Re: [photo-3d] 3D movies why aren't there more?

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

The thought occurred to me that perhaps several people who may not be in the
movie business may not be aware that it no longer takes "two of everything".

Since about 1967, StereoVision camera and projection stereoscopic lenses
have been available which permit single camera and single projector
acquisition and projection of true stereoscopic 3-D movies.

These are available in several configurations and focal lengths for both
35mm and 70mm (65mm camera) applications.   These are being used up to the
present time, and are exceedingly simple to operate.  Recently we used them
for a shoot that involved both high angle shots from a "cherry picker" lift
and hand-held Steadicam shots.

Such shots would have been difficult or impossible with cumbersome dual
camera rigs, but were as easy to make as flat shots with the StereoVision
system.  These stereoscopic 3-D lenses are actually lighter in weight than
many professional telephoto and zoom lenses.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Vint" <dvint@xxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 2:38 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] 3D movies why aren't there more?


> No one seems to bring up the practicality issue of the whole 3d process
> when they talk about the movies. It takes 2 of everything just to get the
> same product. Now add to that how much fun we all have in just trying to
> get Realist slides mounted in a reasonable time from when they are
> processed, imagine the fun of having to keep 2 reels of film in synch as
> you work at an editing board to cut and splice a full production movie
> together!
>
> Studios are trying to find ways to make things cheaper not more
> expensively. I'm actually surprised to see the volume of IMAX films in 3d,
> but here there are different drivers. Here you have a theater and a format
> trying to compete in the same world we want to compete in with 3D.
>
> Here the IMAX world is trying to build a market for something different so
> they are offering marketing gimmicks (3d) to help offset the cost of the
> theater and their format. As it is the films are as expensive if not more
> than a regular show and they are shorter in length most of the time (at
> least the ones I have seen have only been about an hour in length). It was
> good to see the new Fantasia offered in  this format, but how many other
> made for film efforts have been done in this format? IMAX is expensive
> because of the size of the film and the larger cameras/projectors used in
> the process - has anyone else looked at that projector room in the Chicago
> Science museum!  I'm not sure why they ended up with this particular
design
> (other than for showing to the public) but those are some large spools of
film!
>
> I don't know of any figures, but I wonder how competitive the IMAX format
> and theaters are with the rest of the industry. Someone is backing the
> format and hoping for it to catch on. I know that George Lucas with the
> first Star Wars wanted to use IMAX for the film, but at that time there
> weren't enough theaters to make it practical. That has changed since 78?,
> but has it changed enough.
>
> Anyway the point is that not only is there a theater issue here, but there
> is a whole production factor that raises the cost, and currently the only
> driver for using 3d in movies has been to help the IMAX world these days.
>
> ..dan
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Danny Vint
> http://www.dvint.com
>
> Author: "SGML at Work"
> http://www.slip.net/~dvint/pubs/sgmlatwork.shtml
>  mailto:dvint@xxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>