Re: [photo-3d] Re: 2D into 3D END OF STEREO

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

Yes, "Dial M..." certainly was good.

But, did you ever see the stereoscopic version of "Kiss Me Kate"?     I
regard that as possibly the best of the 3-D movies of that era.

I highly would recommend that anyone who has not seen it do so if they ever
get the opportunity.  To me, it shows what 3-D movies can be and should be.

Any other opinions from those of you fortunate to have seen it?

By the way, if anyone knows of any alternate field video transfer of this
film, I would really like to buy a copy.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "E R Swanson" <ers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:09 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: 2D into 3D END OF STEREO


>
> Bob Maxey is bang on with his assessment of 3D. I think the conversion
> process is just around the corner, but the audience is the key factor for
> it being a viable product. As long as you have to use liquid crystal
> shuttering glasses, or even polaroid glasses it will remain a gimmick as
> far as movies go. Theaters even resisted setting up for doing the recent
> films like Spacehunter or Jaws 3D, because a reflective screen is
> necessary. There will have to be a simple, television-based system that
> doesn't require wearing glasses, and that is compatable with standard tv.
>
> I wear virtual i/o glasses for 3D movies, but most people wouldn't put up
> with that massive chunk of headgear.
>
> It *is* a small, internally focused community, and the track record for 3D
> movies ranges from really bad to mediocre-- with the possible exception of
> Dial M for Murder which Hitchcock made in 3D under studio duress.
>
> Elliott
>
>
>
>
>