What is Shrek 3-D? (1 Viewer)

[Wookie Groomer]

I can't find any information on Shrek 3-D. What it is?

 

[Neil Joseph]

Basically the movie of Shrek in 3-d like Spy Kids 3-D and similarl, comes with some glasses.

 

[Wookie Groomer]

Oh, so it's the entire movie of Shrek and not some short movie? I didn't know that!

 

[Allan Sill]

Hi, Im a newbie to the forum. I'm a working professional in Hollywood and on the internet. I have a popular website,
which, I'm unable to list here. It will explain the issues
relating technically to both "Spy Kids 3D" and newly
announced "Shrek 3D", also "Space Station 3D". The name
for the basic technology is anaglyph. This is both very old,
and surprisingly new technology. Try looking under "anaglyph
DVD technology" on Google and you may find a good site.
as to what i can say here, the biggest shortcoming of both
of these movies are the 10 cent paper glasses packed with
the DVD. Secondly, the producer didn't do enough "homework".
Far better technique is available, and people like Warners
are likely to use it for the IMAX 3D releases like "Space
Station 3D" which is coming out late this year.Plastic
glasses that don't strain the eyes are out there fore
maybe 60 cents to the DVD distributor. They throw
away the baby to save 5o cents on each pair of glasses!
Some glasses actual correct for the blurriness INATE in
a red gel filter. Skins can look very normal, blue skin
is the result of he 10 cent glasses. If anybody wants to hear more..I'll try to respond. Regarding the question of
"Shrek", it is a 15 packaging of the widely admired Univeral
Studios theme park movie/experience. There is also a nice
promo of Shrek 2. This was not rendered into 3D stereo,
for some bone headed reason, or perhaps it was secretly.
It only cost 1 to 3 percent more to render a movie like
"Nemo" into 3D stereo from the mathmatical "3D" files,
they only have to render a frame slightly ofset. Anyway,
I'll be happy to shed more light if anyone is interested.
Allan Sill

 

[Wookie Groomer]

Thanks for the input Allan.

I recall different 3-D home video presentations over the past several years. Strangely, I think Howard Sterns "Butt Bongo Fiesta" which I still own had the best 3-D effects I had ever seen on home video. It had clear glasses the video presentation did not look unlike watching normal video.

It's sad the companies still resort to the antiquated 2 color method used in the 50's :rolleyes

 

[andrew markworthy]

I like a man with no sense of shame.

 

[Rob Lutter]

Are you guys talking about Shrek 4D, which is featured at Universal Studios, Orlando or something else?

 

[John Berggren]

I would love to have NEMO or any PIXAR film in 3-D for home theater. I think it'd be a lot of fun. I, of course, would prefer the better technology for 3-D, and still want the original theatrical version.

How could would it be, though, to show a film like FINDING NEMO off in your home theater in full 3-D glory?

 

[Joshua Lane]

Yes. The "Shrek 3D" release (available only in a 2-pack with the full-frame single disc Shrek DVD) is simply the "Shrek 4D" ride at Universal Studios. I'm not sure why the renamed it for the DVD release, but whatever.

 

[Tom Tsai]

doesn't the 4D part refer to the motions and sensations you get while watching the movie? Since you don't get those recreations at home, it's only Shrek-3D (?)

 

[Steve Phillips]

Shawn, the 3-D movies of the fifties DID NOT use the inferior red/blue anaglyph system. They used the polarized clear glasses method. 51 films were shot in 3-D between 1952-55, and while a few came out flat, most of them were given a 3-D release, and not a single one of them used the red/blue glasses.

Only a very small number of 3-D films (1-2%) have used the red/blue system. It just isn't good enough. Most of these have been low budget adult films or flat movies that had short 3-D segments. SPY KIDS is basically the only major feature film ever released in anaglyph.

People get confused since a small number of the older films were later converted to red/blue for re-issue and TV showings. These looked terrible, nothing like the original releases. Also, a lot of 3-D comic books and magazines used the red/blue glassses back then, so it gets all jumbled up in the public's mind.

SHREK 3-D is only 20 minutes long so I've heard. It is unclear if it contains converted to anaglyph footage from SHREK 4-D, but it probably doesn't.

Don't expect much!

As for the Howard Stern thing, it isn't 3-D at all. It was just shot to take advantage of the naturally occuring Pulfrich Illusion, which happens accidentally in lots of ordinary movies where the camera movies in one direction while the background moves in another. No special camera here, no 3-D technology is in place. You can shoot out your car passenger window with any camcorder and see an illusion of depth when you watch the resulting tape with a dark lens over your right eye. Some people can just squint the right eye and see it. Try it watching a basketball game on TV, you'll see some 3-D during action scenes. If the actions tops, the 3-D illusion stops too.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yup - it's just like "Muppetvision 4D" at Disney. The 4th D refers to the physical elements that come at the audience like water and whatnot. The home versions can only be 3D!

 

[RafaelB]

It'd be great if they included any of the animatronics with the Shrek 3D package, but it might be a little too costly.

Rafael.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I'm not in favor of converting 3-D movies to anaglyph for home viewing. No matter what glasses in use (even the mirrored plastic kind) I've never seen this done well. The reuslt is always an insult to, and not representative of, the original photography.

I've tried the mirror plastic glasses with the SPY KIDS 3-D DVD, and they didn't work nearly as well as the cardboard ones included in the package. They didn't cancel out the images correctly and there was ghosting not present using the cardboard ones.

Maybe they just didn't have exactly the right colors.

Still, I have an open mind. Show me an anaglyph conversion that has excellent depth, completely normal color schemes, no ghosting, and I'll be the first to buy one of the DVDs.

 

[Allan Sill]

Hi, I have to respond to Steve Philips'comments about
Shrek, and better technology. Steve is thinking in one size fits all terms. The glasses I mention work well when the film is processed for them,less well when not. A studio
has to take into account what glasses are to be used.In
working with Warner Home Video we had total control of both process and glasses...hence an great result. With the
latest plastic glasses, 90% of "Spy Kids 3D" has better
color, skin tones, and sharpness.10% is too contrasty or
seperated to look good with better glasses. Polaroid Imax,
&35mm 3D techs are pleased and excited. Consumer fans
are prone to judgements about r&d that they have never seen.
If this stuff looks bad, neither Warners, nor 20 plus
3D experts would be so favorably disposed to it! Maybe
a person in r& d should refrain from discussing new tech
results in a consumer forum, because there are a lot of
"arm-chair" experts who get off on being critical. I can
only say, our professional "toys" blow the doors off of
the stuff that filters down to the "videophiles" from
the east asian consumer electronic cartels. Americans
frequently have stuff that works 5 years ahead of Tokyo.
Allan Sill

 

[Steve Phillips]

Who said I was critical? I can't comment on something I haven't seen. Re-read my post and you'll see I said had an open mind.

The reason 3-D fans hate red/blue conversions is because they have been absolutely horrible up until this point.

I am a little surprised IMAX would allow an anaglyph conversion of one of their films since it could make people think that the IMAX 3-D presentations are anaglyph.

I remain ready to be convinced that an anaglyph conversion of a 3-D movie will be impressive. If it was, it would certainly make wide spread, simple 3-D showings possible, which would be a good thing.

I can't wait to see a test. If it works out, you'll sell a lot of glasses and make a lot of money Allan.

As for Asian cartells...I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Allan Sill]

Steve, and others with strong opinions...I largely agree
with you. anaglyph tends to suck. I am a polaroid guy, with
even 65/70 3D experience. What I meant to say is that very
recently a few people like myself took a second look at
anaglyph 3D in light of the computer and cgi. We were shocked by the results obtainable with computer cooking
and better glasses. My main bitch is that Disney went with 10 cent glasses! without evaluating what was possible with
60 cent glasses. Dual video projection polaroid or liquid
crystal plasma are not econonical in the short term. Matched plastic glasses have far better skin tones, color
accuracy, red filter clarity,& contrast than paper. You have to process specially for them,if you do, you're getting
comfortable 3D for just 50 cents more per viewer. And the glasses last years, not hours in normal use.We get very
favorable comments from the 50,000 users of the new glasses. Some are the guys at NASA, many work in film,
or science. With 3D stills, we are getting a very favorable
feedback...and what we see in editing suites can get killer images in HDTV, and even good Trinitron NTSC.
Keep up your passion Steve! Allan

 

[Todd Schnell]

LOL! Indeed!

Todd - who recently returned from Universal Studios Orlando.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

I would be extremely surprised if Shrek 3-D contains any footage from the Shrek 4-D attraction at Universal Studios.

 

[GregK]

Allan,

Your glasses certainly sound interesting. I'll be very curious to hear if your glasses can eliminate the L/R "ghosting" that so far resides in all anaglyph (red/blue) consumer 3-D video. I've invited a number of 'lay' visitors over to look at 4:4:4 (uncompressed RGB) anaglyph video, and besides a few occasional comments on a color or two being off, or fuzziness due to the colored lenses, 4:4:4 3-D anaglyph does work for most of these impartial observers. However once I dump the anaglyph video (be it B&W anaglyph or color anaglyph) to DVD (4:2:0) or consumer digital tape (4:1:1) these same observers now often complain that it doesn't work as well, as ghosting has now increased. Some may not notice the ghosting out right, but will simply say the 3-D now gives them a headache. This goes goes for 'commercial' anaglyph DVDs as well. Have you figured a way out to encode an anaglyph DVD without ghosting?

We know Shrek will be in anaglyph. And from your previous comments it sounds like the Warner Brother's IMAX Spacestation DVD may be as well. Will WB also provide a field-sequential 3-D version, like Slingshot has done with their 3-D DVDs? So far... field-sequential is the only consumer 3-D format I've viewed that has provided consistent clear undistorted 3-D images. And I have never had an impartial observer choose anaglyph over field-sequential, but I understand the economic $$ factor with anaglyph, where cheap red/blue glasses allow a DVD to be 3-D ready right out of the box. This is why some of the Slingshot R2 DVDs have provided both anaglyph *and* field-sequential 3-D versions on the same disc, so everybody has the ability to view 3-D. With some obviously viewing it better than others....