-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Amityville 3D Blu-ray release confirmed by Scream (aka Shout) Factory


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

#41 of 73 Todd J Moore

Todd J Moore

    Second Unit

  • 321 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2005
  • Real Name:Todd Moore
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted October 04 2013 - 01:02 PM

I watched a bit of this, too. Saw some ghosting, but overall it looked pretty decent. Not as good as HOUSE OF WAX, mind you, but I'll support any classic 3D movie that makes it to 3D Blu Ray. God help me, that would even include...THE STEWARDESSES! *shudders*


Viewing a 3D movie in 2D is kinda like viewing a Scope movie in Pan and Scan.


#42 of 73 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 4,001 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted October 04 2013 - 05:11 PM

The Stewardesses is a masterpiece of cinema! As for Amityville, I haven't picked it up yet but as a purist I'd rather have any bad shots left as-is, as they're a reflection of how the movie was seen originally. If they think they can "fix" some of the shots now, better to include those separately saying "If we had done it right, this is how these shots would have looked." (Glad they didn't "correct" the boom mic shadows in House of Wax!)


Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#43 of 73 Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member

  • 5,100 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted October 06 2013 - 09:41 AM

Is the only way to get Amityville 3D by buying the Amityville Horror Trilogy?  I don't see it on Amazon as a single offering.


Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#44 of 73 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,704 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted October 06 2013 - 01:06 PM

Is the only way to get Amityville 3D by buying the Amityville Horror Trilogy?  I don't see it on Amazon as a single offering.

Yeah, it's only in the box set.



#45 of 73 revgen

revgen

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 247 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 06 2010
  • Real Name:Dan

Posted October 06 2013 - 02:18 PM

Bluray.com has given the disc a very negative review. The main issue is the video quality, which according to the reviewer, looks awful whether you view the film in 2D or 3D.


Edited by revgen, October 06 2013 - 02:18 PM.


#46 of 73 pinknik

pinknik

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 54 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 12 2007
  • Real Name:Greg

Posted October 06 2013 - 07:01 PM

Bluray.com has given the disc a very negative review. The main issue is the video quality, which according to the reviewer, looks awful whether you view the film in 2D or 3D.

 

Unfortunately, that's how all of the 80's 3-D titles are gonna look.  It's just the look of that system.  As I said, I thought it looked pretty good, but I knew what to expect going in.  It accurately reflects the original film.  I hope it's a success, because I want to buy Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D, Metalstorm, Parasite in their fuzzy 3-D glory.  :) 



#47 of 73 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 4,562 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 06 2013 - 10:57 PM

Unfortunately, that's how all of the 80's 3-D titles are gonna look.  It's just the look of that system.  As I said, I thought it looked pretty good, but I knew what to expect going in.  It accurately reflects the original film.  I hope it's a success, because I want to buy Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D, Metalstorm, Parasite in their fuzzy 3-D glory.  :)

 

Not true, we already know that if they put some effort in these titles could look extremely good, Bob has already said this.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#48 of 73 pinknik

pinknik

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 54 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 12 2007
  • Real Name:Greg

Posted October 07 2013 - 04:19 AM

Not true, we already know that if they put some effort in these titles could look extremely good, Bob has already said this.

 

You can only fix so much.  You can fix convergence errors, but you can't get back resolution that isn't there.  The over and under systems used half of the frame area of a typical 35mm frame and often had poor optics.  I've seen HD transfers of Jaws 3-D, Amityville and Friday the 13th and they all suffer from the same problems.  The frame grab from Bob's transfer of The Bubble is the nicest looking shot from any single strip 3-D movie I've seen, but I think the Spacevision system may have had superior lenses.  We shall see. 



#49 of 73 Todd J Moore

Todd J Moore

    Second Unit

  • 321 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2005
  • Real Name:Todd Moore
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted October 07 2013 - 05:12 AM

This is true. The 1980s 3D movies are a bit fuzzier than the 2D movies of the same era. You can tell this by watching the 2D versions of the movies. I saw most of the 80s films in 2D back then--I was young enough that I didn't get taken to any of them but Jaws 3D--and look backing, yeah. The resolution you'd see in E.T. or Return of the Jedi wasn't there.

 

That said, it occurs to me that the single biggest issue with the 80s 3D movies--beyond being poor movies in general--is the fact that some of the gimmick shots just got too close to the camera. We watched Jaws 3D at Expo III a few weeks ago and while it overall wasn't too bad (In my eyes, anyway), the gimmick shot of the underwater crab got way too close to the camera and it literally hurt my eyes. Now, I haven't broken any of these down in something like Stereo MovieMaker to check what the convergence is like, but I may get around to that one of these days. Just for amusement.

 

All that said, while I may or may not be willing to buy every 80s film that hits 3D Blu Ray--Rottweiler and The Man Who Wasn't There are pretty tough to watch--I'd probably buy more than I wouldn't. If only to have some films with some good old gimmick shots in them. Watching Amityville is a reminder of what I like most about 3D--it's a fun time. Good movie? No. Fun? Yes.


Viewing a 3D movie in 2D is kinda like viewing a Scope movie in Pan and Scan.


#50 of 73 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,932 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted October 07 2013 - 12:24 PM

Not true, we already know that if they put some effort in these titles could look extremely good, Bob has already said this.

 

 

You can only fix so much.  You can fix convergence errors, but you can't get back resolution that isn't there.  The over and under systems used half of the frame area of a typical 35mm frame and often had poor optics.  I've seen HD transfers of Jaws 3-D, Amityville and Friday the 13th and they all suffer from the same problems.  The frame grab from Bob's transfer of The Bubble is the nicest looking shot from any single strip 3-D movie I've seen, but I think the Spacevision system may have had superior lenses.  We shall see. 

I think it's important to view these as quasi-Techniscope titles. You're going to get larger grain, and there may be optical issues, but to simply say that with the optics used, we're screwed does a disservice to what is currently possible in the digital realm, depending on what kind of elements are available.


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#51 of 73 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,362 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted October 07 2013 - 12:56 PM

We could have fixed most of the problems and made this film look better than ever before.

 

We were not contacted. Unfortunately, our letters were ignored...


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#52 of 73 pinknik

pinknik

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 54 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 12 2007
  • Real Name:Greg

Posted October 07 2013 - 01:13 PM

I think it's important to view these as quasi-Techniscope titles. You're going to get larger grain, and there may be optical issues, but to simply say that with the optics used, we're screwed does a disservice to what is currently possible in the digital realm, depending on what kind of elements are available.

 

I didn't say we were screwed.  My first comment on this title was that I thought it looked pretty good, definitely better than I've ever seen it look on home video, probably better than I saw it in the theater.  I did comment that the image was soft, at least in parts and that there was color fringing, both of which the blu-ray.com review mentioned, but found unacceptable.  Bob Furmanek will clearly forget more than I'll ever know and he's a very nice guy to boot.  I know he could fix the 3-D issues with Amityville 3-D.  I don't think it's unreasonable of me to believe that the 80's 3-D movies that come to blu-ray (save Spacehunter) will have a softer appearance than your average movie, but I'm not the expert here, so I'll shut up.  For now.   :D


Edited by pinknik, October 07 2013 - 02:17 PM.


#53 of 73 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted October 07 2013 - 01:14 PM

Regarding Todd's remarks about 1980s 3-D films, Richard Fleischer the director of Amityville 3-D expressed a similar view of 1980s 3-D technology at the World 3-D Film Expo in 2003. He was there to talk about Arena (MGM, 1953) and he remarked that the dual 35mm technology delivered more depth and was easier to use than the twin lens / single camera system that he used thirty years later on Amityville 3-D. Because of his previous experience with 3-D in 1953 the studio asked him to pull the production  together when the 3-D system was having problems. I wish I could remember his exact words, but it was a decade ago. Amityville 3-D is actually a very well-made film by Fleischer, who had directed many fine classic films. I think he must be the only director from the 1950s who shot 3-D with both technologies.



#54 of 73 David M. Ballew

David M. Ballew

    Auditioning

  • 14 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 2013
  • Real Name:Mike Ballew

Posted October 09 2013 - 10:25 AM

During the Q&A session for Richard Fleischer at World 3-D Film Expo I back in 2003, I personally was the one who broached the subject of Amityville 3-D in a question directed from the balcony. I asked him which of his two 3-D films he preferred.

 

I remember being pleasantly surprised when Fleischer said he prefered Amityville 3-D  over Arena, as I myself happen to think Amityville 3-D was the best live-action theatrical 3-D film of the 1980s, albeit the best of a bad lot.

 

Ten years on, I do not remember the reasons he cited for his preference. Was it a more pleasant shooting experience overall? Was it in his view a better film? Did he just really dig Mexico City? I regret that I cannot say with certainty.

 

I am of the impression that video and/or audio recordings were made of all the special guests at the various Expos, so perhaps one day we can listen and learn to what degree our memories are correct.


  • Richard--W likes this

#55 of 73 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted October 09 2013 - 05:49 PM

Thanks for your input. I remember hearing that question. As I recall Fleischer said the enjoyed making Amityville 3-D although the depth was not as good as the earlier system he had worked with. That's pretty close to what he actually said. I also recall him saying that he was called in to pull it together when the first director couldn't deal with 3-D. Perhaps Subacat could share some of the videotaped interviews by posting them on their website. I'll email and ask. Others should do the same.

 

Anyhow, I'll get this box-set at Fries or Best Buy tomorrow.



#56 of 73 Ejanss

Ejanss

    Screenwriter

  • 1,345 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2012

Posted October 10 2013 - 01:17 AM

Yeah, it's only in the box set.

 

3D-BlurayRental.com, my go-to place for rare rental titles, has it for rental--

http://stores.3d-blu...-ray/Detail.bok

Although, being one of their hard-to-replace "prestige" titles (like Avatar when it was still exclusive, or Creature still in the boxset), it's going for a special $19.99 rental, instead of their usual $5-7.

Yes, it's pretty much the same price as buying the set, but at least here, you have the option of NOT keeping it.  ;)

 

 

Unfortunately, that's how all of the 80's 3-D titles are gonna look.  It's just the look of that system.  As I said, I thought it looked pretty good, but I knew what to expect going in.  It accurately reflects the original film.  I hope it's a success, because I want to buy Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D, Metalstorm, Parasite in their fuzzy 3-D glory.  :)

 

Yes, most of the Old Folks complained about Blu-ray.com's review, saying the young kids just don't understand.

I remember them that fuzzy, and they're still fuzzy when you watch the 2D copies on broadcast; it was just the nature of the polarized beast back then.

And while Bob F. may think that 80's 3D is too "overdone", I grew up never having seen an 80's-made 3D that completely "worked", so I'm curious to see this one.  Don't think I'll scrape up the $20 for either right away, though.



#57 of 73 Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member

  • 5,100 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted October 11 2013 - 07:41 AM

3D-BlurayRental.com, my go-to place for rare rental titles, has it for rental--

http://stores.3d-blu...-ray/Detail.bok

Although, being one of their hard-to-replace "prestige" titles (like Avatar when it was still exclusive, or Creature still in the boxset), it's going for a special $19.99 rental, instead of their usual $5-7.

Yes, it's pretty much the same price as buying the set, but at least here, you have the option of NOT keeping it.  ;)

Where are you finding the set for $20?  It's $40 on Amazon.


Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#58 of 73 GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor

  • 954 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted October 11 2013 - 09:40 AM

Yes, most of the Old Folks complained about Blu-ray.com's review, saying the young kids just don't understand.

I remember them that fuzzy, and they're still fuzzy when you watch the 2D copies on broadcast; it was just the nature of the polarized beast back then.

And while Bob F. may think that 80's 3D is too "overdone", I grew up never having seen an 80's-made 3D that completely "worked", so I'm curious to see this one.  Don't think I'll scrape up the $20 for either right away, though.

 

Oh, totally agree that a lot of today's younger viewers have NO idea what single strip 3-D was, and how the process had it's own "baked in" issues. There are many out there who think *every* release can be made to look like it was shot yesterday.

 

To be fair on some of Bob's and (my) previous comments on 80's 3-D being excessive at times, I've had left right film scans before of select shots (from a couple of 80's title that will go unnamed) that caused eyestrain.  And when you look at the raw left and images and actually see what your eyes are trying to do, it's no wonder. With that said, most 80's titles do have wider parallax, but are still very watchable and can be quite enjoyable. Having a display with minimal or essentially zero ghosting is a must.



#59 of 73 GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor

  • 954 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted October 11 2013 - 09:48 AM

A few nights ago I was finally able to view AMITYVILLE 3-D, which as we all know has the distinction of being the first 3-D movie from the 1980s to be released in the 3-D bluray format. What follows is, for the most part, a technical critique of the 3-D presentation.
 
As expected, certain 1980's single-strip-shot 3-D traits rear their head. Occasional chromatic fringing, some vignetting, and a few occasions of focus issues with one eye compared to the other.  These short comings are understandable, as for the most part, these are "baked in" issues that in many cases don't always have an easy fix. But the misalignment issues, ranging from mild to occasional moderate in severity were non-stop throughout the feature, including various geometric 3-D alignment errors. While these various errors thankfully leaned more towards mild misalignment much of the time it is still unfortunate, as these could be corrected. A final bit of irony regarding fixing these misalignments: The older anaglyph 3-D DVD release in the UK *had* some alignment and convergence adjustments done.  A pity this wasn't also done for the HD masters, considering the 3-D blu-ray can obviously deliver such a far superior presentation over anaglyph.
 
So I don't inadvertently send a mixed message, the presentation again IS still quite viewable in 3-D. The 3-D parallax is typical 1980's style wide, which for some can present another form of eyestrain in itself.   Speaking for myself, when viewed on a DLP projection setup, the 3-D offered a refreshingly deep image with plenty of positive parallax.  Negative (out of screen) parallax is in no short supply either, with an array of flies, spirits, lights, microphones, pipes, and even a burned corpse lunging out of the screen. Sometimes off-screen material was literally within arm's length, an effect certainly missing from today's "new and improved" 3-D features.  With this title having an abundance of parallax, it is highly recommended to watch this title on a display known for no or little ghosting for maximum 3-Dimensional effect.
 
Along with the admittedly minor but always present 3-D misalignments, the biggest head scratcher is the "new" alternate titles which are in place of the missing originals. There is a good reason these alternate titles have never been seen before: They were layered wrong and simply do NOT work correctly in 3-D. The 3-D logo is supposed to slide out of the screen. But instead, this alternate title open as presented on this disc, tries to slide out while being "stuck" behind the Amityville title. The result is both a ruined 3-D effect and eyestrain.  Add to that a missing "large fly" in a scene later on in the movie.  These anomalies seem to suggest the IP is not a completed version of the feature. Strange that this was not caught before hand.. Certainly so with the opening credits, which are totally different and inferior to what was shown theatrically.  This is why 3-D QC is important.

  • Bob Furmanek and pinknik like this

#60 of 73 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,258 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted October 11 2013 - 09:49 AM

Where are you finding the set for $20?  It's $40 on Amazon.

 

You can rent the box set for $20 from 3D Blu-ray Rental.


Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users