Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shark Boy/Lava Girl glasses -> OT argument about what movies were released anaglyph

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Shark Boy/Lava Girl glasses -> OT argument about what movies were released anaglyph (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Shark Boy/Lava Girl glasses -> OT argument about what movies were released anaglyph

Jeff Joseph
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 06-06-2005 05:35 PM

Has anyone seen the glasses being sent out for Shark Boy/Lava Girl? Are they "red/left eye" (like Spy Kids 3-D was) or are they red/right eye?

Thanks,

Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions

[ 06-13-2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-06-2005 06:01 PM

Jeff

They are red/left and blue/right style.

I've been running it for the last few weeks.

There are two different types of glasses frames. One for Shark Boy and one for Lava Girl.

[ 06-10-2005, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]

| IP: Logged

Jeff Joseph
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 06-06-2005 06:46 PM

Interesting. The ad in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times showed the glasses... and they were red/right, not red/left. I presume the artwork in the ad is wrong, that's all.

Jeff

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-10-2005 11:46 AM

In his review of "Shark Boy...", Roger Ebert goes on at great length to criticize the 3D effect, or lack thereof. He also says the darkly-tinted glasses basically ruin what is probably a very good-looking film (he also incorrectly refers to them as "polarizing"). Anyway, his summation is "The DVD will probably look great".

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 06-10-2005 06:00 PM

I have not watched the entire film, but last night I sat in for about 20 min. I tried a couple different pairs of glasses and each time the red/left eye seemed darker to me than I remember from previous red/blue 3D films that I've seen. The same thing Ebert was complaining about maybe?

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-10-2005 06:17 PM

Here's some of what he said.

quote:
...delightful children's tale that is spoiled by a disastrous decision to film most of it in lousy 3-D... looks more like 1-D to me, removing the brightness and life of the movie's colors and replacing them with a drab, listless palette, which is about as exciting as looking at a 3-D bowl of oatmeal... the left lens is such a dark red that the whole movie seems seen through a glass, darkly... Because the real world scenes are in 2-D and the dream and fantasy scenes are in 3-D, we get an idea of what the movie would have looked like without the unnecessary dimension. Signs flash on the screen to tell us when to put on and take off our polarizing glasses, and I felt regret every time I had to shut out those colorful images and return to the dim and dreary 3-D world. On DVD, this is going to be a great-looking movie.

Full Review

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-10-2005 06:21 PM

I can't see how anyone can enjoy a 3-D movie when the colors are all screwed up by the red/blue lenses. In theme park 3D rides like "Spider-Man" at Universal Islands of Adventure, the lenses are polarized, not colored, and don't screw up the colors. Why isn't this process used for theatrical?

I know, I know....$$$$$, right?

But I'll bet the DVD is going to come with the same kind of crappy glasses.

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 06-10-2005 06:37 PM

$$$$$ for silver screens, polarized lens kits out of registration by untrained projectionists...being fed by too little lamphouse wattage [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-10-2005 09:48 PM

The Red/Blue method sucks ass. It's only mildly amusing for black and white 3D movies from the 1950's and actually works better for black and white 3D comic book artwork.

That would figure cost cutting baloney is responsible for derailing a better 3D method. The polarizing method worked pretty well. Even though the movie kind of sucked, I still prize my old 3D glasses from "Friday the 13th Part III in 3D." It was a pretty startling experience to watch Jason grab some dude and squeeze the guy's skull so his eyeballs would fly out at you. The effect would have probably been very lame in that stupid red/blue method.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-10-2005 10:21 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Red/Blue method sucks ass.

Except when I do it for general photography (and I do it in color).

Also, the "method" is called ANALGLYPH, as it is based on the anus or something. Or maybe because it sucks ass?

| IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: California, U.S.A.
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-11-2005 12:46 PM

Anyone else have logistal nightmares with GETTING the glasses?

Our print delivered on Tuesday along with a memo stating that we should have the glasses by Wednesday and if not to call Delux. Which I did on Wednesday night, they said a case of 2000 would arrive the next day.
Thursday night comes and they're still not there, so I call ETS (whom the memo says to contact if I've not received them by Thursday).
The rep says, 2000, no problem, I'll call you back in 10 minutes.
No call. Not on my cell or the office line.
So I call back again and get transfered to a voicemail with no outgoing message.
After yet another call, this time from our GM we got another call back, this time to my cell phone for no apparant reason, and they guaranteed they'd be at the theater at 10:00AM.
The glasses showed up at 11:00AM and we were fine.
Around 2:00PM another 4000 glasses showed up.

And this movie is stupid!

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-11-2005 01:33 PM

The Anaglyph process works best with two colors which are negative opposites. Red and Cyan for instance. With reasonably inexpensive filter lenses, the Cyan image appears black when viewed through the Red lens but appears non existant through the Cyan lens. The Red image looks Black through the Cyan lens but does not appear in the Red lens. Other colors may also work, Green and Magenta for example. Blue and Yellow are also possible but the Yellow image has little contrast on its own. Persons with color blindness are excluded from enjoying this process but can get steret vision with the polarized method of 3D.

The metallic screen with polarized light is best as it allows full color images but the process requires special equipment in the projector, screen and expensive polaroid viewing lenses.
KEN

| IP: Logged

Pete Apruzzese
Film Handler

Posts: 13
From: Mountain Lakes, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 06-13-2005 10:35 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's only mildly amusing for black and white 3D movies from the 1950's and actually works better for black and white 3D comic book artwork.

Anaglyph was *never* used on the black & white (or color) 3-D feature films of the 1950s during their initial release. All of the features of that era were done utilizing polarized double-system projection.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 06-13-2005 12:38 PM

quote: Pete Apruzzese
All of the features of that era were done utilizing polarized double-system projection.

Though quite a few were later re-released in the anaglyph process, and there are probably more people around today who've seen them in that form than have seen the original.

At its best anaglyph can work very well for black and white still photographic prints, where you are only looking at them for a few seconds, but i've never found it very good with moving pictures. One of the biggest problems is that the glasses are usually absolutely terrible; they look like they've been made out of bits of discarded stage lighting gel, anything of roughly the right colour, and sometimes not even a uniform colour, with light streaks and/or spots. the best ones I've seen were the ones made for the IMAX film 'We Are Born of Stars', I think that was the titls.

The National Film Theatre in London used to make a reasonable job of 3-D presentation in the days when they did 3-D festivals every couple of years or so. These usually included all of the main formats; Polorised, in two strip, over and under and side by side anamorphic single strip versions, and anaglyph. There was one thing they did to spoil it however; they used the usual cadboard disposable glases, but always collected them in for re-use, so that by the end of the festival they were in a pretty bad state. I'm also not sure that it was very hygenic, given that they couldn't be washed. Why they didn't use them just once, and charge a higher ticket price to cover the cost, I don't know. I don't think they've done any 3-D there for several years now.

| IP: Logged

Jeff Joseph
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 06-13-2005 01:04 PM

Only TWO features were reissued in anaglyphic: Creature From the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space.

In the 1970s, a few porno films were released anaglyphic as well.

NO other "classic" 1950s 3-D features were ever released in that format.

Jeff

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.