3-D

[RobertB]

I know, but that's the way it's always played for me. The actual 3-d with the glasses gives me such a headache that I'd rather watch the blurry, doubled image than put the glasses back on. Personal quirk, I guess? I remember watching Starchaser that way for what seemed like forever.

For only $8 you can have a 3D film in amazing 2D! I'm just worried the film will become even darker.

The latest 3D film i've seen in the cinema was Prometheus. I went with four friends, and nobody wanted it in 3D, so we went to a 2D screening. My new TV and my blu-ray player can do 3D, but I haven't bought any glasses. I agree with Roger Ryan. 10 minutes is fun, but more than that I find distracting. Just imagine Ordet in 3D...

[david hare]

You're all mad.

I would LOVE to have seen Dreyer and other masters working in 3D. The concept of Gertrud or Ordet in 3D is completely thrilling to me.

I think the work done by Hitch, de Toth, Sirk and Farrow in the 53 "golden Age" is enough to demonstrate the fantastic possibilities of the format. The only problem ever was and still is the physical limitations of light reduction and ghosting associated with the glasses and the frame unpacking and formerly the anaglyptic method. Especially for BD, there is the additional failure of the BD Association to formalize minimum paramaters or technical standards for 3D discs, especially in regard to brightness level reduction and potential compensation. Instead we have a mixture of very good to very bad trasnfers.

[jindianajonz]

Ok, I realize I run the risking of losing what little credibility I may have and getting boo'ed off the forum just by asking, but...

What 3D glasses to you guys recommend? I just bought a 60" ST50 based of recommendations here and elsewhere, and figure at some point I will at least give 3D a shot (I hear Hugo is great, and would like to watch Pina in 3D since they are offering it). I don't plan on using them extensively, so cost is definitely a consideration, but I heard that some of the cheaper glasses (like the $20 Samsung ones) aren't terribly comfortable. Does anyone have any input on this?

I also have a friend who said that he just periodically steals them from theatres and they work just fine with his TV. Any thoughts on this, from both a moral and a technical standpoint? If stealing glasses costs the theatre owners money, I would avoid it, but if it comes out of the pocket of the studios that are charging $16 a ticket for a film that was digitally converted to 3D... well, my morals may be a little more relaxed in that situation...

[Emak-Bakia]

I don't have anything to say about your technical questions since I don’t have a 3D TV, but I see nothing morally wrong with taking the glasses at the theater. Assuming you’re talking about the standard polarized glasses, then I don’t even think you can call that stealing. When you buy the ticket and get the glasses, it’s always been my understanding that the glasses are yours to keep. Of course, theaters prefer that viewers return the glasses for re-use, but this is not required at any theater to which I’ve been.

[MichaelB]

I don't have anything to say about your technical questions since I don’t have a 3D TV, but I see nothing morally wrong with taking the glasses at the theater. Assuming you’re talking about the standard polarized glasses, then I don’t even think you can call that stealing. When you buy the ticket and get the glasses, it’s always been my understanding that the glasses are yours to keep. Of course, theaters prefer that viewers return the glasses for re-use, but this is not required at any theater to which I’ve been.

It does rather depend on the cinema, though. My local has rather nice plastic glasses that are clearly worth more than the surcharge - you even get a choice of sizes, including ones that fit over existing specs. And you can't walk off with them, because there's a supermarket-style security gate at the exit.

[Roger Ryan]

Keep in mind that about half of the 3-D televisions on the market require "shutter lens" glasses as opposed to the polarized glasses used in cinemas. "Shutter lens" glasses are more expensive, but provide better resolution and brightness.

[MichaelB]

Keep in mind that about half of the 3-D televisions on the market require "shutter lens" glasses as opposed to the polarized glasses used in cinemas. "Shutter lens" glasses are more expensive, but provide better resolution and brightness.

...because there's no light-absorbing polarising filter: you're effectively looking through clear specs.

[captveg]

I got a new 3D projector a few weeks back and have the following titles:

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Coraline (2009)
Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
Dial M for Murder (1954)
Hugo (2011)
Prometheus (2012)

I also have Life of Pi (2012) on pre-order

So far, I'm very happy with it. I've watched Dial M and I plan to check out Creature within the next week or so.

I've also used it for 3D gaming for titles like Assassin's Creed III, and that's been fairly impressive.

In any case, I think I use it enough for my purposes to justify the initial cost.

[captveg]

What 3D glasses to you guys recommend? I just bought a 60" ST50 based of recommendations here and elsewhere, and figure at some point I will at least give 3D a shot (I hear Hugo is great, and would like to watch Pina in 3D since they are offering it). I don't plan on using them extensively, so cost is definitely a consideration, but I heard that some of the cheaper glasses (like the $20 Samsung ones) aren't terribly comfortable. Does anyone have any input on this?

If you're looking for quality & comfort and have DLP-Link 3D, go with the True Depth 3D rechargeable glasses. They run about $60 each.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... 3D+Glasses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Adam Grikepelis]

What 3D glasses to you guys recommend? I just bought a 60" ST50 based of recommendations here and elsewhere, and figure at some point I will at least give 3D a shot (I hear Hugo is great, and would like to watch Pina in 3D since they are offering it). I don't plan on using them extensively, so cost is definitely a consideration, but I heard that some of the cheaper glasses (like the $20 Samsung ones) aren't terribly comfortable. Does anyone have any input on this?

I also have a friend who said that he just periodically steals them from theatres and they work just fine with his TV. Any thoughts on this, from both a moral and a technical standpoint?

The ST50 requires active shutter lenses, so I don't think using glasses from a 3D cinema will do you much good, regardless of how you come by them.

In Australia (at least), the TV comes with a free pair, so I don't really have any particular suggestions, though as far as I know, the ST50 uses a 3D system standard now used by several companies, so so long as you check the manual to make sure what specific type of 3D glasses you need for the TV, that should at least give you a starting point.
In the Australian manual it says to look for the "Full HD 3D" glasses logo, along with the RF mark, meaning they use Bluetooth to make the connection to the TV.

[jindianajonz]

The ST50 requires active shutter lenses, so I don't think using glasses from a 3D cinema will do you much good, regardless of how you come by them.

In Australia (at least), the TV comes with a free pair, so I don't really have any particular suggestions, though as far as I know, the ST50 uses a 3D system standard now used by several companies, so so long as you check the manual to make sure what specific type of 3D glasses you need for the TV, that should at least give you a starting point.
In the Australian manual it says to look for the "Full HD 3D" glasses logo, along with the RF mark, meaning they use Bluetooth to make the connection to the TV.

Yeah, the American model doesn't include any. I just gave in and bought a couple of the slightly more expensive panasonic glasses and they were great- I've only seen Cave of Forgotten Dreams so far (incredible movie; the first I've seen that pretty much mandates the use of 3D) and they worked very well. I also ordered a couple of the cheap Samsung ones for guests, but they haven't arrived yet.

[Drucker]

Probably somewhere better/more topical to put this, but ESPN shutting down ESPN 3-D, seemingly leaving the future of 3-D TV viewing in doubt (surprise surprise).

[Matt]

What?!?! 3-D is a short-lived fad? Whoever could have predicted that (who doesn't remember the early 1950s or the early 1980s)? I guess it was good for TV manufacturers while it lasted.

[EddieLarkin]

I approach 3-D in the same way I do aspect ratios, soundtracks and colour timing; I want to experience whatever the director intended me to experience. 3-D in general is just a gimmick to me, but then so is ultra wide aspect ratios and surround sound. Just because it is far more cost restrictive at home doesn't mean I feel OK dismissing it altogether. Watching something like DIAL M or HUGO flat makes me feel the same way as if I was watching them cropped to 4:3. I feel like I'm missing something and not experiencing the directors true vision.

Hitchcock and Sirk are just two golden era directors who shot in 3-D, and I am dying to see the likes of HONDO, INFERNO, TAZA SON OF COCHISE, KISS ME KATE, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, THE GLASS WEB, I, THE JURY (heck I'll even take IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and HOUSE OF WAX) the way they were meant to be seen.

I know there isn't much in the way of excitement when it comes to modern 3-D, but I'm surprised the cineaste community in general seem to be against it in all forms. Would none of you be tempted by a 3-D TV if Criterion put out, say, THE GLASS WEB or INFERNO on Blu-ray 3D?

[Drucker]

I understand wanting to watch it in the intended manner, but you don't have to upgrade your equipment or buy a new Television, Glasses or Blu Ray player to wach Bigger Than Life in 2.55 or the special edition of How The West Was Won.

It's just simply, to me, not worth the cost of getting a 3-D set-up, especially if it could be obsolete in a few years anyway.

[MichaelB]

I approach 3-D in the same way I do aspect ratios, soundtracks and colour timing; I want to experience whatever the director intended me to experience. 3-D in general is just a gimmick to me, but then so is ultra wide aspect ratios and surround sound. Just because it is far more cost restrictive at home doesn't mean I feel OK dismissing it altogether. Watching something like DIAL M or HUGO flat makes me feel the same way as if I was watching them cropped to 4:3. I feel like I'm missing something and not experiencing the directors true vision.

Hitchcock famously despised 3-D and hated being contractually compelled to shoot in it, so I wouldn't be too inclined to press claims that the 3-D version is "what the director intended" and his "true vision"! He certainly didn't seem overly miffed about the film mainly being screened flat in his lifetime.

[Matt]

I would imagine many of the other directors of the films mentioned sympathized with Hitchcock. 3-D in the 1950s was typically a studio imposition, not a directorial choice.

[MichaelB]

Obviously, Hugo is a different matter, but the number of 3-D films where viewing them in the process is arguably essential is still minuscule when set against the total.

[EddieLarkin]

Hitchcock famously despised 3-D and hated being contractually compelled to shoot in it, so I wouldn't be too inclined to press claims that the 3-D version is "what the director intended" and his "true vision"! He certainly didn't seem overly miffed about the film mainly being screened flat in his lifetime.

In regards to DIAL M, I believe this is simply not true. I don't know how Hitchcock felt (though Bob Furmanek believes your assertion is a myth: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/dial-m-blu-ray-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), but the film as always speaks for itself. The 3-D version is a completely different beast to the 2-D, and the film is very obviously composed to make best use of the 3-D gimmick. DIAL M looks far closer to something like HUGO, when if the director was completely unenthused about the technology you'd expect it to play more half-arsed. Even if Hitchcock really did despise having to work that way, he still made the very best of it.

I would imagine many of the other directors of the films mentioned sympathized with Hitchcock. 3-D in the 1950s was typically a studio imposition, not a directorial choice.

But so was widescreen, especially 'Scope. Yet few here would ever accept cropped versions of say, CAPTAIN LIGHTFOOT or EAST OF EDEN. Yes alright, it's not truly comparable, but I get bent out of shape over far smaller issues than incorrect aspect ratio.

[Koukol]

Ok, I realize I run the risking of losing what little credibility I may have and getting boo'ed off the forum just by asking, but...

What 3D glasses to you guys recommend? I just bought a 60" ST50 based of recommendations here and elsewhere, and figure at some point I will at least give 3D a shot (I hear Hugo is great, and would like to watch Pina in 3D since they are offering it). I don't plan on using them extensively, so cost is definitely a consideration, but I heard that some of the cheaper glasses (like the $20 Samsung ones) aren't terribly comfortable. Does anyone have any input on this?

I also have a friend who said that he just periodically steals them from theatres and they work just fine with his TV. Any thoughts on this, from both a moral and a technical standpoint? If stealing glasses costs the theatre owners money, I would avoid it, but if it comes out of the pocket of the studios that are charging $16 a ticket for a film that was digitally converted to 3D... well, my morals may be a little more relaxed in that situation...

I would stick with the Panasonic glasses Panasonic suggests.

I have a pair and the cheaper Samsung glasses which aren't rechargable so I have to replace the battery.
Some people have said the Samsung produce ghosting on certain films.

[Koukol]

I'm SO thrilled that the original HOUSE OF WAX is coming out on BD in 3D.

THIS is the way to see the film.

[Gregory]

To address another of the examples Eddie gave, Sirk described 3D for Taza as just an experiment. It was scrapped and only shown in 2D after exhibitors didn't like what they saw of it in 3D. I'm a huge Sirk fan, but if someone put out a 3D blu-ray of Taza I don't think I'd even bother to watch it (and I don't think my system would have the capability anyway).

It's always seemed to me that 3D gets put out to the public as the "big, new thing" at times when the industry feels that its usual model is threatened and they have to get more people into theaters: In the '50s it was due to the huge popularity of TV, in the '80s it was the advent of movies on videotape, and no need to describe current industry conditions here. Some directors used it in interesting ways, surely, but I don't think of it as one of the technical fundamentals of filmmaking, let alone the "revolution" it's often made out to be by those who are selling it. Composing for widescreen—now that was a revolution in filmmaking. I think there are a number of problems with the 3D/aspect ratio analogy, but I certainly respect others' priorities and enthusiasm for 3D even though I don't share it.

[EddieLarkin]

If Sirk's experiment on TAZA is anything like Hitch's hate fueled DIAL M then I'd rather see it before making assumptions! But seriously, I know there are plenty of rubbish 50s 3-D films, but when it comes to the good ones I know I'd feel off watching them in 2-D. And not ALL of the big name directors were against it:

Director Roy Ward Baker was preparing his auto-biography “The Director’s Cut: A Memoir of 60 Years in Film” for publication in March 2000. He was quite proud of his subtle and dramatic use of stereoscopic cinematography on the 1953 classic INFERNO and lamented the fact that no original 3-D Technicolor prints had survived. (The Dinard British Film Festival saluted Mr. Baker in 1993 and was reduced to showing a flat black and white 16mm print.) When his editor Tony Sloman told him that I had found original dye transfer Technicolor 35mm left/right prints, he had the publisher stop the presses so he could modify the text! He called personally to express his gratitude and appreciation for my preservation efforts. We spoke for 20 minutes about his work on the film and he asked many questions about my work on the Archive. It was quite an honor.

[Gregory]

Roy Ward Baker, now that's a director whose work I'd be excited to see in 3D. (And no one should read any sarcasm there.) From my understanding of Sirk, I don't think it's an assumption to say that was not really interested in doing anything with 3D. The way he spoke about Taza I think reflected that lack of interest in it. Perhaps Metty felt differently about it—who knows? Doesn't seem to me like their style, really.

[david hare]

Belatedly returning to this topic.

I have now had fully functioning 3D viewing for a six weeks with the terrific new Sony VPL HW50ES projector and the Oppo 93 player (region modded.) Thanks largely to David M for the recommendation and technical review of the PJ.

3D movies owned and watched: Hugo, Pina (the French disc), Creature from the Black Lagoon, Dial M, The Hobbit, the last Harry Potter, Avatar, Prometheus and Life of Pi. The last three and especially the Ang Lee picture use the format wonderfully and the transfers are exemplary. The Sony PJ and the active glasses for it deliver a brighter image IMO than the local 4k DCP equipped cinema.
For glasses the Sony comes with its own (which are also used for the HW30ES and the most expensive VW95 1080p model) but these are horrendously expensive if you want extra pairs, and indeed they are totally out of stock in OZ for now, essentially because Sony is not importing any more and seems unwilling to support local retailers. Typical local branch bastard behavior by a company with nothing but contempt for its local consumers (I imported the PJ from an ebay trader for half the OZ RRP, so Fuck Sony.) However Monstervision 3DMax glasses coupled with the included IR receiver work flawlessly with the PJ although the IR needs a USB power source. I think these glasses are also useful for a number of other 3D projectors including Epson and Panasonic and when I bought them as extras they were reasonably cheap. Certainly far less than the official Sony TDG PJ1 model. Anyway for range of compatible PJs, google the model.

I admit this is a limited number of titles for viewing but I am really turned on by the medium, and for some filmmakers it looks like a credible future niche. As for the Hitchcock, I think all the malarkey about Hitch "having to" submit to Warner's demands are completely belied by his intrinsic lifelong fascination with every imaginable technical aspect of film making down to lenses, emulsions and printing processes, and the meticulous care he takes with the mise en scene in Dial, notably the staging and lighting of decorative objects like lamps and pictures which he then animates against static actors, filmed from the low angle camera pit on set, surely ample demonstration of the fun he was having with 3D.