[photo-3d] Old 3D movies/Spacehunter

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

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ers" <ers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:57 AM
> Subject: [photo-3d] Old 3D movies/Spacehunter

Excerpts from "ers" post:

> > Essentially, the StereoVision (and there were other similar processes)
took > > a 35mm frame and split it horizontally. This creates the illusion
of a scope > > aspect film on the screen, but it's put up there with half
the visual
> > information (e.g. this is all that each eye can see when polarized and
> > projected). There's no way this will equal the appearance of a
> > real anamorphic print when projected. I've run 16mm prints thru an arc
> > projector to fill a large screen, and Spacehunter had that grainy, soft,
> > over enlarged look... It *is* like projecting a really wide 16mm movie

Please re-read my last post on this.  Spacehunter was not StereoVision, but
was printed down from twin-strip (the entire film), and was decidedly low
quality.  This is not to say that a reasonably good quality over-and-under
print could not be made from twin-strip; it is just that this particular
film was very poor.  It looked like it had gone through several generations
in post (which should not be necessary for the process).  I know that the
release print was soft and not a case of poorly focused projection, because
I could clearly see the grain, which was much sharper than the image.

It is not correct to state that StereoVision prints are put up there "with
half the visual information", since this would be the case only if you were
to view them with one eye closed.  There is absolutely no analogy to 16mm
(which is only about 1/6 the area of the StereoVision 35mm image), as the
full 35mm picture area is seen during the entire time that the projector
shutter is open.  A normal 16mm image measures only .404" x .295" (I don't
have the measurement of a Super 16mm image, but I seem to recall it being
about .560" x .295"; correct me if I am wrong), a flat 1.85:1 35mm image
measures .825" x .446", and a StereoVision 3-D image measures .980" x .364"
for EACH EYE VIEW, a TOTAL area of .980" x .728".

Of course, there are many variables that affect the final sharpness of a
particular film (flat or 3-D) of any size or type.  These include the
quality of the original photography, losses occurring during post production
(including the I.P.), the quality of the particular release print (which
often, contrary to lab claims, does not match the "answer print" that the
producer and director see), and the sharpness of projection focus (who among
us has not seen an out-of-focus projection of even a major motion picture,
and how many do not complain to the manager - I do).  In most (but certainly
not all) instances, StereoVision prints appear sharper than flat monoscopic
or anamorphic monoscopic shown at the same size on the same screen.

Sometimes the lower brightness level of a 3-D exhibition makes people feel
that the image is less sharp (the eye irises are wider open, and any visual
deficiency is amplified), but those with normal vision will attest that this
is not the case.

Certainly, twin-strip anamorphic would potentially be sharper yet.
Unfortunately, there was only one feature released in twin-strip anamorphic
(CinemaScope), "September Storm".

JR



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/