P3D Re: Montreal 3-D Festival Review

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Woods writes,

>Gabriel!!!  You have truly met the challenge - congratulations!

Ah shucks, your making me blush! ;-) Glad that you (and others
that have posted on-list and off) liked it! I did want to share
my enthusiam, and I'm happy that I managed that! :-) 

>> This is my first free evening in over two weeks.
>
>I know the feeling - except all the movies I saw started at 11pm (yes, pm).

Ouch! The ones in Montreal finished by that time. I don't think I could
have accomplished the "mission" if it started that late! I would have
been a zombie the next morning. Now if I was Dr.T,....that would have
been another matter. ;-)

>You have truly proven your worth as a true 3D nut!  (meant in an entirely
>affectionate way of course).  ;-)
>Thanks very much for a very interesting report - I read every word and
>am very pleased that you shared this experience with us.

Thank-you! :-)

>As Gabriel knows from my report in 1995 
> http://info.curtin.edu.au/~iwoodsa/3dmovie/reviews.html
>alignment was a big problem at the 3D festival in Perth too.
>However: I don't think it was a simple matter of just projector misalignment.
>It was definitely the case with some films that the alignment of the
>print changed from scene to scene.  Unfortunately there are so many places 
>in the film production chain in which misalignment could come into the print.
>I presume some movies were filmed on two strips and converted to a single 
>over/under or side-by-side print later.  

While watching some of the movies, I thought about what you said. I saw this
with the anaglyph prints (inconsistent alignment). I imagine it must be
similar
to what happened in the polaroid two strip to single strip conversions. I only
saw this with some of the opening titles (thank God!) of the polaroid films. 

>> My favorite movies overall were, 
>>
>> Metalstorm        (story fair, 3-D very good)
>> Comin' at Ya      (story good, 3-D very good)
>> Flesh for Frankenstein (story very good, 3-D good)
>> The Maze          (story very good, 3-D good)
>> Starchaser        (story very good, 3-D great for a cartoon)
>> It Came from Outer Space (story good, 3-D bad due to poor anaglyh print)
>> House of Wax      (story very good, 3-D very good)
>> Dial M for Murder (story very good, 3-D very good in the sense that it 
                      doesn't exploit it)

>From what aspect were these your favourites?  plot or use of 3D or both?

Tough question! I wondered that myself. Short answer would be, "All of the
above!" In some cases it was because of the 3-D and other cases simply
because of the story line (with the 3-D playing a supporting role). For
example, there wasn't much 3-D effect in Dial M for Murder. I realize it
wasn't the intention to exploit the 3-D effect, and I really don't mind
that it didn't. Talking with other people, the impression I got was that,
the more boring the movie was, the more the 3-D effect had to make up for
it (up to a point). I put the factors that I liked in the favorite movie
list above. 

>Thanks again for your report Gabriel - Do you mind if I include it on 
>my website with my report?

No I don't mind, and I would be truly honored! :-) Heck, I'll even
email you some pictures if you want, once I get them developed. 

Gabriel


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3415
***************************