Re: [photo-3d] Legitimizing 3D Movies

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

Unfortunately, you are quite right about the Vectograph (my favorite form).

My research has finally turned up the name of the fellow I talked to last
year.  He is Dr. Richard Goldberg at Technicolor.

Dr. Goldberg could possibly be called the inventor (and certainly the
developer) of the Technicolor motion picture application of the Vectograph.
He, along with Dr. Land of Polaroid (who invented the still vectograph) put
together the first original tests of the color motion picture Vectograph
during the 1953 era.

I spoke to him on the telephone yesterday, and his recollection of the
events of the time was surprisingly clear considering his age (he is still
employed by Technicolor, and he has an office there!).

I found it interesting, that to this day, he is not satisfied with the image
quality.  He feels that there is too much cross-talk between the left and
right eye images.

This was surprising to me, since I have a frame of the original 1953
vectograph film, clipped from one of the prints.  I had put it on a light
box and viewed it with polarizing glasses, and I thought it looked
beautiful.

Mentioning this to him, he said that it really must be projected on a large
screen to detect the "ghosting" he was referring to.

He did seem to feel that this might be corrected, but that it would cost
quite a bit of money to do so.  And, therein lies the problem.  Money.

To raise the capital to do so, would require a major production with lots of
prints.  The few prints required for typical theme park applications simply
wouldn't cut it.

This leaves theatrical.  No problem with the fact that nearly all theaters
use only one projector per screen, since this is all that is required for
the Vectograph.

The real problem is that there are very few silver screens left.  With the
advent of the multiplex, most theaters replaced their large silver screens
with smaller (often much smaller) white screens that depolarize.

No one seems to know just how many silver screens are left (I have talked to
the major theatrical screen manufacturers, and none of them seem to have the
vaguest idea).

Don Stewart (Founder of Stewart Filmscreen) told me that he and three others
put together a spin-off company to promote the Torus screen (dual curved)
which included a nondepolarizing silver surface, and that at one time a
couple of years ago, AMC told him that they wanted to put one silver screen
for 3-D in each of their multiplexes.  (Like, one auditorium out of every 9,
14, 16, 32, whatever, in each "theater" would be equipped to show 3-D).
I don't think that this has happened, at least not yet.

If anyone knows of any recent surveys of theater screens, identifying the
number of silver screens still extant, I for one would sincerely like to
know about it.  (So would Chris Condon of StereoVision and several others in
a position to make 3-D films).

To get back to Vectograph, the bottom line is that today, even if the
process were improved, there simply do not appear to be enough silver
screens left to support the number of prints necessary to underwrite the
costs of further Vectograph development.

Anyway, with so many white screens, and so few silver screens, it looks very
much like the only real contenders today are anaglyph and LCD.

Anaglyph, properly done (it almost always is not) can produce surprisingly
credible results.  But, to do so, the anaglyph colors should NEVER be
printed on the film (they almost always are).  Film dyes just cannot be
canceled by any known filters in the glasses.  The result is severe
ghosting, very diminished stereoscopic information, and generally sh**ty
results.

The way to do it correctly involves good clear conventional stereoscopic
images (the same images used for polarized projection are nearly ideal).

Then color filters (the same ones as in the glasses) are used in front of
the projector instead of polarizers.

We tested this several years ago (with drive-in theaters in mind).  Of
course, today drive-ins are nearly dead (there are very likely more silver
screens left than drive-in theaters).

Anyway, the tests worked remarkably well.  There was no more "ghosting" than
with polarized images (in this aspect, the anaglyph may have been even
better - we used some high contrast material to check this out).

Granted, there was the expected color distortion of color films.  But, the
3-D was very good, and ANY screen could be used.
And, of course, the glasses are cheap.

I will be the first to say, not the ideal answer.  But, perhaps an interim.

LCD.  Don't forget LCD.  Not today (you are quite correct about the cost.
Now.)  But, the population of LCD glasses is growing every day.   And, with
quantity, prices come down.  (They already have, and signs are they will
continue to do so).

Imax 3D uses LCD glasses in many (probably most) of their 3-D theaters now.
That they will eventually come down in cost sufficiently for general
theatrical use is quite likely.

Neither should either conventional polarized or Vectographs be buried yet.
If a major were to release a film with a box office potential like "Star
Wars" or "Titanic" in 3-D, you better believe that theaters would install
silver screens in a heartbeat.  That's show business.

All it takes is a producer with enough imagination and bankability to carry
it off.  Michael Todd did it with Todd-AO.  Lowell Thomas (and others) did
it with Cinerama.  Why not 3-D?

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert C Maxey" <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Legitimizing 3D Movies


> Here is what I think would be required to bring 3D "To a Theater Near
> You".
>
> 1. Forget about anaglyphic. No way will the public accept red/green/blue.
>
>
> 2. Forget LCD - not practical because of cost and the public is not going
> to accept a system that requires thought and extra equipment to view at
> home. Video rental is a major factor in movies today, and having to plug
> all this stuff together to watch a 2.00 rental is not acceptable.
>
> The system must also lend its self to television. Nothing special in
> viewers is allowed if it does not allow someone who does not have the
> required equipment to view the TV presentation. The FCC requires this. If
> you want it on TV, you need to release a version that is compatible with
> existing equipment. No, if originally in 3D it does not have to be
> presented in 3D, but you must be able to watch the program on unmodified
> receivers.
>
> 3. Forget the idea that new technology is required. Dual camera polarized
> stereo is ideal for many reasons, it is well understood and is cost
> efficient. Also forget Vectographs. Way to expensive and doubtful if it
> will appear any time soon. If the projectionist understands 3D
> projection, keeping strips synchronized is not a problem.
>
> 4. Forget trying to interest the public with past 3D movie efforts. For
> the most part, they are not what the public wants and will kill future
> efforts with 3D Movies.
>
> 5. Big Blockbusters are required. Let's face it, people today want
> today's kind of movies. Big budgets and special effects, dinosaurs,
> creatures from another planet. They want Terminator, they want Jurassic
> Park, Mission to Mars. They want big stars, well photographed and they
> need to forget the movie is in 3D.
>
> This means they need quality plots, and none of the past 3D silliness.
> Not everything needs to spill out on to the floor.
>
> 6. The public needs education as to what 3D is. The projectionists and
> theater owners need education about good and bad stereo. An
> infrastructure is also required. That means Training, projectors, good
> screens.
>
> 7. Professional equipment. There is no doubt that Panavision, Arri, and
> other professional manufacturers could develop dual strip stereo to a
> high degree. If producers want to shoot in stereo, it is no problem to
> develop the equipment. Stereo Photography is well understood.
>
> 8. Computers need to be developed further so the left and right eye views
> can be created from the models created. Remember, much of what we see
> these days is created in the computer. Not like the good old days where
> large sets, grand locations and models were used. We most likely have
> computer technology to do this, but time is money and generating
> artifacts in a computer takes lots of time to do.
>
> If the public can be shown great 3D, they will embrace it. These days, we
> all talk about VR and the public wants VR. 3D can give this to them to
> some degree. If it is well done, the public will demand 3D movies. If the
> public demands stereo, it will be used more and if it is used more, it
> will be further developed and on and on. I might also surmise that if we
> start seeing academy award winning movies that become blockbusters, there
> will most likely be still cameras developed. This is possible I think.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>