3D in the theater

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In responding to the message on Photo-3D from the director of an off-Broadway
show wishing to incorporate 3D projections, here are my thoughts on your
situation.

>1)Projection with polarizing filters etc. sounds tricky. I worry about how much
>of the audience will be seated within the right range of angles in relation to
>the screen...in other words how far from left or right of center of the screen
>can people sit and still see well?

Unless you would be working in an extremely wide theater, I don't think you
would have these kinds of problems. Polarized 3D was, after all, the format in
which virtually all theatrical 3D movies were presented.

>2)I could do the project in black and white and convert them to anaglyphs, but
I
>would prefer to use color. Would projecting anaglyphs and using red blue
glasses
>still require two projectors?  Would there be as many problems with viewing
>angle?

Anaglyph slides could easily be created so that only one projector would be
needed. This has always been the main benefit of anaglyph for theatrical
presentations. Much as I hate to say so (I consider anaglyph a poor cousin of
polarized 3D, at best) this is probably your best way to go. It's much easier
and more idiot-proof than polarized projection, and much as it pains me to admit
it, most of the general public has bought off on the erroneous idea that 3D is
viewed through red and blue glasses, anyway, so this is what they would probably
expect. Also, don't forget that polarization requires a silver screen, which
isn't needed for anaglyph.

>3)I figured I would use two Kodak Ecktagraph projectors or something
>similar...would I be better off locating an old stereo projector TDC or
>whatever?

If you are going to use polarized projection, you'd probably be better off using
separate 2x2 elements and "normal" slide projectors. They have a brighter,
better "throw," and spare parts (lamps, etc.) are somewhat more accessible.
Besides, 2x2 format, being almost twice as large as Realist, is better for
getting a sharp image in a theatrical environment.

>All kinds of tech stuff goes wrong with during theatrical productions
>the crew will be skilled in lighting sound etc...but does this sound like it
>could all be too fragile or difficult to be reliable?

You're in theater--you obviously know that Murphy's Law rules. As a
battle-scarred veteran of several years of summer stock and low-budget films, I
can assure you that if anything can go wrong, it will. And of course, whenever
you add any mechanical element to a play, you up the ante considerably.  Using
separate 2x2 slides, you've got the worry of them going out of synch with one
another, or of one machine breaking down. If you use older TDC equipment, by
virtue of BEING older, it tends to be even less reliable.

This is why, while the 3D purist in me insists that polarized 2x2 projection
would give the most wonderful color and the best 3D imagery by far, the realist
(lower case) in me says that anaglyph offers the least number of possible
problems.

I hope this is of some help to you. Good luck with the show!


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