Re: [photo-3d] Luring Rupkalvis

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce, et al  ~

Yes.  Well, sort of.   All Imax films, which we have come to understand as
those films shown in Imax auditoriums, are produced by a variety of
different production companies, both under the umbrella of Imax and
independently.

Each of these are given "recommendations" as to the preferred methodology
for filming flat as well as 3-D in the Imax format.   Hugh Murray, himself a
producer as well as being an Imax executive (and, in my opinion, one of the
world's outstanding stereoscopic experts), told me of several instances in
several different "Imax" films where his sage advice was not followed, to
the detriment of the quality of the product.  I have seen each of those
films, and I would tend to agree with him wholeheartedly.

In the case of the Mark Twain film, I believe that we both felt that it
would have been better had the Imax dictum been followed more closely.  (How
many of you caught the image in that film that was in pseudo, as well as the
image that was part flat and part stereoscopic?)

It is sort of like the late stereographer Noel Archambault once told me,
(referring to producers, directors, d.p.s, operators): "you can tell them
what to do, but you can't beat them over the head".  All of us who have
served as consultants have learned this well.   Clients do not always follow
the advice of their consultants, usually to their (or more accurately, the
production's) detriment.

Anyway, if you would like to see an example of Hugh's expertise, check out
the new Imax 3D film, "Cyberworld 3D".   Although entirely CGI, it is
stunning.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Springsteen" <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Photo-3D Maillist" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 6:29 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Luring Rupkalvis


> John Rupkalvis said:
> >Picky?  Perhaps.  But, only when everyone can agree on the usage of the
> >various stereoscopic terms can we discuss these things with each other
> >without misunderstandings.
>
> In that case, welcome to Photo3D, John Rupkalvis! :-)
>
> We've had some terrific one-of-a-kind additions to the list this last year
> - Sheldon of the USA comes to mind, for example - and now Rupkalvis, who
> with long-time P3Ders Zone and Alderson form an Eternal Golden Braid in my
> mental pantheon of California stereo mavens.  I first saw those three
> names joined in my delightful 3D comics from the 80s.  Now John proves in
> a few postings what Ray said of him, that he's one of the unique resources
> in our 3D community.
>
> Having greased the skids, John, I have another question about Imax and
> Iwerks 3D, and 3D movies in general.  What kind of maximum deviations are
> tolerated by the best practitioners in the format - in other words what is
> the total depth generally considered permissable in commercial motion
> pictures?  An approximate total convergence range, from near point to
> infinity, of about 2 degrees has been put forward as the "limit" in
> still-3D projection, but I swear that many scenes in "Mark Twain's
> America" were well beyond that, without unreasonable strain.  Do the folks
> who shoot 3D movies worry about "limiting" depth in the scene?  Have I
> asked this querstion understandably? :-)
>
> Springsteen, 66044
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>