in movie studios in Orlando & LA, I was hoping to see SK3 that way but when it wasn't, I dreaded the worst and discovered I was right with the whole film looking crap.

I think you are all being entirely too hard on the red/blue process as used in SK:3D. I work at a megaplex and spend a fair number of shifts in projection. I was very impressed with the effects produced by this simple but effective system. I realise that anaglyph 3D does cause some people eye strain (something acknowledged numerous times in the film itself), but in order to reach its audience, anaglyph was the most practical route (more screens, no need for theatre conversion,less expensive admission). I too, would like to see a non 3D version included as an alternate on the DVD, but also know that such a version would do damage to the narrative structure of the film. What I would like to see is a 3D calibration mode included on the disc to allow proper cancellation of the red and blue elements; this would go a long way to reducing eye strain and ensuring that the audience gets the most accurate 3D experience possible.

Nice signature, Stephen.

I'm pretty sure that that refers specifically to field-sequential 3D, not red/blue. The red/blue effect is not based on alternating frames whereas field sequential is completely dependent on alternating frames which is what progressive scan "disables".

To each their own. The two worst 3D methods in my opinion are anaglyph (red/blue), and the Pulfrich system (using movement). With the r/b system, you have to almost consciously focus (or rather "relax" your focus) to get the best effect. This can be very hard on the eyes. The R/B method (as with any 3D system) must adhere to strict tolerances from filming to projection. Any "weak link" in the production of 3D (position of the viewer with respect to the projected image, a poorly focused projector, a print of the film with less than accurate color, "non level" viewing or projecting the images, etc.) can lessen the 3D effect, or further contribute eye strain.

I'd have to side with the guy saying that the polarized method is my preferred method but it is also not without problems (mostly eyestrain).


Direct view televisions (including LCD & Plasma Screens) cannot split the video into two different polarized images, (one for each eye) and project them simultaneously. I'm unsure if a projection TV (front or rear) can project polarized light, there would have to be double the CRT's (one Red, Blue & Green CRT to project a polarized image for each eye). This would contribute to increased complexity as well as a huge cost increase to the set. Remember that the polarized method also cuts available light, making the far movie dimmer (anyone remember "Space Hunter" or "MetalStorm"?), I just can't see where a projection TV will be capable of polarized 3D anytime in the foreseeable future.

Some DTV sets have an "interlaced mode", which would allow them to work with the LCD "sequential view" or "shutter glasses", and such 3D systems would work well with direct view television (LCD and Plasma displays do not interlace so they won't work).


You are correct. All your DVD player sees is code, all your TV sees is a picture. The red/blue is encoded as part of the image, and requires no additional processing so it works on all "properly calibrated" displays.

Also consider that there is a reason that 3D has not caught on in the past. Most 3D movies (excluding IMAX) have been light on story, and heavy on crap coming off of the screen toward you. I found that while watching Friday the 13th part 3-D, the sense of depth was fantastic (even better then when things were coming off of the screen)! I also think that the 3 dimensional depth worked well when they faded between scenes as one scene seemed to "come up" from behind! Unfortunately, due to the polarized method, I couldn't properly snuggle with my girlfriend at the time. You see, tilting your head, offsets the polarized glasses from the polarized projection, so things get fuzzy.

I'm no expert, just a 3D enthusiast. I'm considering selling off my sequential view "shutter glasses" with the few DVDs that came with them as they don't work well with my HD set. So far as affordable "in home" technology can provide, red/blue anaglyph is the easiest, least costly way to go. Just make sure that you've got your display's color calibrated, and convergence set up correctly to eliminate any weak links in the chain.

As for Spy Kids 3D? I thought it the story and 90 percent of the acting was lame as hell. The 3D effect however was pretty good (not great... for great, go to an IMAX 3D film). I'd love 3D to continue to catch on.

I worked at "The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man" ride at Islands of Adventure in Orlando for 2 1/2 years, so I'll try to shed some light on the polarized 3-D projection. Like it was stated earlier you must have two oppositely polarized lenses to create the 3-D effect. If you were to hold two oppositely polarized lenses up to each other they would cancel each other out, many you would not be able to see through them. This system actually uses 2 projectors at the same time, one projects the left eye view and the other the right eye. Therefore, in the glasses you wear on Spider-Man (or T2-3D) the right eye is oppositely polarized to the left projector so that it blocks your right eye from seeing what your left eye is suppose to see( vise versa for the left side of the glasses). The right eye only sees the right projector and the left eye only sees the left projector and that creates the 3D image. How is it 3D, well b/c each projector displays a slightly different angle of the same scene. As far as I know this will never be possible in the home unless you have to projectors with oppositely polarized lenses. This would also require 2 different video sources, one with the left eye and one the right. This is the simplest way I could explain it and I probably confuse some of you. I hope this makes sense. It is actually more complicated than my explanation makes it sound.



Not true. Our glasses broke all the time, like 1000 a month or more would have to be replaced. The projectors cost a butt load to maintain. Just think, each pair of projectors has the same scene on film running through it. They have to be triggered at the exact same time a run at exactly the same speed. If the get misaligned by 1 framed it ruins the affect. Our techs spent countless amount of time trying make sure these things work perfect every time, of course they that doesn't happen. Parts are replaced on a daily bases not to mention the fact that the film has to be replaced every three months. There are 12 3D scenes in the Spider-Man ride so that is a lot of film and 24 projectors to maintain. There is one 2D scene in Spider-Man (can anyone who has been on the ride guess which it is) which adds one more projector. This ride probably cost in the neighborhood of 1 million dollars or more a year to maintain. Not bad considering it cost 300 million to build. Each ride vehicle was 3 million! I love this stuff and I tried to become a film tech at Universal but did not have enough experience with projectors. Oh well, got a better job now anyway.

Sorry about the length. I hope this explains some things or maybe some of you found some of it interesting. That conclude this behind the scenes tour of "The Amazing Adventures Of Spider-Man" only at Universal's Islands of Adventure.

"SPIDER-MAN"

which I might add.....

is far the BEST 3-D experience I personally have ever had...

and I have seen most if not all 3-d film and rides in the last 30 years.

Dugger

While on vacation, I took my wife and son to see Ghosts of the Abyss, a 3-D IMAX film that used non-electronic glasses that were just gray in the lense colors.

Spence, what process is that?

It was a fantastic 3-D effect, and an awesome film to boot. My son even got into it, though he complained at first that we were dragging him to a "parent movie".


I would love for GotA to release on DVD in the 3-D mode, though I am doubting this will happen.

That was Polarized 3-D for Ghosts of the Abyss.

Well, I was actually kind of hoping to understand how polarization works. I know that with polarizes camera lenses, they can remove glare reflections and allow what's behind the glare to be seen (which is scientifically astonishing to me). But maybe you're right that it would probably confuse the hell out of people.

Any web resources, however, would be appreciated.

When I was assistant manager at a local theater, all that we needed was a special projector lens that took two polarized images on each frame (resulting in half of the total possible resolution). All that I had to do was switch the lens. This is what astounds me even more as to why 3D still hasn't caught on -- all that it takes is the switching of a single projector lens for current theater equipment. Even if each lens is somewhat costly, you don't need to have one for each projector, just one for each screen that is showing a 3D movie, which for the majority of theaters will be a total of one. My God, can you imagine a movie with grand vistas like Dances with Wolves in true 3D? I'm pitching a tent just thinking about it!

John:

You also need a silver screen (to maintain the polarization). Also a competent projectionist to thread the film properly; it's very easy to screw up an under/over print by half a frame, especially at the reel changes.

Thank you! Of the many things I've been called, competent isn't one of the most popular. That also explains why 3D was restricted to theater #2, because that's the only one that has silver in it.

I should have qualified my statement as the cost of using Polarized, versus the high tech LCD goggles used in many IMAX theaters.

Anaglyph would be the least expensive, followed by the polarized method, with the electronic LCD being more expenisve.

If you imagine light as a 2-dimensional wave (instead of a particle), picture that the wave has an orientation in addition to its other properties (direction, amplitude, and wavelength). For instance, the wave could be standing on its edge, lying on its side, or any angle in between. Normally, light is unpolarized -- it's composed of waves with random orientations.

A polarizer is a special type of filter that only allows light waves to pass through that have a particular orientation. You can think of a polarizer as an extremely fine grating with very narrow slits -- light waves can pass through only if they have the same orientation as the slits. For example, a vertical polarizer allows vertically oriented light waves to pass through, but it blocks those that are horizontally oriented. (It also blocks diagonally oriented waves in varying amounts, depending on the angle of orientation.)

In a polarized 3D movie, there are four polarizers involved -- two on the projector, and two more in your glasses. The polarizers on the projector force the light waves in the left and right images to be oriented perpendicular to each other. For instance, the left image might use horizontally oriented waves, and the right image would use vertically oriented ones. There are matching polarizers in the left and right eyepieces of your 3D glasses. Continuing this example, the left eyepiece would contain a horizontal polarizer, which would allow the horizontally-oriented left image to pass through, but it would block out the vertically-oriented right image. Similarly, the right eyepiece would contain a vertical polarizer.

A polarizing filter on a camera works in a similar way, but for a different effect. It cuts glare because flat surfaces (like glass) cause reflected light to become polarized (for reasons that I don't fully understand). If you orient the polarizer perpendicular to the orientation of the reflected light (which depends on its angle of incidence), you'll block most of its polarized waves. This lets you minimize the glare (polarized light) to see the objects behind the glass (unpolarized light).