Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo

Spy Kids 3-D


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 of 58 OFFLINE   Yumbo

Yumbo

    Screenwriter



  • 2,243 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 1999

Posted February 17 2004 - 12:12 PM

hi, are the 3-D sequences supposed to be in COLOUR, or just red and green and anything in between? very unpleasant and gimmicky. 2-D is preferred? or am I setup wrong? please comment. thanks

#2 of 58 OFFLINE   TonyDale

TonyDale

    Second Unit



  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 2003

Posted February 17 2004 - 12:24 PM

I almost hate to ask it, BUT, are you wearing the 3-d glasses? :b
We are just surrealist pilgrims, melting clocks in marble halls. . .

#3 of 58 OFFLINE   Yumbo

Yumbo

    Screenwriter



  • 2,243 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 1999

Posted February 17 2004 - 12:32 PM

um, yeah. I'm comparing this to IMAX 3-D - full colour. this is video though.

#4 of 58 OFFLINE   Rob Lutter

Rob Lutter

    Producer



  • 4,528 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2000

Posted February 17 2004 - 12:35 PM

Well, it's anaglyphic 3D... so there is probably some colo(u)r distortion compared to the polarized 3D of IMAX-3D.

#5 of 58 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter



  • 2,800 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted February 17 2004 - 12:51 PM

The anaglyph process does not lend itself to accurate color rendition (or proper black & white) so, yes, that is how it looks, either on film or DVD. I suspect the 2-D version will be better to view on video.

For real 3-D, come here Chris (it's probably only a 20-hour flight from Fiji Posted Image ) : www.bigscreenclassics.com/3days3d.htm
"Go ahead...make my day."
Read my new blog at www.bigscreenclassics.com

#6 of 58 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted February 18 2004 - 12:27 AM

I have a review of this pending...but the short answer is yes, the 3-D version has very poor color reproduction because of the red/blue 3-D technique.

Though allow me to stress how successful a 3-D effect it is! Astonishing at times...especially on a projector!

The solution to acheive high-quality 3-D imaging is to use sequential-fields/frames, but you'd need LCD-timed shutter glasses and properly encoded DVD source material which is $$ and quite rare (the LCD glasses have to sync up with the video). My hope for the future is that HD-DVD employ a 3-D concept from the start. One could even design projectors that play 3-D movies with each "eye" in polorized light 90 degrees out of phase (like IMAX) and then you'd just need a cheap pair of polarized glasses.

Will post review shortly!

-dave Posted Image
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#7 of 58 OFFLINE   TonyDale

TonyDale

    Second Unit



  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 2003

Posted February 18 2004 - 01:04 AM

As always, I'm looking forward to your review!
We are just surrealist pilgrims, melting clocks in marble halls. . .

#8 of 58 OFFLINE   Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer



  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 18 2004 - 01:40 AM

The problem with sequential-field frame 3D is that it stores the two stereoscopic fields on the alternating fields of the interlaced frames. Thus sequential-field frame for 3D will not work with progressive display devices.

This would of course mean that it wont work with any FPD (LCD, DLP, Plasma, LCoS). For 3-gun CRTS, you would also have to disable any line doubler.

The other problem is that shutter glasses have an unavoidable flicker effect that may be quite objectionable to some.

Unfortunately for now, 3D in HT seems to be limited to traditional stereoscopic 3D and anaglyph glasses. Posted Image

It does sound like from Dave's comments that at least with Spy Kids 3 the results are pleasing. I'm looking forward to reading his review.

#9 of 58 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted February 18 2004 - 02:51 AM

Those are indeed real issues with encoding sequential field 3-D. However, there are add-on processor boxes designed specifically for 3-D sequential-field movies that handle this and use a bob/weave method to produce a progressive-scan feed for your PJ or display. Not as good as 3-2 pulldown, but better than nothing. Also, if you could "force" your line-doubler/deinterlacer on your PJ to use the "video" deinterlacing algorithm (by passing 3-2 processing) you'd be ok.

But that's too complicated for the average consumer!

That's why I'd like to see HD-DVD incorporate a "genuine" sequential *frame* 3-D encoding method...with DVD players that would be designed to work with it from the start. When dealing with 24 fps material, the player could easily output alternating frames at 48 Hz, 60, or 72 Hz...providing full progressive-scan resolution to each complete "frame" image. I think that with 1280 x 720P HD resolution there would be enough bandwidth for 24 fps movie to be stored "twice" this way...given that 1280 x 720 at 60Hz (each a complete progressive-scan frame) is possible. 1080I at 60Hz would require the same bandwidth of 1080P at 30Hz (30 frames per second). It would be a stretch...but it's *possible* that with enough bandwidth and a good-enough compression codec, one could store 24fps 3-D material at 1080P 48Hz (24 x 2 for both eyes).

I can dream... Posted Image
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#10 of 58 OFFLINE   Steve Phillips

Steve Phillips

    Screenwriter



  • 1,526 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2002

Posted February 18 2004 - 04:23 AM

Anaglyph (especially color anaglyph) isn't ever going to look spectacular. If you want to see natural color, watch the flat version on the disc. Interestingly, Warner Bros and IMAX just announced that the SPACE STATION DVD will include both a flat version AND the intended 3-D version, using field sequential format! Too bad SPY KIDS didn't get this option on DVD. A field sequential 3-D version would have had more depth and natural color, and would have been far superior to the anaglyph theatrical prints. If we're getting SPACE STATION in 3-D on DVD, then likely Warner's upcoming NASCAR 3-D will also follow suit when it hits disc. Maybe Warner will eventually cave and give us some of their old 3-D features in the original format someday. An upgraded SPY KIDS 3-D DVD would be welcome also!

#11 of 58 OFFLINE   Rolando

Rolando

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2001

Posted February 18 2004 - 05:51 AM

I saw Friday the 13th 3D about 2 years ago at the Imperial in Montreal. The effect was incredible. I was really impressed especially since my only 3d movie experience before that had been the last 5 minutes of Freddy is dead and boy was that bad. Those 5 minutes of Freddy in 3D were awful, no 3D effect, image looked out of focus, colors were all over the place. I basiclly got a head ache for nothing. Friday the 13th was something else though. whole movie was smooth, great 3D effect, picture was sharp enough and nothing too distracting. Was same technology used for both? had those Red and Blue Glasses for Freddy 6 however for Friday we had a choice at the box office. They were giving away some red and blue glasses or you could buy others for $1. these others looked just as cheap, paper/carton whatever but he lenses were both the same color of dark grey or black. I believe it said Mann Theatre on them. I bought those as was hoping they were better and was hoping to come back for other features player later like Jaws 3D. never did though. so my question is was the technology different on those 2 movies? was it the glasses? was just one done better than another? I would figure the 6th release of Freddy would have a bigger budget and with only 5 minutes to do they would go all out. Well the effect on the Nightmare boxset is the same, not good. everytime I see my Friday the 13th Part 3 DVD I always remember how cool it was and how nice it would be if the DVD was 3D. But would the effect be ruined on DVD?
Rolando Avendano

My Collection

#12 of 58 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted February 18 2004 - 06:29 AM

Entirely different. The "dark gray" glasses you wore were polarized...the lens in front of each eye were rotated 90 degrees...and the polarized lenses only let light in that was in one direction...so one eye was seeing "up and down light" and the other eye was seeing "side to side light". The projection used two projectors...each projecting a left or right image going through a similar filter so that the light for each view would be only up/down or side/side in direction. If you took your glasses off during the show, you'd have seen what looked like a blurry ghosting on the screen as your eyes would see all the light together. But wearing the glasses essentially filters out the "wrong" light so that each eye only sees the projected image it is supposed to. If you took two pair of glasses and placed them lens to lens...and then rotated one 90 degrees in front of the other...you'd see that the two lenses would appear to go completely black because you had just blocked out light from both directions. This is what IMAX movies use. And it's what would be AWESOME to use for HT movies if you have dual projectors (with polarized filters) or a special 3-D polarized projector specifically designed for the task. The 3-D shutter LCD glasses work in a similar way...but they are blocking out light temporally (in time) by alternating on/off in sync with the movie's Left/Right information rather than directionally.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#13 of 58 OFFLINE   Steve Phillips

Steve Phillips

    Screenwriter



  • 1,526 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2002

Posted February 18 2004 - 06:40 AM

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 was always exhibited in polarized (clear glasses) 3-D, there was never an anaglyph version. They did make up some red/blue glasses with the logo but these were for posters used to promote the film and for the 3-D cover of the soundtrack album, not for the film itself. FREDDY'S DEAD was distributed in the inferior red/blue anaglyph technology. The technology used to photograph them is somewhat similar but the method of projection were completely different. Polarized 3-D is much more complicated, requiring special projection filters and lenses, and a silver screen. Red/Blue anaglyph is simpler, in that the theatre doesn't have to have any special set up at all. However, the effect is far far worse, and natural B/W or color images aren't possible. It is also prone to ghosting and overall has much less depth. The vast majority of all 3-D movies (including the 1950's) were originally released in polarized format. Only a handful have been shown in anaglyph. As has been stated over and over, if you've only seen one of the red/blue re-issues of classics like CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON or IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, then you haven't really seen the 3-D version at all. They aren't even 10% as impressive as the originals.

#14 of 58 OFFLINE   MikeM

MikeM

    Screenwriter



  • 1,207 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 23 1999

Posted February 18 2004 - 06:01 PM

Here is a review of the new Spy Kids 3-D DVD:
http://www.thedigita....=&threadid=644

#15 of 58 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,652 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted February 19 2004 - 01:14 AM

This would be the first IMAX 3-D film to be released in 3-D field sequential. Where did you find this information?

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#16 of 58 OFFLINE   Steve Phillips

Steve Phillips

    Screenwriter



  • 1,526 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2002

Posted February 19 2004 - 03:15 AM

You can find a copy of the press release here:

www.prnewswire.com/gh/cnoc/comp/103201.html

I wish all the studios would release field sequential 3-D DVDs. It would certainly stop all the poor quality bootleg versions from circulating.


That review of the SPY KIDS 3-D DVD above has some incorrect info in it...it repeats the common mis-conception that 3-D movies in the 1950's used the red/blue glassses technique. They didn't.

#17 of 58 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,652 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted February 19 2004 - 03:28 AM

The press release does not mention what 3-D format will be used for the DVD. I hope it's not anaglyph.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#18 of 58 OFFLINE   AaronJB

AaronJB

    Second Unit



  • 461 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted February 19 2004 - 09:14 AM

Space Station is probably the best 3-D IMAX (or 3D anything) film I've seen, because instead of using the 3-D format to toss things towards the audience, it instead almost entirely uses it to give the images a far greater sense of depth. Those who've seen the unbelievable opening sequence of "Space Station" on a large screen know what I'm talking about.
Aaron
Webmaster,A Guide To Current DVD
http://www.currentfi...m/dvdindex.html

#19 of 58 OFFLINE   Steve Phillips

Steve Phillips

    Screenwriter



  • 1,526 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2002

Posted February 19 2004 - 09:41 AM

Most of the 1950's films used the process that way as well. The 3-D movies in the 70's and 80's were far more gimmicky, with lots of shots of sticks being pointed at the camera and such things.

#20 of 58 OFFLINE   Darren Gross

Darren Gross

    Supporting Actor



  • 502 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001

Posted February 20 2004 - 10:53 AM

It wouldn't be the first IMAX 3D film released in field sequential. Slingshot has released SOS PLANET, HAUNTED CASTLE, ALIEN ADVENTURE and ENCOUNTERS IN THE THIRD DIMENSION in this format on DVD as well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users