Anaglyph 3D

[P3D Marvin Jones <Campfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I recently wrote a note to the group commenting on the fact that in
anaglyph presentations the red lens is traditionally and almost universally
placed on the left eye, and wondering whether there was any reason other
than the fact that it was "different" that several people had commented
that it didn't look "quite right" when the colors are reversed. I seem to
have run afoul of Dan Symmes, unquestionably one of the world's foremost
authorities on 3D, who prefers the red/right configuration, responded with
a personal E-mail questioning both my facts and my character for making
such a comment. To further discussion, I am reproducing his entire letter,
intersperced with my replies below:

> Ask around. There is NO ONE on Earth that knows 3D film and video
> history better than I. In many cases, I contributed to that history.
> (That's all the horn blowing I'll do)

I certainly don't need to be told of your expertise--it's why I came to you
when I was trying to get a 3D movie made when I was at Warner Brothers
about 15 years ago. I was not aware of your involvement in the upcoming
network 3D programs, which will hopefully make some difference. All too
many 3D TV episodes have been like the Married With Children debacle--100%
hype with 0% delivery. I was really offended by the idea inherent in that
broadcast  that all 3D amounts to is putting goofy glasses on a bunch of
ignorant doofuses and telling them they are seeing something special, even
though they are not. All too much 3D TV begins with this premise.

> "99% of all anaglyphs are red/left" is silly. I have an anaglyph
> collection ranging back to the 19th century, and this is not true. The
> fact is, orientation has HISTORICALLY been random - people didn't know
> any better.

Here I would take exception to your comments, certainly as they refer to
"modern" 3D. I've been an extremely active and avid 3D enthusiast since the
first 3D publications and movies of the early '50s, and in that nearly half
a century just about the only anaglyph 3D I can ever remember seeing with
the red on the right are your own video projects and those Universal-8
films. When the Universal-8 films were screened recently at a club meeting
there were at least 15 or 20 people present, each with anaglyph glasses
from some different promotion, and every single one of them had to hold
their glasses backwards to see the movie. Perhaps if you go back to the
'20s or '30s the color orientation is random, but within the lifetime of
almost anybody watching 3D today, red/left has been an almost universal (no
pun intended) standard.

And I think that standards--even entirely arbitrary ones--are good.
Polaroid projection is standardized. Except for a couple of short-lived
home movie systems, all polaroid projection from the '50s to today could be
viewed through a single pair of glasses. For a four-eyes like me, it's
useful to know that I can use my comfy clip-on glasses whether I'm watching
a revival of House of Wax, a slide presentation at the club, a screening of
Marvin the Martian, or even a video projection with the new VR equipment.

> As for the Universal titles, look close. The anaglyph colors chosen by
> Universal were red and GREEN! This combination impresses one with a
> sickly yellow image (red and green additive), which I find unacceptable.
> 
> We use (as many) CYAN vs. green. As cyan contains blue and green, the
> mind GENERALLY sees a more neutral image. If one's eyes are "balanced"
> (many are not), a B&W anaglyph will look basically B&W. More "natural"
> as you put it, assuming an anaglyph can BE natural.

This may account for the fact that several people watching the Universal-8
screening found the colors unusual, although I think almost everybody was
using standard red/blue glasses to view it. In any case, everybody had the
problem of having to hold their glasses "backwards" from the normal
red/left.

> As for your last line - I suspect "we" is a minority of 3D "fans" that
> simply like status quo. In commercial 3D, I strongly believe majority
> satisfaction is the rule. I've spent many years and millions of dollars
> improving the satisfaction factor. If I am shown superior anaglyph TV,
> I'll bow to it. As of this date . . .

I don't think "status quo" (by which you clearly imply effete snobbery) has
anything to do with it. I was merely commenting that several people who
have viewed a lot of anaglyph 3D have commented, most independently of the
others, that it doesn't look quite "right" to them when the red is on the
right. The effect is somehow different. Perhaps that is because they are
used to the red being on the left (where it has been 99% of the time in the
last 50 years, your claim to the contrary). Perhaps there is something
about our perception that finds it more comfortable there. Perhaps there is
nothing to any of it. Since your millions of dollars of research indicates
to you that everyone in America, with the exception of a tiny band of
stuck-up 3D snobs mindlessly clinging to a half-century of tradition, find
so much more satisfaction with the red lens on the right, so be it. At
least you are getting it on the air.


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