P3D The Last Buffalo and Imax 3D

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

With the recent discussions about Imax 3D, perhaps I should file
my long-delayed (and long!) report on seeing "The Last Buffalo."
I don't recall seeing this film discussed on the list, and a
recent search of the archives turned up only one or two mentions
of it (as in "the 3D Imax films are:...").

Like Gabriel, I don't remember there being any narration in
the movie.  I'm not a movie expert at all, but I suppose I
would describe the film as a cross between a PBS/cable-type
nature show and some kind of artsy short.  Yes, really.  There
were scenes like animals hunting animals interspersed with scenes
of men making a metal buffalo skeleton from a combination of
metal bars and molten steel(?).  The nature shots were excellent--
as good as any I've seen  anywhere.  My wife said many of them
made her wonder how they possibly captured them on film.  The
rest of the scenes were also very well done.

We were at the Imax theatre in Galveston, which claims to be the
first Imax 3D theatre.  Viewing was with traditional polarized
glasses.  I was surprised to learn when we arrived that not all
of the shows are 3-D films (which I think has since been posted
here on the list.)  Perhaps 1 out of every 3 or 4 shows are 3D.

What I didn't like about the experience was that 90% to 95% of
the movie seemed to take place in front of the screen, instead
of at the screen or beyond.  Until the recent explanations here
on the list, I didn't know whether that was intentional, or a
result of poor projection.  IMO, there is definitely a time and
place for both "through-the-window" and "in-front-of-the-screen"
scenes.  An excellent example from "The Last Buffalo" is when
a worker cooled a red-hot piece of steel in water, creating a
lot of steam.  Having the steam rise up in space in the midst
of the audience was a great effect.  Perhaps a more controversial
example was when two workers poured molten steel out of a cauldron,
and it appeared to be pouring onto audience members in front of us.

But one of the great thrills of stereo is the realism, and I felt
that having infinity at the screen destroyed almost all sense of
realism in the film.  It has been mentioned on the list that "stereo"
is derived from a word meaning "solid."  Objects floating in space
in stereo projection tend to take on an ethereal, ghost-like quality,
not the solid quality of real objects.  Thus, the Imax 3D experience,
despite the enormous size and "windowless" presentation, was far more
an experience of watching a film than it was of being immersed in
reality.  So an absolutely terrible example of "in front of the 
screen" projection would be watching a mountain lion appear to leap
*through* the head of an audience member as it pursues its prey.  If
you somehow manage to lose yourself and become immersed in the action,
an absurd scene like that will jolt you right back to your theatre
seat in the blink of an eye.  A silly, annoying example would be
watching the little rodent nibble food just in front of my knee.

I did not experience any significant eyestrain viewing the film,
but it was definitely a workout for the eye muscles, switching
between viewing objects appearing almost in your lap, and objects
at the screen.  This makes me wonder about someone's recent comment
that sitting at the back is easier on the eyes.  With the stretch
effect, the objects at the lap of a viewer in the first row will
also appear to be at the lap of the viewer in the last row, will
they not?  So the viewers closer to the screen have much less
changing of accommodation (?) to do, as best as I can figure it.

I do recommend seeing Imax 3D for those who have not done so.  But
knowing now that it is the specific intent of Imax to present the
images in the lap of the audience instead of on the screen will
probably keep me from going back for very much more.

Paul Talbot


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