Movies in 3D

Re: Movies in 3D

I personally don't think 3D is very good as to me it usually comes off ugly. I haven't seen any of the recent movies in 3D but stuff like FREDDY'S DEAD and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON never looked too good to my eyes. I know MY BLOODY VALENTINE is going to be 3D next month so I'll probably check this one out but overall I don't care too much for the format.

It's funny but I was at Youtube watching some old Siskel and Ebert reviews and they were complaining about how bad those 80s films looked in 3D. I'm not sure if it's true but they claimed the ending of JAWS 3-D was "messed up" as the shark coming through the glass didn't even work right.

Re: Movies in 3D

Modern 3-D is leaps and bounds better. I couldn't stand to watch the 80s movies in 3-D, but I willingly saw Superman Returns twice just for the 3-D portions.

Re: Movies in 3D

Yeah, the 1980s stuff where they were exclusively using red-and-blue glasses was pretty rough, but the technology for the current digital 3-D is arguably the one place where digital projection outshines film.

I'm still not sure how many people really have a handle on how to use it well, though - Robert Zemeckis certainly does, for instance, and I'm eagerly anticipating Cameron's Avatar after seeing his documentary work - but not many directors and cinematographers really seem to have figured out how to compose for 3-D rather than having something jump out on occasion.

Re: Movies in 3D

All the modern 3D I've seen, including Imax 3D and Real3D, have a loss in the standard picture quality that is unacceptable to me. The colors aren't accurate, and there's a perceptible blur from the overlapping images even when wearing the polarized lens. I'd rather look at a perfect 2D image than a less than great 3D one.

There are some big 3D releases coming up like Avatar, that I'll just HAVE to experience in 3D, but I plan to see them in traditional theaters first.

Re: Movies in 3D

I'd like to see them bring back some classic 3-D movies in the new format.

Disney paired a vintage 3-D Chip and Dale cartoon with "Meet the Robinsons" last year, and that was neat to see.

Re: Movies in 3D

Personally, I think all movies should be filmed stereoscopically. Not just the big special effects epics, but the little dramas and character-driven films as well. We see with two eyes, so our photography and cinematography should be executed through the equivalent two lenses. It's the natural way to see.

Which format are you referring to? The two-camera / two-projector format, or the single camera-twin lens / single projector format? Polarized, anaglyph, or field sequential? Creature From the Black Lagoon and Friday the 13th 3 in 3-D were filmed 30 years apart in different formats and with different technologies. They were also projected in different technologies.

Creature From the Black Lagoon is generally regarded by stereoscopic specialists as one of the perfect stereoscopic films. It does all the tricks of putting objects into the audience space so that you feel as if you can reach out and touch them, but mostly it is just good, deep depth. It was shot with two cameras and projected in double-interlock. I've seen it projected in double-interlock a number of times, and each time it is as perfect a stereoscopic experience as one could hope for in monochrome. The director, Jack Arnold, his dp and stereoscopic consultant, were very meticulous. They made certain that every shot was photographically correct for depth and that every transition was smooth. I've sat in packed theaters with a discriminating crowd of 3-D purists in which nobody had cause to complain about how the film was shot and projected.

I understand that Creature From the Black Lagoon has been converted into the anaglyph system for broadcast and home video viewing. Anaglyph is a pseudo 3-D process that puts a red lens over one eye and a blue lens over the other eye. This distorts the color of a color film and the contrasts values of a monochrome film. Eventually the brain begins to reject the artificial discoloration, and perception of depth breaks up. Anaglyph causes eyestrain for many people. Tragically, more people today have probably seen Creature From the Black Lagoon in anaglyph than in the authentic polarized process that was intended. No stereoscopic film should be watched in anaglyph. Over the years Anaglyph conversions have created a bad impression of stereoscopic films and led to no end of confusion.


I'm a fan of Roger Ebert, but he is notorious among stereoscopic specialists for making the outrageous statement that he sat in theaters in the 1950s watching 3-D movies through red and blue glasses. Truth is, he never did. He sat in theater watching 3-D movies through polarized glasses. He may be remembering some bad anaglyph experience like the grade-Z The Mask (1961) which was one of the very few red-and-blue glasses films. The great stereoscopic films of the 1950s were made for polarized glasses, and not very dark polarized glasses, either. The polarized lenses were of a lighter density than your average sunglasses. Because of the slightly cooling effect polarized lenses have on color, the studios compensated by warming up the color saturation of the prints.

The 1980s films were problematic for many reasons. All the films were shot in different processes and projected in different systems. All the studios were competing to get their own patented systems running, and none of them were really perfected. Too, most directors didn't take the time to learn how the process works or how to get the most out of it. Instead they made the usual mistakes that cause eyestrain and break up. A stereoscopic film that is properly shot and projected does not cause eyestrain. A stereoscopic film that causes eyestrain is either improperly shot, improperly projected, or both, but it should be understood that 3-D itself is not an eyestrain inducer.

You mentioned Jaws 3. I've seen a very good print of this, with very good depth, and some very successful effects, including the money-shot you mentioned of the shark pushing through the glass. It works. I'm told by people who were involved in the filming that the 3-D process was about to be abandoned until Paramount contracted with StereoVision International. StereoVision's single camera - twin lens taking system and single projector system basically saved that film. There were reshoots, and everything that didn't work was made to work with the StereoVision lenses. It remains a viable process today, easy to use and cost-effective, but damn near impossible to obtain.

It is very hard to control projection of 3-D movies because they require more attention from the theater owners who are not skilled in the process and who resist taking the time to learn it. A lot of good quality stereoscopic work was accomplished in the 1980s, but bad projection gave a misleading impression on the viability of 3-D.

Jack Theaxton is more knowledgeable than I am about this period. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Forgive me, but red-and-blue glasses were not exclusively used for the 1980s 3-D films. This mis-information has been going around for a long time, and it's just not true. The 1980s films (Metalstorm the Destruction of Jared Sin, Jaws 3 3-D, Friday the 13th 3 3-D, Amityville 3 3-D, Spacehunter Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, and imports like Coming at ya! and Treasure of the Four Crowns among others) were all made for polarized projection. Audiences watched them through polarized lenses. The Anaglyph versions came later.

Digital technology is a whole new set of rules for stereoscopic filming and projection. Digital is definitely the future, but it will be many years, perhaps decades, before digital 3-D surpasses the resolution of photochemical film. If you have the chance to see a classic 3-D film properly projected in double-interlock for polarized glasses, you may come away with a greater appreciation for this abandoned system. I've seen it convert the doubting thomases.

This is a valid point, and I'm glad you made it. Stereoscopic cinematography is not just a gimmick or a trick, it's a visual language. Depth is a visual language that pulls many disciplines together and contributes some new ones. Directors and camera operators need to shoot tests and learn the rudiments of stereoscopic photography before undertaking a 3-D film, and producers need to provide for that in schedule and budgeting. Some of the early photographers in the days of the American Civil War learned that lesson early on better than some of today's film makers. In the 1800s, every home had a stereoscopic viewer and a collection of stereoviews. People expected to see photography in 3-D. So it should be with movies.

A lot of the problems film makers and stereoscopic specialists solved back in the 1950s for 35mm film need to be sorted out all over again for digital 3-D. Again there are competitive systems that are still being perfected even as the films are being shot and projected (RealD's very impressive Journey to the Center of the Earth for example). Digital 3-D looks softer and dimmer than 35mm film because it's softer and dimmer. It doesn't have the resolution of 35mm film nor does it take advantage of aluminized screens with a brighter, sharper luminosity than mat screens. But it's off to a great start and there's no place to go but up.

But I don't understand your viewing experience, as I've seen some exceptional digital 3-D films in which the color is fine and there is no blur. Cameron's documentaries and Rodriguez's films are among the most disappointing in recent years in terms of 3-D lensmanship.

A small percentage of the population has trouble perceiving depth, and many people need more time than others to get acclimated to the stereoscopic experience. First impressions are always the most important. if your first 3-D movie is anaglyph or mis-aligned or under-lit, then your next 3-D film will have a lot to prove.

Imax consistently delivers a high-quality 3-D experience. They don't use the syntax of 3-D storytelling in their documentaries, but the depth and lensmanship is state-of-the-art. I refer to their own 3-D short films, not to their conversions of 2-d features. I caught up with the Imax edition of The Dark Knight which had some sequences filmed with Imax's 70mm 3-D camera, and it was astonishing, especially the skyscraper jump.

I hope everybody who loves movies will make a point of seeing as many 3-D films in the theater as possible, the live-action films as well the animated films and documentary shorts.

Re: Movies in 3D

Richard, whilst I enjoyed and agreed with your post on the whole, to my knowledge THE DARK KNIGHT was not filmed with an Imax 3D camera. They used standard and portable Imax cameras. Imax 3D is incredibly cumbersome and rarely used.

I agree that the recent spate of digital 3D films have been fantastic, as far as the technology goes. Like you said, the success of the process depends on the skill of the filmmaker. JOURNEY was a terrible film with incredibly-effective 3D effects. BOLT didn't impress me. I missed MY BLOODY VALENTINE, but plan on seeing CORALINE this weekend. From the reviews I've read, the 3D is top notch.

Re: Movies in 3D

Just caught My Bloody Valentine the other night. The movie was ehh. The 3-D effects were interesting at first, yet there is a curious flatness in the dimensions, I have no idea how the process works but the images have a depth that appears to be tempered with a flat quality, that makes say shrubbery look fake. Anyone ever play those old Tex Murphy video games? It kinda looks like that. So far the animated stuff seems to hold together better for me. The trailer for Coraline played in 3-D before this, and the otherworldly nature of the movie seemed better served by the process.

Re: Movies in 3D

Here's an interesting article about home 3D. They say practical glassesless 3D is only about ten years away.

3-D is coming to a living room near you - Page1 -  MSN Tech & Gadgets - Products

Re: Movies in 3D

I just saw "Coraline" in 3D and agree with this statement 100%.

It's been a long time, and I know memory can be a tricky thing, but it didn't seem appreciably better to me than the 3D films I saw in the 80s.

I still think it's a fad - albeit one that keeps coming back every 25 years.

Re: Movies in 3D

Perhaps you had bad projection? I was surprised that Coraline 3D had no bleedthrough in the stereoscopic channels. That is, I saw no faint ghosting of the left eye picture in my right eye nor vice versa; there was no blurriness. I was amazed and specifically watched for it, but it was essentially flawless. But perhaps you're much more sensitive to these problems than I and others are.

And while with Red-Blue anaglyph I need about 10 minutes to "get" the 3D, it's immediate with the polarized glasses.

I'm thoroughly impressed with the few 3D movies I've seen in recent years. I'm convinced we're past "fad" and into the emerging new standard for movies.

I also think Hollywood and theaters see this as a way to make theaters a premium experience again and combat (real or preceived) piracy and also viewership loss from HD & large screen home viewing.

Re: Movies in 3D

I saw several 80's 3-D flicks and not one was projected properly, nor failed to give me headaches and eyestrain from the process used. In other words, they sucked!

I suspect some people just don't perceive 3-D effects the same as others do, no matter how good the technology. It's not their fault of course. I'm not seeing these color problems or blur at my local theater. Maybe others aren't tweaking their setups properly?

Talkies, color, stereophonic sound, and widescreen were all once once considered fads too.

Re: Movies in 3D

I lived through the 3-D experiences from the 50's to present, including the Sawyer/ViewMaster double lense camera and projector with polarized glasses. Maybe it is a false memory, but some projected images were incredible for depth and "in-your-face" actions. Several were not, resulting in a fad-ending.

In recent years, one of the better amazing 3-D presentations I recalled were "Captain EO" at WDW. A little flitting creature came out and flew above the audience (not animatronic, I feel), resulting in gasps and people reaching up. Then it flew back into the screen. Another was Friday the 13-3D, which apparently was projected with one widescreen image projected above a second (I took my polarized glasses off to guess what was improved over the years).

Recently saw Journey to Center of the Earth, in digital RealD, whatever. The little flitting, luminous bird creature attempted to come out into the audience and then back, all the while distorting into two distinct images my cross-eyes could not adjust. Not a skilled knock-off from Captain EO, I thought. The yo-yo and travel down the tube were similar botched effects that did nothing for me. The magnetic rock bridge was, however, depth queezy for a while. The digital projected image did not fill the giant screen, but looked similar to my home projection unit--no masking or magic frame from which image could protrude.

I have no idea what IMAX 3D looks like, but if it is similar to RealD/3D--Then something better needs to be done, before I pay extra $2.00 for the privilege of getting polarized glasses I throw in the theatre recycle? bin.

If RealD 3D is a double projector interlocking image, the projectionist needed training. If it is a single projectionist friendly projector affair, it needs improvement. Regardles, to me, it is not yet a system that matches the best of past, properly projected 3D experiences. It is not breathtaking. It does not eliminate double images, digital glitches and sudden computer artifacts that cause eyestrain. It, however, created concerns that I paid more to experience it (sucked in by all supperior 3D critical hype) than if I went to the clear 2D screen to experience the movie in the same cineplex or waited to rent it cheaper for a lark. This is a marketing fad in the making, unless done better in the future. Expect $13-$15, (not 50 cents as in 1954) from me for the experience, then astonish me and give me more than popcorn, or I'll stay away and view it at home in my private theatre.

Re: Movies in 3D

So far, my experience has been that RealD adds very nice depth to a film without saturating the colors. I haven't yet seen any films that really push the RealD envelope.

Re: Movies in 3D

I saw My Bloody Valentine and that has some good "OHHH!!! Look at this!!!"-type of effects (a shotgun being pointed right into the lense, a pick ax flying into the frame, etc). While MBV is not too serious of a movie and they're just trying to have fun with the 3-D, I think that a movie that takes itself more seriously (like Up and presumably Toy Story 3) should just use the 3-D more sparingly rather than trying to show off every few minutes with something flying at the camera.

Re: Movies in 3D

I saw "Monsters vs. Aliens" in RealD and thought it was amazing! Everything was crystal clear, the colors were bright, and the 3D effects were very realistic, to the point I actually moved in my seat to "avoid" things that were coming toward me from the screen.

The movie itself wasn't that great, but the 3D technology was impressive.

That's it!  No more 3D for me.  Even if it was shot natively.  After seeing Pirates 4 in IMAX 3D, I've had enough of it.  Not only did I not see the benefit of paying extra for 3D but because of technical issues the theater had for the first ten minutes of the movie.  There was a black spot in the left eye of the 3D glasses.  When the glasses were removed, the black spot wasn't there.  It wasn't just me as other people in the audience were experiencing it.  I had enough and missed the first 2 -3 minutes while storming out to complain.  Finally after making adjustments in the projection room the black spot disappeared.   It was enough for me not to enjoy the rest of the movie (it was boring anyway compared to the 1st three movies)

 

So no more 3D movies for me.

I hope you gave the theater a piece of your mind. Sloppy technical presentation is unacceptable at any ticket price. There really needs to be a toll free phone number to complain about these things, like that THX number on the end credits of the Star Wars special editions.

If I ever see something along the lines of what Jose described, I go to and ask to speak to the manager at the end of the film, and I usually walk away with either a refund, or twice the number of free passes of the number of tickets I bought.  I hate having to get up during a film to complain (who wants to miss part of a movie they've paid to see), but I feel that if something is so off that I need to miss part of the movie to explain that to someone, I shouldn't be asked to pay for it.  And usually, in my experience, if I'm polite but firm about my objections, they do what they can to make it right.

 

By and large most people don't seem to notice these flaws, or if they do, they don't bother with complaining - which is the real shame.  If, when a mistake like that was make, every single person in the auditorium asked to speak with the manager or asked for a refund, instead of it just being the occasional one or two people, things might change for the better overall.  I really don't understand why more movie studios don't go to greater lengths to QC the theatrical releases - I mean, the budget for Pirates 4 was something like $200 million, right?  And another $100 million on advertising? If you're gonna spend that much money making a movie, how about going the extra length and spending a few extra bucks to make sure that your megabudget epic is being properly shown?

 

If I was head of a movie studio and I heard comments on a board like this (or elsewhere) where people talk about why they prefer to watch movies at home, I'd damn sure want to make sure that theaters felt compelled to do a better job so that (just like the old days) there'd be no comparison between the theatrical and the home experience.

Against my better judgement, I saw Pirates 4 in 3D today. Once again, I was disappointed. There was nothing about this film that seemed to require 3D.

 

I've got to stop getting sucked into these premium 3D tickets that offer nothing for the money.

as for me,i read the pros and cons of both camps and i can only state this as easy as possible.

 

3d does nothing for me,and i don't mean that figuratively but physically.

 

I have what,i believe you call in english a lazy eye,and the effect is that i have no stereoscopic vision and therefore all the hoopla about those great IMAX 3d films and the rest

gets me as excited as watching a mountain erode.

 

Being that my religion is film,even if it were to work i would still see it a magician's trick to create a diversion ( what story ? who cares ? look at the nice fireworks over here ! Wheeee! )

 

Not everyone has the budget and the ressources to make an Avatar.Actually,MOST filmmakers can't make an Avatar.

 

And correct me if i'm wrong but haven't filmmakers always tried to create a third dimension with framing or composition,lighting schemes,placement of actors,choice of colors and shadows

and all of this without the use of passive,active,intuitive and headache-corrective 3d goggles since Griffith ?

 

 

I think I'll be checking out Green Lantern in 3D.

 

I thought it was pretty good. Not the best 3D movie but pretty well done. It does just add depth for the most part but there are a few cool effects.

All of which are magician's tricks. So why should the use of 3D be considered different? It is just another tool in a filmmaker's toolbox.

 

For a tool to work,it needs to work properly 100 % of the time.A hammer needs to be able to hammer nails all the time or your house will be done in 20 years and will look like shite.

 

all the other tools do work.Not 3d as shown all over the internet.

The tool does work 100% of the time. That doesn't mean that what is built with it is any good. A hammer works 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean that what was built with it is of good quality. That factor is entirely dependent on the tool's user.

That is very well put, Edwin-S.

 

I'm afraid all these new digital 3-D systems are complicating matters and perhaps destroying the reputation of 3-D all over again. Competitive 3-D systems are being implemented and installed before they're ready. Sloppy projection is misconstrued for bad lensmanship. Bad lensmanship is misconstrued for sloppy projection. The dimness of the digital medium is blamed for poor 3-D instead of the other way around. Animators and Directors and DP's aren't taking the time to learn the stereoscopic discipline before they shoot. Films that work against 3-D because they are conceived flat and shot flat are being converted into 3-D whether they can make the transition comfortably or not. It's a bloody mess.

 

Fact: 35mm stereoscopic filming was perfected in 1953, and it still works amazingly well. This has been proved and demonstrated thousands and thousands of times. The operational principles are applicable to digital cameras.

 

Fact: if filmmakers take the trouble to learn and practice the discipline of 3-D BEFORE THEY START FILMING and to perfect the system they are using BEFORE THEY START FILMING many of these problems will simply go away. It's that simple.

 

Further, while it's fine to shoot all these animated features in digital 3-D, the stereoscopic process is applicable to more than big special effects and animation. Stereopsis serves live drama and live action just as well. Just look at the Civil War stereocards to see what 3-D can do for an image of a group of people or a row of buildings. There is better composition in those 150-year-old photos than in many of today's movies. Putting still photos into motion is an additional step, and putting into 3-D motion is another step. But it's a baby step. It's really not that complicated.