How 3D movies look, to a steroblind person?
Auntie C
invited to a friend’s birthday party, where they will be taking the
kids to see the 3D version of the movie “G-Force”, and my problem is
that I think my son may be stereoblind (he had surgery when he was 1
for strabismus, and had to wear a patch on one eye for hours every
day, for years. He is no longer cross-eyed, but his ophthalmologist
said that it is very possible that he may never have true 3D vision,
a.k.a. “steroblindness”.) My concern isn’t really that he won’t get
the 3D effect when he sees the movie- it would be perfectly fine if
the movie just looked to him exactly the same as the standard 2D
version. Rather, my worry is that the movie will look messed-up to
him (like for example, as if you looked at those older 3D images
without the glasses that had one lens green and the other red, so that
you saw all the extra red and green on the image. So basically I’m
afraid that since his eyes won’t be able to process whatever extra
stuff is added to the images to make them appear 3D, the added 3D
stuff will instead totally screw up the appearance of the movie to
him.) By any chance, is there anyone out there with steroblindness
who has seen a recent 3D movie, and can describe what that experience
was like? Thanks!
J. Theakston
> By any chance, is there anyone out there with steroblindness
> who has seen a recent 3D movie, and can describe what that experience
> was like? Thanks!
If he wears the glasses, he'll be able to see the picture on the
screen however he experiences 3D in real world settings (ie. flat).
If he doesn't wear the glasses, the image WILL be blurry.
PS. For what it's worth, Polaroid has been in use in conjunction with
films since the '30s. Red and cyan (anaglyph) glasses haven't been
used in any serious (emphasis on "serious") films for years.
J. Theakston
Neil Midkiff
I'm not an ophthalmologist, nor have I any experience with
stereoblindness, but I'll venture to use a little logic on the problem.
And I have seen quite a few classic 3D films from the 1950s, and
occasionally have checked how they look without the polarizing glasses.
No matter what system is used for 3-D projection, the concept is
similar: you need to present one image to one eye and another image to
the other eye. Whether it's red/green filters, polarizing filters,
complex color-sorting filters, or electro-mechanical or electro-optical
shutters, the philosophy is the same. (I'm discounting the weaker
systems that have occasionally been tried for television broadcasts
which rely on quirks of human perception to produce limited depth
effects in special cases.)
If you take off the glasses while watching any true 3-D system, you
should see two slightly different overlapping images on the screen, and
that will look "messed up". This will be the case whether the viewer is
using one eye or two. So your son should never just take off the
glasses, even if he finds the visual effect confusing, because without
the glasses it'll just get worse.
If everything is photographed or animated for a "normal" 3-D effect, the
film should look to him the way the real world looks everyday -- his
left eye will see the objects depicted in the film from a viewpoint
slightly to the left of the viewpoint of the image seen in his right
eye. Whether or not his brain has learned to process depth cues from
those two images is another matter entirely and one that I can't
predict. But "normal" 3-D should not look more confusing to him than
anything else he sees every day.
It's also possible that the movie's 3-D effect will be exaggerated --
that the separation between the two virtual viewpoints will be greater
than the distance between human eyes. It's certainly plausible that
this might be confusing to his visual-processing system, given his
medical history.
So I would suggest that he should bring his eyepatch with him to the
theater. He should first try watching the movie with both eyes, using
the 3-D glasses; if that doesn't look good to him, put on the eyepatch
AND the 3-D glasses so that one eye sees only one of the overlapping
projected images. That should look essentially the same as the 2-D
version of the film.
As I said before, he should never just try watching it without the 3-D
glasses, whether with one eye or two eyes; that's guaranteed to be a
"messed up" experience for anyone no matter what their vision is like,
because without the 3-D glasses both of the overlapping projected images
will be visible to either eye or both eyes.
I hope this will help you explain to him how to enjoy the movie.
-Neil Midkiff
Neil Midkiff
> PS. For what it's worth, Polaroid has been in use in conjunction with
> films since the '30s. Red and cyan (anaglyph) glasses haven't been
> used in any serious (emphasis on "serious") films for years.
I'm guessing that she's seen 3-D still photos in printed books done this
way, with the red/cyan glasses in a little pocket inside the front
cover, and assumed that movies still used the same technology.
-Neil Midkiff
rotoflex...@yahoo.com
you whether there'll be some muscular issues for him trying to make
things converge (that probably contyributed to classical reports of
headaches at 3D movies).
What he'll see is the same thing you see if you close one eye.
There's a possibility he may see two discrete images trying to
converge; just tell him if he sees double to close one eye. It's not
much of a possibility at distances such as in a movie theater.
You might guess: 3D reproduction effects are pretty stupid and
tiresome for people who don't see 3D.
Scott Dorsey
>Hi, everyone. I've got a bit of a dilemma: my 7 year old son has been
>kids to see the 3D version of the movie =93G-Force=94, and my problem is
>that I think my son may be stereoblind (he had surgery when he was 1
>for strabismus, and had to wear a patch on one eye for hours every
>day, for years. He is no longer cross-eyed, but his ophthalmologist
>said that it is very possible that he may never have true 3D vision,
I had no vision in one eye until I was 12, and so I have no real depth
perception at all. Now I have normal vision in both eyes but they don't
integrate the way yours do.
I have no problem setting up and running 3-D movies. I don't see the 3-D
effect at all, but since I'm not really sure what it's supposed to look
like, I don't miss it.
What is interesting is that I can do the projector alignment... I see
two images and then when the projectors are locked into the right positions
they fuse into one. I don't see any depth but I do see the fusion.
Sometimes I have run 3-D films with a friend of mine from a local cinema
services company who lost an eye when he was a child because his brother
poked it with a stick. He can't see at all out of that eye so he can't tell
when the images are aligned, but he otherwise has no problem. Between the
two of us we have one good complete pair of eyes.
So I don't think your 7 year old will necessarily have any problem watching
it. Absolute worst case, if he can't integrate the two eyes, he can watch
the film with an eyepatch, but I don't think that would be the case.
I do thing G-Force is not really all that funny and that Disney still has
not got their act together after the fiascos of the Eisner era, but that's
another problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Derek Gee
news:-aednU2y4ofJRsfX...@earthlink.com...
Heck, she might have seen those "antique" 3-D films that Robert Rodriguez
released
in anaglyph, "Spy Kids 3-D" and "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl"!
That was 2003 and 2005 respectively. ;)
Derek
J. Theakston
wrote:
> "Neil Midkiff" <nmidk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Again, emphasis on "serious."
J. Theakston
Auntie C
replying to my post. For the record, I actually was aware that the
modern (and serious :) ) 3D movies don’t use the old anaglyph
technology anymore- I was just using that as an example to illustrate
how the appearance of something meant to be 3D, may be “off” for
someone who is stereoblind. I had first done a bit of Internet
research to try to see if I could find the answer to my question, but
after I found that my concern was never explicitly addressed anywhere,
I decided to post the question.
I also agree with Scott, that G-force doesn’t exactly look like the
greatest movie in the world. :) Trust me, if it were up to me, that
wouldn’t be what I would take him to (and definitely not the 3D
version- of that or of any other movie for that matter.) But
obviously, the choice is being dictated by the birthday boy and his
family, so that is out of my control. This has been really agonizing
for me... for one thing, my boy isn’t even aware yet that he has this
problem (I’m not 100% sure either, but it does seem highly likely at
this point.) So now I think I’m going to have to break this tough
news to him beforehand, to avoid him finding out (and possibly
creating a scene) when he’s actually in the theater and realizes that
there’s nothing special about the movie for him like how it is for
everyone else.
But it is an enormous relief, that in all likelihood, the movie will
at least be normal to him (if not only was it not 3D, but the movie
was also completely ruined for him, then he would almost certainly
freak out at the theater, no matter how much I tried to prepare him in
advance.) And I will definitely also have him take his eyepatch with
him in case that turns out to be necessary, just to be on the safe
side (thanks for that tip!)
So- I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, that it will all turn out
O.K. Thanks again.
rotoflex...@yahoo.com
> problem (I’m not 100% sure either, but it does seem highly likely at
> this point.)
I didn't know until I was 30, it was at a boilerplate eye test at some
eyeglass chain like VisionWorld or whatever. They put a pair of
polarized glasses on you, have you look at a card, & ask which pattern
is different. Be aware that even if he can detect which pattern is
different, it won't be a gauge of successful stereo vision. I passed
the 70s-era drivers license "look in the box and see which is closer"
stereopsis test just by comparing left and right images.
Don't think that it's best for him to not know if his stereo vision is
less than typical, thinking that he'll adapt, improve, or it will make
no difference. He needs to know what he's working with, and know that
he can get along as well as everyone else and even better in most
situations with monocular depth cues. But take it from someone who
knows, he's going to hear "Anyone can do it if they just keep trying"
from people aiming baseballs, tennis balls, footballs, ping-pong
balls, etc. for years, and there's not a chance in hell that he will
without average stereopsis.
Larry
A little off the subject but FYI. My wife has astigmatism and she is
unable to get any 3D effect on the anaglyphic system. The glasses
eliminate the double image is all. The polaroid system works just
fine with full 3D effects.
Larry
Martin Hart
9b932e...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, lcin...@cox.net says...
>
> A little off the subject but FYI. My wife has astigmatism and she is
> unable to get any 3D effect on the anaglyphic system. The glasses
> eliminate the double image is all. The polaroid system works just
> fine with full 3D effects.
> Larry
>
Larry,
I have astigmatism and neither anaglyph nor Polaroid 3-D poses the least
problem. Of course I have to wear the damned glasses over my regular
pair. Astigmatism itself should pose no problem as long as you also
wear corrective lenses with the 3-D glasses.
I have done a lot of work in 3-D stills, sometimes creating them from
flat images, and I've converted lots of old stereopticon images to
anaglyph 3-D.
I think you might get a few color blindness test pictures and see if
she's got a problem that anaglyph can't get around.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
Derek Gee
news:8d7474d3-1cc1-4da0...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
What wasn't "serious" about Rodriguez's projects? They were shot with state
of the art digital cameras
(http://digitalcontentproducer.com/e-newsletters/HD_Focus_05_19_05/)
and they made some serious cash! (Spy Kids grossed $197,011,982 worldwide
and Sharkboy grossed $69,425,966)
While I didn't support the decision to release them as anaglyph, I do
understand why he did that. If they were released now, instead of 4-6 years
ago in a RealD or Imax3D theater they would probably do quite well.
Derek
Auntie C
Hmmm, that's a very interesting perspective. I had, in fact, been
sheltering him from this knowledge, because I was afraid that it would
only cause him anxiety and distress, but perhaps as you suggest, there
are benefits to knowing, which in the long run outweigh the initial
shock. Well, since it's looking like I will have to tell him about it
soon, I appreciate this, because this will make it easier for me to do
it.
J. Theakston
wrote:
> What wasn't "serious" about Rodriguez's projects?
The fact that in the end, no matter how much money they grossed, they
still stink both artistically and stereoscopically.
In my humble opinion.
J. Theakston
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> I also agree with Scott, that G-force doesn’t exactly look like the
> greatest movie in the world. :)
That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and happens to be in stereoscopic 3D (as opposed to computer-animated in 3D e.g. with threedimensional data - I am a bit worried about this latest confusion)?
Hands down: Stereoscopic 3D will always be a gimmick, no matter what they try to tell us now (for at least the third time in a hundred years of cinema)...
ML
Scott Dorsey
>
>That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and happens to be in stereoscopic 3D (as opposed to computer-animated in 3D e.g. with threedimensional data - I am a bit worried about this latest confusion)?
Dial M for Murder.
>Hands down: Stereoscopic 3D will always be a gimmick, no matter what they try to tell us now (for at least the third time in a hundred years of cinema)...
This is probably true, yes.
--scott
You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
>> of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
>> happens to be in stereoscopic 3D
> Dial M for Murder.
Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D
> You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...
Haha, cute. Nice one, Scott... ;)
ML
scoville
Scott Dorsey
>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
>>> of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
>>> happens to be in stereoscopic 3D
>
>> Dial M for Murder.
>
>Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D
I agree about Coraline too. It's a movie that is good enough even without
the 3D effect.
>> You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...
>
>Haha, cute. Nice one, Scott... ;)
Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D? Even in anaglyph?
When I looked into it a few years ago, Swank could only get me a 16mm
reduction print in 2-D.
--scott
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
>>>> of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
>>>> happens to be in stereoscopic 3D
>>> Dial M for Murder.
>> Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D
> I agree about Coraline too.
> It's a movie that is good enough even without
> the 3D effect.
Hey, it's a list! 8-D
>>> You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...
>> Haha, cute. Nice one, Scott... ;)
> Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D?
> Even in anaglyph?
Very good question.
> When I looked into it a few years ago,
> Swank could only get me a 16mm
> reduction print in 2-D.
Hmm, doesn't sound too hot.
That's the one biig ything I would hope for in a very distant, brave new world of truely great electronic cinema exhibition (if it happens):
You could watch movies in theaters again that previously were just unavailable, period.
When we look at the current tragical theatrical (?) exhibition of "Oz" I'd say, we're not there yet... ;)
> --scott
ML
J. Theakston
> Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D? Even in anaglyph?
> When I looked into it a few years ago, Swank could only get me a 16mm
> reduction print in 2-D.
There is, as of today, only one complete left/right pair out there as
part of the 3D Archive.
Actually, I'm quite surprised you guys are quick to knock ROBOT
MONSTER for its 3D-- without that aspect, it IS just a nonsensical,
low-budget sci-fi film (with a great Elmer Bernstein score, no less).
But the 3D photography is quite good technically, and makes the film
far more watchable than it would be flat.
Likewise, there's no reason that 3D is any more of a gimmick than
widescreen or color. Like any aspect of film, it's completely in how
it's used and how it's presented that makes the process. And although
I know it's heresy to post such a thing on a newsgroup, frankly, I
find it more versatile and less of a gimmick than, say, Cinerama,
which because of its wide-angle nature is limited in how much you can
do with it.
HOUSE OF WAX is a great example of a technically superior film which
takes advantage of its stereoscopy. Yeah, you might remember the
paddle-ball man the best, but his placement in the film (the first
scene in Part II) and Price's dialog, "I hope you don't think I've
gone too far hiring this fellow to bring people in [...] let's try it
for a week or two and once we're established, we won't need that sort
of thing" are not accidental. The most effective moment in the film,
in my opinion, is near the end when Paul Picerni and Charles Bronson
are fighting. With the lighting just right, Bronson jumps out FROM
the stereo window at Picerni who is in the background. That always
gets far more of an impressive gasp from the audience than the paddle-
ball man.
Likewise, there are many films from that era that unless you were at
one of the 3D Expos, few people have seen, but so many are quick to
knock. GORILLA AT LARGE has been much-maligned for years for its
terrible title, but it actually a very interesting low-budget mystery
with an absurd premise that the cast and dialog actually makes work.
I, THE JURY and DANGEROUS MISSION are among my favorites, and
psychologically have a far different movie-going experience as flat
films. I have never been enamored with DIAL 'M' from a technical
standpoint, but again, it's a film that has a totally different (and
weaker, IMHO) feel flat.
I still insist that most of the negative memories about these films
and their use of 3D don't actually come from people who have seen the
films (or if they have, not recently), but merely folks who are
expressing a viewpoint, no matter how ill-informed it is, for the sake
of actually *having* a viewpoint on the process.
J. Theakston
J. Theakston
<team8martinl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, doesn't sound too hot.
>
> That's the one biig ything I would hope for in a very distant, brave new world of truely great electronic cinema exhibition (if it happens):
>
> You could watch movies in theaters again that previously were just unavailable, period.
>
> When we look at the current tragical theatrical (?) exhibition of "Oz" I'd say, we're not there yet... ;)
That's such an exception to the rule, though. So many studios now
have a growing library 2k and 4k masters with uncompressed sound,
sometimes looking and sounding better than the original prints seen by
audiences when done correctly.
In the next few years, I think you'll probably end up seeing *more*
quality presentations of classic films by default because the
infrastructure is now getting there and there's less margin for error.
J. Theakston
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> In the next few years, I think you'll probably end up seeing *more*
> quality presentations of classic films by default because the
> infrastructure is now getting there and there's less margin for error.
That's what we all hope for - I'll drink to that, cheers! 8-D
> J. Theakston
ML
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Actually, I'm quite surprised you guys are quick to knock ROBOT
> MONSTER for its 3D-- without that aspect, it IS just a nonsensical,
> low-budget sci-fi film (with a great Elmer Bernstein score, no less).
> But the 3D photography is quite good technically, and makes the film
> far more watchable than it would be flat.
Hey, no offence... ;)
We were talking about movies that should be good without the gimmick.
Here we have another categroy alltogether, in fact the other way round:
Movies that at least should be better w/ the gimmick... ;)
> Likewise, there's no reason that 3D is any more of a gimmick than
> widescreen or color. Like any aspect of film, it's completely in how
> it's used and how it's presented that makes the process. And although
> I know it's heresy to post such a thing on a newsgroup, frankly, I
> find it more versatile and less of a gimmick than, say, Cinerama,
> which because of its wide-angle nature is limited in how much you can
> do with it.
Point taken. But you should acknowledge the fact that all the other "gimmicks" like color and sound didn't take three major launches over a century to get anywhere, so to speak... ;)
> I still insist that most of the negative memories about these films
> and their use of 3D don't actually come from people who have seen the
> films (or if they have, not recently), but merely folks who are
> expressing a viewpoint, no matter how ill-informed it is, for the sake
> of actually *having* a viewpoint on the process.
You are quite knowledgeable about these special movies, how come?
OK, I've seen my share of stereoscopic movies from anaglyph, shutter glasses up to (real) IMAX with polarization (IMHO the best process and film stock/resolution so far) as well as various 3D computer graphics applications from home user shutter glasses to CAVE installations, but somehow I'm fed up with the hype, I really must admit that much.
So I'm biased. True. A couple of weeks ago for example I projected the Criterion edition of 'M'. I'm far more exited and interested in this film (no color! just barely sound, not always ;) than the newest technical marvel right now. I can't help it.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I love movies so much and that I'm (actively) into (2D and 3D) animation as well that I've developed an allergy to "hype over substance". On the other hand I do like 'Raders of the Lost Ark'. It's quite complicated really, hehe... ;)
> J. Theakston
ML
Scott Dorsey
>On Nov 2, 6:48=A0am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D? =A0Even in anaglyph=
>?
>> When I looked into it a few years ago, Swank could only get me a 16mm
>> reduction print in 2-D.
>
>There is, as of today, only one complete left/right pair out there as
>part of the 3D Archive.
Is it possible to book it? Or a dupe of it?
>Actually, I'm quite surprised you guys are quick to knock ROBOT
>MONSTER for its 3D-- without that aspect, it IS just a nonsensical,
>low-budget sci-fi film (with a great Elmer Bernstein score, no less).
>But the 3D photography is quite good technically, and makes the film
>far more watchable than it would be flat.
I don't think anybody has done so. I personally cannot even see 3D, so
I can't make any comment about the realism of the film.
I can only comment that Robot Monster is one of the worst movies I have
ever seen in my life, even worse than Reptilicus or Plan Nine from Outer
Space. Worse than Ganjasaurus Rex and all the Santo movies put together.
So consequently I find it questionable that the 3D effect could compensate
for the inherent deficiencies of the film.
>Likewise, there's no reason that 3D is any more of a gimmick than
>widescreen or color. Like any aspect of film, it's completely in how
>it's used and how it's presented that makes the process. And although
>I know it's heresy to post such a thing on a newsgroup, frankly, I
>find it more versatile and less of a gimmick than, say, Cinerama,
>which because of its wide-angle nature is limited in how much you can
>do with it.
Widescreen and color ARE gimmicks, but people figured out ways to help
them tell the story. In the case of 3-D I am not sure that's really been
the case yet. But the vast majority of films that employ widescreen and
color formats don't take advantage of them to help tell the story,
unfortunately.
>I still insist that most of the negative memories about these films
>and their use of 3D don't actually come from people who have seen the
>films (or if they have, not recently), but merely folks who are
>expressing a viewpoint, no matter how ill-informed it is, for the sake
>of actually *having* a viewpoint on the process.
I have never seen any movie in 3D, or any part of the real world for that
matter. But I would pay someone actual money to NOT have to see many
films, and some of them are in 3D.
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Reptilicus
Ha! Guilty pleasure. Have it here in our movie archive complete w/ commentary track by Dennis Muren of ILM fame. ;)
> But the vast majority of films that employ widescreen
[...]
> don't take advantage of them
That's bitterly true!!!!
There was a time frame right up until the eighties (when home video and Pan&Scan became the norm) when they actually composed for the wide screen. 'Jaws' is still one of the (last) prime examples for this. Look at those extreme and beautiful compositions. I just love the Panavision frame. (or sometimes Leone's Techniscope frame) - no luck today... :-(
ML
--
----------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know. I'm making this up as I go!"
(Ford as Dr. Jones Jr. in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark')
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dorsey
>
>> Reptilicus
>
>Ha! Guilty pleasure. Have it here in our movie archive complete w/ commentary track by Dennis Muren of ILM fame. ;)
Come to Arisia in Boston, Jan 15th. We're running a beautiful print of it,
excellent color. Not only that, we have adapted our Emergo system for this
presentation. www.arisia.org. Sponsored by the Society for the Promotion
of Very Bad Cinema.
Neil Midkiff
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
>>> of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
>>> happens to be in stereoscopic 3D
>
>> Dial M for Murder.
>
> Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Kiss Me, Kate -- maybe not a
"great" film but certainly a very very good one, and one which uses 3D
very effectively without a lot of gimmicks.
-Neil Midkiff
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:47:32 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Reptilicus
>> Ha! Guilty pleasure. Have it here in our movie archive
>> complete w/ commentary track by Dennis Muren of ILM fame. ;)
> Come to Arisia in Boston, Jan 15th. We're running a beautiful
> print of it, excellent color. Not only that, we have adapted
Tempting, really...
> our Emergo system for this presentation. www.arisia.org.
...and obviously caringly done.
But I would have to board a transatlantic flight to do just that. I'd love to...
When we'll be in the US of A next time, it'll be for at least six or eight weeks in a row going from coast to coast, so I'll have to mark that up in my to-do list!
I already got to know an Angeleno who would gladly give us a tour of downtown LA... (which I already partly covered on foot, hehe - Manhattan twice already, Las Vegas and Reno once ;) ;) ;)
> Sponsored by the Society for the Promotion of Very Bad Cinema.
The work of dedicated film lovers - I really, really like that! ;)
So - see you when we're "on tour", I'll remember ARISIA! 8-D
> --scott
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
>>>> of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
>>>> happens to be in stereoscopic 3D
>>> Dial M for Murder.
>> Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D
> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Kiss Me, Kate -- maybe not a
> "great" film but certainly a very very good one, and one which uses 3D
> very effectively without a lot of gimmicks.
> -Neil Midkiff
Thanks for the input Neil.
To summarize so far:
*** FEATURE PRESENTATION ***
"List of stereoscopic (aka 3D) movies that are good movies regardless..."
- Dial M for Murder
- Coraline
- Kiss Me, Kate
*** THE END ***
Any more additions anyone?
Scott Norwood
In article <o5-dnaLJlJ824W3X...@earthlink.com>,
I would add House of Wax. It uses the format perfectly, but needs to
be seen in 3D.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
J. Theakston
> I can only comment that Robot Monster is one of the worst movies I have
> ever seen in my life, even worse than Reptilicus or Plan Nine from Outer
> Space. Worse than Ganjasaurus Rex and all the Santo movies put together.
> So consequently I find it questionable that the 3D effect could compensate
> for the inherent deficiencies of the film.
Never heard of putting all of your eggs in one basket?
Seriously, however, there's a level of enjoyment that brings out what
little good points there are in the film. Seeing it on TV and seeing
it in a Polaroid presentation is apples and oranges, just as seeing a
'scope film on TV is just not the same as seeing it in a theater.
> Widescreen and color ARE gimmicks, but people figured out ways to help
> them tell the story. In the case of 3-D I am not sure that's really been
> the case yet. But the vast majority of films that employ widescreen and
> color formats don't take advantage of them to help tell the story,
> unfortunately.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Recording color was for the
most part available since the turn of the last century, but technology
created a limitation in its widespread usage. Likewise, 3D is still
limited by its technology at this point. You still have to wear
glasses (and I believe you always will), and up until recently, there
were major issues in presentation control. Color and widescreen are
easy to "adapt" to as a photographer, but 3D takes an extra amount of
study and understanding of concepts in order to master it.
> I have never seen any movie in 3D, or any part of the real world for that
> matter. But I would pay someone actual money to NOT have to see many
> films, and some of them are in 3D.
There is no accounting for taste, of course, but yours and mine are
similar. A crappy movie is still a crappy movie.
J. Theakston
J. Theakston
<team8martinl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Any more additions anyone?
Here are some great (and some "good") movies from the "golden age" of
3D that I'm partial to. All of them are what I consider to be
particularly well-photographed films:
HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, SANGAREE, THE CHARGE AT
FEATHER RIVER, THE MAZE, SECOND CHANCE, INFERNO, FLIGHT TO TANGIER,
THE GLASS WEB, HONDO, CEASE FIRE, MONEY FROM HOME, MISS SADIE
THOMPSON, THE FRENCH LINE, JIVARO, TAZA SON OF COCHISE, CREATURE FROM
THE BLACK LAGOON, DANGEROUS MISSION, PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE,
GORILLA AT LARGE and THE DIAMOND.
The problem is, you're asking a loaded question-- while there are
quite a few people on this list who went to one or both of the 3D
Expos in Los Angeles, most people haven't seen the above titles
presented properly and can't assess them fairly.
J. Theakston
scoville
> limited by its technology at this point. You still have to wear
> glasses (and I believe you always will)
The new lenticular 3D TV displays don't require glasses.
roland....@sbcglobal.net
I guessing Disney's A Christmas Carol and Avatar will be good 3-D
films. I enjoyed the recent 3-D films Cloudy with a Chance of
Meatballs, G-Force, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs and Monsters vs
Aliens.
When they come out with a decent 3-D system for video, I would think
it would be fun to have the 3-D segment of The Birds at the beginning
of a release on Blu-ray.
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> but 3D takes an extra amount of
> study and understanding of concepts in order to master it.
and money...
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
>> Likewise, 3D is still
>> limited by its technology at this point. ï¿œYou still have to wear
>> glasses (and I believe you always will)
> The new lenticular 3D TV displays don't require glasses.
...but they require that you stay at one of the "sweet angles" to keep it in focus, right?
Derek Gee
message news:op.u2t5s...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:55:39 +0100, Neil Midkiff wrote:
>
>> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>>> Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
>>>>> of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
>>>>> happens to be in stereoscopic 3D
>
>>>> Dial M for Murder.
>
>>> Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D
>
>> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Kiss Me, Kate -- maybe not a
>> "great" film but certainly a very very good one, and one which uses 3D
>> very effectively without a lot of gimmicks.
>
>> -Neil Midkiff
>
> Thanks for the input Neil.
>
> To summarize so far:
>
>
> *** FEATURE PRESENTATION ***
>
> "List of stereoscopic (aka 3D) movies that are good movies regardless..."
>
> - Dial M for Murder
> - Coraline
> - Kiss Me, Kate
>
> *** THE END ***
>
>
> Any more additions anyone?
Sure, the one the kicked off the recent 3D boom, "The Polar Express"! It's
become a family tradition to watch every year in 3D. The "Toy Story" 3D
conversions were also superb. My daughter and I loved the double-feature!
Derek