3D "Classic" confirmation? (1 Viewer)

[bob kaplan]

Has there been any confirmation from any studio that there is work being done to ready a "classic" title for 3D blu ray for the U.S. market at this time. As many have stated, i would enjoy titles like HOUSE OF WAX, MAD MAGICIAN, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in 3D. Thanks.

 

[Robin9]

In an interview with the British magazine Home Cinema Choice, Grover Crisp, VP of Film Restoration and Digital Mastering at Sony said: "We have, I think ten feature films . . . mostly from the 1950s, and two Three Stooges shorts that were shot 3D. So, right now at Colorworks we're finishing up two features from that period, one called The Mad Magician and one called Miss Sadie Thompson. We've already finished the two Stooges shorts. . . all with the aim of an eventual Blu-ray release and for broadcast."

 

[TravisR]

If studios aren't even releasing 3-D versions of current movies like Jackass 3-D or Gulliver's Travels, I don't know how much hope I would hold out for catalog titles.

 

[bob kaplan]

The thread expressed intrest in classic 3D...and hopefully not to divert it any further....the recent GULIVERS TRAVELS is due for release according to DVD REVIEW, BLU-NEW.COM and BLU-RAY.COM....but of course you can't believe all you read....so hear's hoping...

 

[bob kaplan]

oooops..."here's"

 

[robbbb1138]

How much would it cost to do a quick and dirty 3D conversion on a classic movie (or, rather, the cheapest conversion that could be considered acceptable quality)? Are we still talking a few million?

 

[Mark Oates]

Wash your mouth out!


Or do you mean convert an anaglyph 3D movie to state-of-the-art 3D? 'Cause I'm sure the idea of 3D converting movies like Casablanca or Citizen Kane would be received hereabouts with the welcome given to a fart in a spacesuit given the reception Colorization gets.

 

[robbbb1138]

Originally Posted by Mark Oates

Wash your mouth out!


Or do you mean convert an anaglyph 3D movie to state-of-the-art 3D? 'Cause I'm sure the idea of 3D converting movies like Casablanca or Citizen Kane would be received hereabouts with the welcome given to a fart in a spacesuit given the reception Colorization gets.

No, I meant older B-movies, since "shot in 3D" in the 1950s isn't something that I imagine translates directly to today's 3D TVs, so there'd probably still need to be a conversion with those movies like there is with modern movies that aren't shot in 3D. However, if 3D at home really does take off, Wizard of Oz will be in 3D eventually...

 

[cafink]

While the methods of capturing & displaying 3D images has changed over the years, the basic principle hasn't--two images are recorded, one for each eye. So, there really shouldn't be any "conversion" necessary to release classic 3D movies on Blu-ray. The left and right images are encoded on disc just as they would be for a modern 3D movie.

 

[Charles Smith]

I own three 3D Blu-rays: Coraline, Ice Age something or other, and Avatar -- only because these were free from Panasonic. I will be deliberately buying the Tron: Legacy package to include the 3D.


Haven't yet seen Coraline, but I'm told I'll like it, both as movie and in 3D. Saw five minutes of Ice Age and that was enough. I was never interested in Avatar, but I figured I should watch it once seeing as how Panny was so kind as to give it to me. I love the Tron films and will surely spin the Legacy 3D disc a few times, but 2D will probably be the default. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any other contemporary films I'll bother acquiring in 3D. I liked Toy Story 3 but the 3D at the theater was nothing to write home about.


So what was my point? I guess I just wanted to say that until they start releasing the classic 3Ds, that's it for me. And if they ever do release the classics, I'll probably buy every damned one of them.

 

[Craig Beam]

I have a 3D-ready TV and a PS3, but I haven't taken the final step and picked up the glasses. No reason to. However, Tron: Legacy is tempting me.... but if Creature from the Black Lagoon got a 3D release, I'd drop everything and take the plunge.

 

[Mark Oates]

Originally Posted by cafink

While the methods of capturing & displaying 3D images has changed over the years, the basic principle hasn't--two images are recorded, one for each eye. So, there really shouldn't be any "conversion" necessary to release classic 3D movies on Blu-ray. The left and right images are encoded on disc just as they would be for a modern 3D movie.

I wouldn't presume to know what legacy materials are available for classic 3D movies, but I'd expect that what you get for your money is a master negative with both anaglyph images on it. If separate left- and right- negatives are available, all well and good. If not some conversion would be required to separate the left- and right- images so they could be viewed with modern equipment rather than red/green or red/blue glasses.

And I'd love to see a 3D restoration of Kiss Me Kate.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Mark Oates
And I'd love to see a 3D restoration of Kiss Me Kate.

So would I. That would persuade me to buy a 3D player and projector.

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Mark Oates

I wouldn't presume to know what legacy materials are available for classic 3D movies, but I'd expect that what you get for your money is a master negative with both anaglyph images on it.

There's really no such thing as "shot in anaglyph 3D. Anaglyph is simply one of many different release formats. As Carl said above, all 3D movies (natively filmed) were shot with two distinctly separate images, and all could easily be transfered to a 3D Blu-ray as easy as pie. Some classic 3D titles I'd like to see:

Hondo

Dial "M" for Murder

Taza, Son of Cochise

 

[Mark Oates]

I didn't say anything about "shot in anaglyph 3D". I was suggesting that the most likely material available to master some of the 3D classics might be the anaglyph negative - used to produce 3D printing elements. There's no guarantee that the individual left- and right- negatives will be available (consequently the easiest material to master a Blu-ray to modern 3D standards). I would think that unpicking the anaglyph negative to produce separate left- and right- registers could be problematic.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by Mark Oates

I didn't say anything about "shot in anaglyph 3D". I was suggesting that the most likely material available to master some of the 3D classics might be the anaglyph negative - used to produce 3D printing elements. There's no guarantee that the individual left- and right- negatives will be available (consequently the easiest material to master a Blu-ray to modern 3D standards). I would think that unpicking the anaglyph negative to produce separate left- and right- registers could be problematic.

Where did you come up with the concept of "analglyph negative"? 3D films from in the 50s were shot on two separate strips of 35mm film, one left-eye and one right-eye. Those were used to produce the two sets of release prints, again, one for the left and one for the right eye. They were projected simultaneously by two projectors. Later, a system was used in which both "eye" images were on one strip of film, but on separate, alternating frames. The two "eye" images were never combined in one frame, which seems to be what you're assuming, if I'm reading you right. Complete "legacy" materials for these films would consist of separate left and right film elements, not something that was overlapped onto one, which never happened. Of course, this applies to theatrical presentations; there were cheap home 8mm digest versions of some films using the red/green analglypic method, which did combine both both images on one frame, as did prints for the 3D-on-TV boomlet of the early 1980s.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

And still the myth persists that all old 3D films were "shot in the red/green format", when of course, as Paul says above, most were originally shot and screened in polarized 3D with clear glasses, the same concept as today's 3D films. The anaglyph conversions were done for theaters that didn't have the special metallic screen and/or projection equipment needed for polarized 3D presentations, and these conversions were also used for the home market and special TV broadcasts. That said, there were some films originally made only in anaglyph, such as films where only a portion of the film is in 3D like THE MASK (the '60s one) or FREDDY'S DEAD. Some '70s exploitation 3D films were originally filmed in anaglyph as well, as this bit from Wikipedia attests:

In the 1970s filmmaker Stephen Gibson filmed direct anaglyph blaxploitation and adult movies. His "Deep Vision" system replaced the original camera lens with two color-filtered lens focussed on the same film frame[2]. In the 1980s, Gibson patented his mechanism [3].

According to that, then, Paul may be incorrect when he states that the two eye images were never combined in one frame for original theatrical release, as this seems to indicate the opposite. So for some of our 3D "classics" (DISCO DOLLS IN HOT SKIN or BLACK LOLITA, anyone?), we might very well have to use the "anaglyph negative".

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Nelson

According to that, then, Paul may be incorrect when he states that the two eye images were never combined in one frame for original theatrical release, as this seems to indicate the opposite. So for some of our 3D "classics" (DISCO DOLLS IN HOT SKIN or BLACK LOLITA, anyone?), we might very well have to use the "anaglyph negative".

Ah, that I hadn't heard of, thanks. Also, some of the earlier experimental 3D films made use of the anaglyphic system, at least for projection - there was Pete Smith Specialty, for example. Did that use a combined print also, I wonder? I'm inclined to think so; even though theaters were equipped with at least two projectors anyway, there'd still be a hassle involved in executing a dual-strip presentation, and this would have been just a short, anyway.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

As evidence of that hassle, House of Wax contained an intermission. Why? Because the projectionist needed time to switch reels on both projectors.

 

[John Sparks]

I and hundreds of others got the chance of a life time to be able to see almost all the 3-D films that were made in the 50's when they were shown at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood about 7-8 years ago. Some had never been shown since the day they first played. One such movie, "Cat Women of the Moon" with Victor Jory, was missing a few moments of the left picture. The MC of the presentation, warned the older audience that the left side of the picture would be black...and no, they weren' having a stroke!!!


They even showed a 1939 color 3-D film that shown at the 1939 World's Fair of an automible being made as it was coming down the assembly line. ..awesome when that axle came at your head!


Of course, the highlight of the festival was 'The House of Wax." At least I get to go to my grave knowing that I got to see them as they were originally shown during their original run.