Well here I sit blowing cob-webs off an old idea I had over 15 years ago.
It's nothing new to cinema, the story started in the 1940s but who's tried
it or is doing it now.
I recently (and perhaps sadly for my age) went to see "Spy Kids 3D" and it
was the first time I'd seen 3D on a cinema screen (some things take a little
longer).
Well it got me thinking about making movies in 3D again. Back in the late
80s I was experimenting with Black & White 3D and the initial tests were
successful. I was trying to film it with only ONE LENS- GAAAAAAASSSSSPP-
Surely two lenses are needed I hear you cry. Well anyone with a Vivitar Qdos
Lens would know different. (yes- I have one of them too)
Qdos had achieved exactly what I was trying to do some years before it. Lack
of resources and money meant I soon threw it aside.
However the Qdos answered some questions as to the "How to do" bit. All I
needed was a camera of the right type. Silly me! I'd had the right type of
camera for the last five years and only now did it dawn on me. So I gave
it a try- the viewfinder test looked okay and yesterday I took a few shots.
Now all that remains is to finish the rest of the stock and have it processed.
I'll keep you posted.
P.S. I went to see Spy Kids 3D- TWICE!
Who's Tried 3 D Movies Making
-
Dave Watterson
Re: Who's Tried 3 D Movies Making
I have not made 3D films, but have watched a few, ranging from 8mm copies
of
red/green style horror movies ... was it a version of 'House of Wax'??? ...
which had a ping-pong sequence - via a 35mm polarised colour version of 'Kiss
Me
Kate' at the National Film Theatre with Howard Keel appearing half way up
the
auditorium ... and most recently in theme parks like Disneyworld.
Ages ago a great Scottish amateur movie maker, Ron Miller, who was also an
optician, told me that a large proportion of the population cannot see in
3D
anyway so no cinema system could be universally effective. He would have
loved
to make some of his action adventures in 3D, I suspect.
If you use a single lens system does that mean you finish up with two portrait
format pictures side by side on the frame, or two horizontal ones each taking
up half the frame one above the other?
Finally - not 3D but an anamorphic wide screen note ... Tony Shapps latest
news
is that Isco have devised a system for flipping an anamorphic lens in front
of
the lens of video projectors. This concept needs some explaining to many
home theatre people who lack a cine background. There are some decent explanations
on the home theatre forum. Reading them did make me feel smug because for
once
I not only understood one of the technicalities they discuss ... I was ahead
of
them! Usually I am struggling to understand.
Dave (Dumbo) Watterson Dave (Dumbo) Watterson
of
red/green style horror movies ... was it a version of 'House of Wax'??? ...
which had a ping-pong sequence - via a 35mm polarised colour version of 'Kiss
Me
Kate' at the National Film Theatre with Howard Keel appearing half way up
the
auditorium ... and most recently in theme parks like Disneyworld.
Ages ago a great Scottish amateur movie maker, Ron Miller, who was also an
optician, told me that a large proportion of the population cannot see in
3D
anyway so no cinema system could be universally effective. He would have
loved
to make some of his action adventures in 3D, I suspect.
If you use a single lens system does that mean you finish up with two portrait
format pictures side by side on the frame, or two horizontal ones each taking
up half the frame one above the other?
Finally - not 3D but an anamorphic wide screen note ... Tony Shapps latest
news
is that Isco have devised a system for flipping an anamorphic lens in front
of
the lens of video projectors. This concept needs some explaining to many
home theatre people who lack a cine background. There are some decent explanations
on the home theatre forum. Reading them did make me feel smug because for
once
I not only understood one of the technicalities they discuss ... I was ahead
of
them! Usually I am struggling to understand.
Dave (Dumbo) Watterson Dave (Dumbo) Watterson
-
AN
Re: Who's Tried 3 D Movies Making
"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
he had in the waxworks, and 'items' wizzed passed the 3D camera, to great
effect in the audience! But as the film was in colour I believe one
had to wear polarized specs, not red/green ones.
Albert...going on green.
Yes it was "House of Wax" with Vincent Price. Also remember the fightI have not made 3D films, but have watched a few, ranging from 8mm copies
of
red/green style horror movies ... was it a version of 'House of Wax'???
...
which had a ping-pong sequence -
he had in the waxworks, and 'items' wizzed passed the 3D camera, to great
effect in the audience! But as the film was in colour I believe one
had to wear polarized specs, not red/green ones.
Albert...going on green.
-
tom hardwick
Re: Who's Tried 3 D Movies Making
It might be worth contacting the Widescreen Centre http://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk
as they sell a lot of 3D equipment. I've shot with two camcorders fitted
to the one L bracket, with their zoom lenses set up to give the same image
at 3 metres. If you start the two cameras with the same remote control you
can get quite accurate sync, and with one viewfinder to each of your eyes
a trip around your house can look quite spectacular.
tom.
as they sell a lot of 3D equipment. I've shot with two camcorders fitted
to the one L bracket, with their zoom lenses set up to give the same image
at 3 metres. If you start the two cameras with the same remote control you
can get quite accurate sync, and with one viewfinder to each of your eyes
a trip around your house can look quite spectacular.
tom.
-
Cinema For Thurso Group
Re: Who's Tried 3 D Movies Making
My grandfather was also an optician and think it's from him that I have an
interest in optical things. I remember seeing a documentary on 3D when I
was young and in it they did mention the human limitations on 3D.
In our natural sight we can't see 3D past 150ft- it's our brains that fill
it in as we move using our memory of previous experiece- i.e. remembering
that we can move around an object we assume we can do it all the time. But
of course the eye can be deceived- a life size 2D image of a house viewed
from an appropriate angle from say half a mile will appear to be 3D because
our brains assumes it is because it's a house.
I'm going into this 3D with my eyes open- I'm one of these people who can't
see those jumbled up magic pictures and as for photos of craters or canions,
well I have to turn them upside down before my eyes can get the light angles
sorted out. Where you might see a ridge and hole I see a ditch and mound!
This is a single lens system that does not produce two parallel images. What
I should end up with is singular color image plus two extra images- one red,
one blue. To view requires corresponding Red/Blue glasses. See "Spy Kids
3D" without glasses, that's how the image should look on film.
For every gain there is a loss and so here would be the rub. Because the
film contains multipul images on the one frame as the viewers' eyes are looking
apart at separate pictures the overall quality is reduced not to mention
that it requires much more light in filming and projection. So although it's
exciting stuff doing 3D remember the capabilities of your projection equipment-
Daylight filming and 200/250 watts screening at 15ft anamorphic.
And so onto anamorphic- I've always found it annoying that a "cinema ratio"
anamorphic images on DVD are NOT 2X stretch but only 1.5. Most unhelpful
because as much as Isco made 1.5 lenses years ago I've viewed 9 lenses, bought
six and not caught up with the 3 that were 1.5. This type of lens is hard
to come by but that will thankfully change at last. Of course DVD formating
is designed for wide-screen TV which is not as wide as cinema screens so
it will be some time yet before a sensible standard format will exist across
the board between film and video.
All CFT material is filmed or videoed on 2X anamorphic (including 3D) so
our video projector is already kitted with that type of lens but our DVDs
are overstretched at the moment. In fact we had purposely held off buying
LCD projection until the technology came up to a suitable standard for anamorphics.
It's ironic that so many who went to video or whom have simply never used
cine are now having to learn from those of us who use the "out-of-date" format
called Super 8mm which is no longer availble (if you believe some home entertainment
dealers). Feels good doesn't it! Visit the pro8mm.com site and learn how
alive and kicking Super 8mm is. Kodak stock alone has increased from 4 to
8 stock types plus 2 types from Fuji, 5 from Pro8mm and that lovely monochrome
Quarz film from Russia with love! WOW that's 16 different stocks for Super
8mm movie making and you can put any one of them in your camera- can't do
that with video tape!
Cinema For Thurso Group- loving film, appreciating video
interest in optical things. I remember seeing a documentary on 3D when I
was young and in it they did mention the human limitations on 3D.
In our natural sight we can't see 3D past 150ft- it's our brains that fill
it in as we move using our memory of previous experiece- i.e. remembering
that we can move around an object we assume we can do it all the time. But
of course the eye can be deceived- a life size 2D image of a house viewed
from an appropriate angle from say half a mile will appear to be 3D because
our brains assumes it is because it's a house.
I'm going into this 3D with my eyes open- I'm one of these people who can't
see those jumbled up magic pictures and as for photos of craters or canions,
well I have to turn them upside down before my eyes can get the light angles
sorted out. Where you might see a ridge and hole I see a ditch and mound!
This is a single lens system that does not produce two parallel images. What
I should end up with is singular color image plus two extra images- one red,
one blue. To view requires corresponding Red/Blue glasses. See "Spy Kids
3D" without glasses, that's how the image should look on film.
For every gain there is a loss and so here would be the rub. Because the
film contains multipul images on the one frame as the viewers' eyes are looking
apart at separate pictures the overall quality is reduced not to mention
that it requires much more light in filming and projection. So although it's
exciting stuff doing 3D remember the capabilities of your projection equipment-
Daylight filming and 200/250 watts screening at 15ft anamorphic.
And so onto anamorphic- I've always found it annoying that a "cinema ratio"
anamorphic images on DVD are NOT 2X stretch but only 1.5. Most unhelpful
because as much as Isco made 1.5 lenses years ago I've viewed 9 lenses, bought
six and not caught up with the 3 that were 1.5. This type of lens is hard
to come by but that will thankfully change at last. Of course DVD formating
is designed for wide-screen TV which is not as wide as cinema screens so
it will be some time yet before a sensible standard format will exist across
the board between film and video.
All CFT material is filmed or videoed on 2X anamorphic (including 3D) so
our video projector is already kitted with that type of lens but our DVDs
are overstretched at the moment. In fact we had purposely held off buying
LCD projection until the technology came up to a suitable standard for anamorphics.
It's ironic that so many who went to video or whom have simply never used
cine are now having to learn from those of us who use the "out-of-date" format
called Super 8mm which is no longer availble (if you believe some home entertainment
dealers). Feels good doesn't it! Visit the pro8mm.com site and learn how
alive and kicking Super 8mm is. Kodak stock alone has increased from 4 to
8 stock types plus 2 types from Fuji, 5 from Pro8mm and that lovely monochrome
Quarz film from Russia with love! WOW that's 16 different stocks for Super
8mm movie making and you can put any one of them in your camera- can't do
that with video tape!
Cinema For Thurso Group- loving film, appreciating video