«

I've bought all of Rodriguez' stuff in the last week or so, because I
truly admire his enthusiasm, and his commentary tracks are wonderful.

Enjoyed "Once Upon A Time..." (which kicked it off, because I'm thinking
of shooting an upcoming project in digital....but, the horrible "video
smearing" of the tracking shot where Depp goes to whack the restaurant
Chef made me halt in that plan.)

SK1 was terrific. Loved it.

SK2 was fun, but less than the first.

SK 3 really was very thin. And, the 3D didn't work for me.

I'd love to hear some people here talk about the 3D "Home Experience" on
this.

I had a fair bit of ghosting on portions of the 3D image. I've never
really been a fan of 'glyph 3D (although, I remember seeing "Jaws 3D" at
the cinema, and really enjoying a couple of the shots in that.)

I saw "Ghost Of The Titanic" at the London Imax, and was....less than
impressed. Aside from the "In Yer Face" snapping claw, it really
striked me that Cameron didn't really THINK about what he was doing with
the 3D on the movie. (And, worse...there was at least ONE shot in the
movie, that was massively out-of-focus. How the hell did he let that fo
through?)

The IMAX "Space Station" was fun, and had a real sense of spatial
awareness. I actually flinched on the Russian Rocket Launch sequence,
when the debric whipped towards camera.

My ALL time fave 3-D, was the "Marvin The Martian In The Third
Dimension", which I saw at the Warner Bros Store in '97. Fantastic
short (WB: GET THIS ON A DVD, NOW!!!) And the 3-D was great.

(I actually have "Trinity", the A-Bomb movie -- and have spent a nice
evening with Bill Stromberg, the mega-talented score composer -- which
has some 3-D sequences....which, were fine on my system.)

But SK3? Okay. My system's set up with the best links I can manage.
It's a widescreen Philips. I recalibrated the image beforehand per the
setup instruction (although I don't think it was really changed, as I'd
already got it set up fairly peachy.)

My eyesight is NOT 20-20. When at home, I usually wear spectacles.
When out, contacts.

The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.

Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
some of the portions of the shot.

Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
Still the same.

Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
LCD.

Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.

So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
'glyph, but isn't economically viable.

Thoughts?

"Peter Briggs" <pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1g9jaor.1p2h9dh1si6t5uN%pete@DIESPAMDIE!cines cribe.demon.co.uk...
> I've bought all of Rodriguez' stuff in the last week or so, because I
> truly admire his enthusiasm, and his commentary tracks are wonderful.
>
> Enjoyed "Once Upon A Time..." (which kicked it off, because I'm thinking
> of shooting an upcoming project in digital....but, the horrible "video
> smearing" of the tracking shot where Depp goes to whack the restaurant
> Chef made me halt in that plan.)
>
> SK1 was terrific. Loved it.
>
> SK2 was fun, but less than the first.
>
> SK 3 really was very thin. And, the 3D didn't work for me.
>
> I'd love to hear some people here talk about the 3D "Home Experience" on
> this.
>
> I had a fair bit of ghosting on portions of the 3D image. I've never
> really been a fan of 'glyph 3D (although, I remember seeing "Jaws 3D" at
> the cinema, and really enjoying a couple of the shots in that.)
>
> I saw "Ghost Of The Titanic" at the London Imax, and was....less than
> impressed. Aside from the "In Yer Face" snapping claw, it really
> striked me that Cameron didn't really THINK about what he was doing with
> the 3D on the movie. (And, worse...there was at least ONE shot in the
> movie, that was massively out-of-focus. How the hell did he let that fo
> through?)
>
> The IMAX "Space Station" was fun, and had a real sense of spatial
> awareness. I actually flinched on the Russian Rocket Launch sequence,
> when the debric whipped towards camera.
>
> My ALL time fave 3-D, was the "Marvin The Martian In The Third
> Dimension", which I saw at the Warner Bros Store in '97. Fantastic
> short (WB: GET THIS ON A DVD, NOW!!!) And the 3-D was great.
>
> (I actually have "Trinity", the A-Bomb movie -- and have spent a nice
> evening with Bill Stromberg, the mega-talented score composer -- which
> has some 3-D sequences....which, were fine on my system.)
>
> But SK3? Okay. My system's set up with the best links I can manage.
> It's a widescreen Philips. I recalibrated the image beforehand per the
> setup instruction (although I don't think it was really changed, as I'd
> already got it set up fairly peachy.)
>
> My eyesight is NOT 20-20. When at home, I usually wear spectacles.
> When out, contacts.
>
> The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.
>
> Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
> some of the portions of the shot.
>
> Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
> astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
> Still the same.
>
> Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
> screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
> LCD.
>
> Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.
>
> So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
> eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
> commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
> 'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
>
> Thoughts?

I can't comment on Spy Kids but I loved the (admittedly sparse) 3-D material
on Trinity.

Both "Spy Kids 3-D" and "tTitanic" both used the exact same 3-d filming process
and cameras, except Spy Kids chose anaglyphic format while Titanic chose
polarized format.

I saw both of those movies at the theatres, and since both of those two used
the exact same 3-d filming process, it gave me a good chance to compare
anaglyph 3-d with polarized 3-d.

polarized 3-d wins hands down.

yes, there was at least one shot out of focus in Titanic, but overall, most of
Titanic looked good and used the 3-d to good effect.

I've always been interested in 3-D moviemaking and 3-d movies and 3-d pictures
ever since I first learned about 3-D. ever since I first heard about 3-d.

"Peter Briggs" <pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1g9jaor.1p2h9dh1si6t5uN%pete@DIESPAMDIE!cines cribe.demon.co.uk...
> So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
> eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
> commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
> 'glyph, but isn't economically viable.

Astigmatism does have an effect on being able to perceive anaglyph 3D
effects, but that said this movie's use of 3D was annoying anyway.

Jay Stewart <> wrote:

> > So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
> > eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
> > commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
> > 'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I can't comment on Spy Kids but I loved the (admittedly sparse) 3-D material
> on Trinity.

I've since found a comment from Rodriguez, saying that -- indeed, if
your vision isn't quite 20-20 -- you may have some problems (Stallone
apparently couldn't get the effect, himself.)

I think it's down to me and Red-Green glasses (although I had no problem
with Jaws 3-D, so my eyesight must have changed a fair bit since!). The
IMAX polarized ones work fine for me. Sigh. I wish I could see
Rodriguez' copy of that...

This DVD clearly falls into the category of "Shoulda left it on the
store shelf!"

The 3-d effects are poor and in most cases not clear. The colors are
awash with a violet tint when viewing with the glasses (i.e., the
color of the actual film disappears).

While some of the effects are worthy of a "Wow!", most are poorly
executed.

Don't buy this one...rent it or borrow it from a friend who didn't
know any better.
Marty T.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:46:00 +0000,
pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk (Peter Briggs) wrote:

>I've bought all of Rodriguez' stuff in the last week or so, because I
>truly admire his enthusiasm, and his commentary tracks are wonderful.
>
>Enjoyed "Once Upon A Time..." (which kicked it off, because I'm thinking
>of shooting an upcoming project in digital....but, the horrible "video
>smearing" of the tracking shot where Depp goes to whack the restaurant
>Chef made me halt in that plan.)
>
>SK1 was terrific. Loved it.
>
>SK2 was fun, but less than the first.
>
>SK 3 really was very thin. And, the 3D didn't work for me.
>
>I'd love to hear some people here talk about the 3D "Home Experience" on
>this.
>
>I had a fair bit of ghosting on portions of the 3D image. I've never
>really been a fan of 'glyph 3D (although, I remember seeing "Jaws 3D" at
>the cinema, and really enjoying a couple of the shots in that.)
>
>I saw "Ghost Of The Titanic" at the London Imax, and was....less than
>impressed. Aside from the "In Yer Face" snapping claw, it really
>striked me that Cameron didn't really THINK about what he was doing with
>the 3D on the movie. (And, worse...there was at least ONE shot in the
>movie, that was massively out-of-focus. How the hell did he let that fo
>through?)
>
>The IMAX "Space Station" was fun, and had a real sense of spatial
>awareness. I actually flinched on the Russian Rocket Launch sequence,
>when the debric whipped towards camera.
>
>My ALL time fave 3-D, was the "Marvin The Martian In The Third
>Dimension", which I saw at the Warner Bros Store in '97. Fantastic
>short (WB: GET THIS ON A DVD, NOW!!!) And the 3-D was great.
>
>(I actually have "Trinity", the A-Bomb movie -- and have spent a nice
>evening with Bill Stromberg, the mega-talented score composer -- which
>has some 3-D sequences....which, were fine on my system.)
>
>But SK3? Okay. My system's set up with the best links I can manage.
>It's a widescreen Philips. I recalibrated the image beforehand per the
>setup instruction (although I don't think it was really changed, as I'd
>already got it set up fairly peachy.)
>
>My eyesight is NOT 20-20. When at home, I usually wear spectacles.
>When out, contacts.
>
>The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.
>
>Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
>some of the portions of the shot.
>
>Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
>astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
>Still the same.
>
>Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
>screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
>LCD.
>
>Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.
>
>So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
>eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
>commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
>'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
>
>Thoughts?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:28:27 -0600, Marty Troum <>
wrote:

>This DVD clearly falls into the category of "Shoulda left it on the
>store shelf!"
>
>The 3-d effects are poor and in most cases not clear. The colors are
>awash with a violet tint when viewing with the glasses (i.e., the
>color of the actual film disappears).
>
>While some of the effects are worthy of a "Wow!", most are poorly
>executed.
>
>Don't buy this one...rent it or borrow it from a friend who didn't
>know any better.
>Marty T.
>
The 3D version truly sucks but the normal version is pretty cool -
arguably its stupid but the graphics and movie premise are this
generations TRON.

>>
>>The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.
>>
>>Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
>>some of the portions of the shot.
>>
>>Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
>>astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
>>Still the same.
>>
>>Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
>>screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
>>LCD.
>>
>>Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.
>>
>>So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
>>eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
>>commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
>>'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
>>
>>Thoughts?

The Spy Kids 3-D movie is not the same as what you saw at the theatre.

I read an article with an interview by Robert Rodrigues, the producer and
director of zSpy Kids 3-D.

He reframed a lot of scenes for the dvd release and he tweaked a lot of other
sceneds also.

The reason that was given for this was that Robert Rodriguez said that he is
well aware that the theatrical run of movies is just a big advertisement for
the movie, and the movies are made for viewing at home where they will have
most of their run, be watched the most.

and not made for the theatres, which is just a big advertisement for where the
movies will be watched the most.

(acccording to him according to the articles I read).

Waterperson77 wrote on [27 Feb 2004 01:38:37 GMT]:
> The Spy Kids 3-D movie is not the same as what you saw at the theatre.
>
> I read an article with an interview by Robert Rodrigues, the producer and
> director of zSpy Kids 3-D.
>
> He reframed a lot of scenes for the dvd release and he tweaked a lot of other
> sceneds also.
>
> The reason that was given for this was that Robert Rodriguez said that he is
> well aware that the theatrical run of movies is just a big advertisement for
> the movie, and the movies are made for viewing at home where they will have
> most of their run, be watched the most.
>
> and not made for the theatres, which is just a big advertisement for where the
> movies will be watched the most.
>
> (acccording to him according to the articles I read).

Hey dvdguy, BACK IT UP!

Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!

>ACK IT UP!
>
>Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!
>

I didn't read it on the internet.

I read it in actual printed material.

Therefore, there aren't any links to it that I'm aware of.