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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Ghost of the Abyss--update? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Ghost of the Abyss--update? Jeff Joseph Expert Film Handler Posts: 131 From: Palmdale, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 04-13-2003 09:12 PM                        So has anyone seen this in 35mm over/under (not Imax) and if so, how does it look? Focus? 3-D alignment OK? Jeff  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-13-2003 09:16 PM                     Jeff, Are you sure they are over and under??? As Richard Fowler already said in another thread already running about this film...... "The specially outfitted 35mm cinemas will be dual machine. Richard Fowler Kinoton America Inc." So are there any over and under prints out there????? Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-13-2003 09:52 PM                    I saw it in IMAX...er...make that I-Justadequate...Friday night. It's pretty cool to visit the old girl again and it's a good looking picture but in terms of pure image quality the true IMAX 2D trailer I saw ahead of it easily blew it away. FWIW the HD video footage doesn't fill the IMAX frame height so I guess the 1.78 AR has been retained although someone with access to the print would have to verify the precise shape of what's on there. But I'd like to know about the 35mm version too.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-13-2003 10:01 PM                     The AR on the Imax screen is approximately 1.75 or 1.78. It looks a lot better than Episode II, but still looks like video to me.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 04-13-2003 10:03 PM                     Months ago some of the preliminary information said it to be presented with dual projection ( for special venue ) but because of practical reasons it is over and under format.....now to get the shoe leather out of my mouth Richard Fowler Kinoton America Inc.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-13-2003 10:28 PM                    Wow. If all they're doing is strapping on a lens unit and hanging a silver screen it's going to really suck. Wouldn't you have to just about double the lamp output (whether wattage or efficiency or some of both) to do it right? I wonder if this was done.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-13-2003 10:50 PM                        After enjoying almost all of the 3-D films of the fifties, I fell in love with the process and today I have the same fondness for the process in IMAX and the ones used in theme parks because they all use dual projection as the original films I saw when I was young. Although I was not impressed with the process, I have also made an effort to see almost all of the over/under 3-D films such as "FRIDAY THE 13th- 3D", "JAWS 3-D", and several others and in my opinion they all were bad. Beside a dark picture caused by the use of polaroid glasses and a single lamphouse, the picture did not have the same realsitic effect as dual projection 3-D. I am very pleased that Honolulu's only showing of "THE GHOST OF THE ABYSS" is now playing in IMAX 3-D at Consolidated's (Pacific) Waikiki IMAX. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 04-13-2003 11:04 PM                    To me that is where 3-D needs to remain, in the large format world.3-D had its day in 35 MM twice and that's enough. I have never seen a dual projection 35 MM set up so I take your word Claude that it looked good. I have seen the large format Imax 3-D presentations and I enjoyed those. The 3-D of the early 80's wasn't that good. The biggest problem was to much jumping around of the image throwing off the 3-D effect to the point of giving one headaches and eye strains.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-14-2003 12:54 AM                     1) Could someone please explain how the "Over-Under" process works? 2) Does anyone know if disney is going to take back the lenses and screens once the movie has finished its run?  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 01:02 AM                     If it is the 35mm over/under 3D I might be thinking about, I have one comment: Poorly lit screen where the image was a little better than a 16mm presentation. For what it is worth: When we ran "Mad Max," we had the option to return the lens after use, as long as we didn't burn it up.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-14-2003 01:04 AM                        Darryl, Yes, dual projection 3-D in 35mm had the same wonderful effects as the large format versions and it was unfortunate that the process did last very long. After seeing the dual projection version of "HOUSE OF WAX" I saw a single projection 3-D version many years later and it was terrible! In dual projection, the ball from the paddle board was 'in your face' almost forcing you to blink or duck. In the single projection version, the illusion was not there at all. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Peter Kerchinsky Master Film Handler Posts: 326 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-14-2003 04:20 AM                     Paul Was "Mad Max" in 3D? That's news to me. We ran a few of the over/under 3D prints years back and I agree, they were somewhat terrible. I believe the lens came from an outfit called Stereovision. Their print of House of Wax was side by side, but most of their prints were A/B.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 04-14-2003 09:14 AM                    Paul, Were you thinking of Metalstorm I think one problem with the House of Wax could have been in the transfer of images to one strip of film. In the process some of the image could have been lost therefor not producing the same 3-D effect that the dual projection image produced.  |  IP: Logged Pete Lawrence Expert Film Handler Posts: 192 From: Middleburg, PA Registered: Aug 1999 posted 04-14-2003 10:37 AM                     As a partial answer to Mike's question about the over-under process, here is an example from an animated 3D film called Starchaser. The left eye and right eye images fill the standard frame, one above the other. Hence the name over-under. A combination prism/ polarizer would be attached to your normal flat lens and converge the two images into one on screen. I don't remember which image is for which eye. I should add the edges of the film aren't really yellow. I had to tweak the image to make the sprocket holes visible.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2003 12:23 PM                     Peter and Darryl, I thought it was Mad Max. It was about mid-1983, but sometimes I get titles confused. Whatever it was, we ran it for about two weeks before we got rid of it. The thing I remember was we ruined the print. The runner plate of the PRO-35 trap was bent and came in contact with the film and scratched it very badly on the base side.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.