Andrew Gage

Also, I have to agree with Leo. The examples of theatrical 3-D I have seen in recent years (not including IMAX) have left me rather disappointed. I'm sure the studios are trying hard to breathe a little new life into the medium, but the 2-camera polarized material is still really heads above the CG 3-D, which has been anaglyph. The red/blue technique destroys the colors, and half the time I can't even tell what I'm looking at or where in the 3-D plane the subjects are supposed to be. CG is fine for creating 2-D special effects, but from what I've seen so far there's an awful lot of room for improvement on the 3-D score. I would think it would be more economical to run the 2 camera system rather than pay animators to create dimension out of thin air.

Hi guys... newbie here, with a special interest in 3-D filming. OK... from what I understand, many of the films made in the 50's that were originally released in polarized versions were later reformatted to anaglyph so they could be shown without dual projectors or silver screens. Creature From The Black Lagoon is one example. Or, they were released as 2-D films, such as Dial M for Murder. This, according to what I've seen and read out there. Also, a technical term: when the lenses/cameras are moved further apart than the human eyes to enhance the stereo view it's called Hyperstereo Now... to my question. I'm curious about the convergence thing. Since the eyes tend to focus toward the center the closer an object is to the face, I would assume that good 3-D filming would require the cameras to do the same thing. Is that how they are set up (does anyone know)? I'm also curious about frame synchronization in a 2 camera set up, and if that's as much of a concern when using video cameras as it would be in film cameras. I'm looking at setting up a jig to mount a pair of digicams to play around with 3-D. Anyone have any experience? Thanks :-) Drew