3D Friday the 13th Part III over-under 3D 35mm print on eBay (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

Only $1,666 on eBay.

...20 of the special "1950's thru 1980's" polarized 3-D glasses ARE INCLUDED!

 

[DP 70]

For that price you should get the 3D lens so you can run it !

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I have a projector, lamphouse and platter in storage, if someone near me buys this print I'll gladly let them run it!

 

[Interdimensional]

Just when I was feeling good about the state of 80s 3-D on blu-ray. I'm not optimistic that this title will make it.

The same seller also has over/under prints of Treasure of the Four Crowns, Starchaser, and the original Love 3-D.

 

[pinknik]

I hope, I hope, I hope that Friday the 13th Part III finally makes it to real blu-ray 3-D. Since they made an anaglyph disc, which i already own, would it be correct of me to assume that they already have digital files of the left and right eye that they could fairly easily master a new disc from?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Probably, but a lot of work needs to be done to make it presentable. Check this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/3400028/

 

[pinknik]

Probably, but a lot of work needs to be done to make it presentable. Check this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/3400028/

Greg Kintz is the man. I'd have to check my blu-ray and see if it has all the vertical misalignment that the Dvd shows. That's pretty terrible. If I were in charge, all these discs would already be out, and Bob and Greg would be my go to team. Ah well.

 

[pinknik]

P.S. I'll still keep my anaglyph blu-ray as it is signed by the late Richard Brooker. He was a nice guy.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Greg Kintz is the man. I'd have to check my blu-ray and see if it has all the vertical misalignment that the Dvd shows. That's pretty terrible. If I were in charge, all these discs would already be out, and Bob and Greg would be my go to team. Ah well.

Same master, so it probably does.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

For those interested, here's a pic of the Optimax III lens assembly, which sheds some light on why vertical misalignment may have been a baked-in problem.

 

[pinknik]

For those interested, here's a pic of the Optimax III lens assembly, which sheds some light on why vertical misalignment may have been a baked-in problem.

Which just seems so bizarre to me. It's like you're just asking for trouble.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Of the over/under systems, SpaceVision and StereoVision seem to be the most elegant solutions, and the least problematic. If you go over to the 3D Film Archive and look at Bob Furmanek's compendious history, take a look at the adapter developed by Bob Bernier for SpaceVision: it's a thing of beauty, and the projection solution was one that could be used universally by over/under systems. Bernier is an underappreciated genius in optics.

 

[RolandL]

Well, lets hope that if the film is ever released on Blu-ray 3D, they have Greg do the restoration.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

No kidding. You can see the difference in his corrections on the anaglyph disc without glasses!

 

[Mike Ballew]

For those interested, here's a pic of the Optimax III lens assembly, which sheds some light on why vertical misalignment may have been a baked-in problem.

The problem with Optimax III is not so much vertical misalignment as vertical parallax, which is similar but not identical. With vertical parallax, any object at the vertical plane of convergence will have zero misalignment. From there, the misalignment gets more severe as objects get closer to the camera, and also as they recede into the far distance.

I am on record as saying that the vertical parallax error in Optimax III is (as I put it) "gettable awayable withable" if suitable precautions are taken during filming-- the most obvious such precaution being, don't get closer to the camera than x feet. Did anybody do that on Comin' At Ya! ? Not on your life!

I would like very much to see with The Man Who Wasn't There with my own two eyes. (Heh heh heh.) It may have been the only Optimax III film where every proper precaution was taken. (Notice I say may have been.) Of course, those who have seen it in stereo express great contempt for the movie itself (which I admit is not the greatest) and for what they categorize as "mild" or "restrained" 3-D.

 

[Mike Ballew]

Oh, and let me add, that photo of Optimax III you shared, Stephen, is the unit redesigned and built by Panavision. As far as I know, it was only used for The Man Who Wasn't There, one day of filming on Jaws 3-D, and (I think) the Aerosmith 3-D concert film, the title of which I do not know.

Bukowski's original Optimax III unit looks just a bit more "homebrew." You can see it in at least one behind-the-scenes still from the set of Comin' At Ya!, and you can watch it in action in behind-the-scenes footage from the making of Magnificent Bodyguards on YouTube:

 

[John Maher_289910]

FRIDAY THE 13TH 3D is, by far, the best film I saw filmed in over/under. I love it. Saw it, many times, when it was in theaters.

 

[DFurr]

FRIDAY THE 13TH 3D is, by far, the best film I saw filmed in over/under. I love it. Saw it, many times, when it was in theaters.

I agree John. I'm the collector who won the auction for that Friday Part 3 print. I've owned a print for several years but it was missing the first reel. I've taken the best reels from both prints and made a really nice composite print. I've watched this movie 3 times in the past 3 weeks. Compared to the other 1980's 3D titles I own, this is by far the best.

 

[pinknik]

The problem with Optimax III is not so much vertical misalignment as vertical parallax, which is similar but not identical. With vertical parallax, any object at the vertical plane of convergence will have zero misalignment. From there, the misalignment gets more severe as objects get closer to the camera, and also as they recede into the far distance.

Was the Optimax III system designed to only use the portion of the image that each lens had in common?

For instance . . .

So each image is necessarily going to lose some real estate either at the top or bottom. If that's now how it was designed, is that at least how you could harvest an aligned video transfer?

Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Mike Ballew]

It was something a little more like this: