Silver Age 3-D 1966-1997 including the 1980s 3D revival

[Nocturnaloner]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8UZ2WfLG70

Trailer of Star Chaser 3D, looks cool in a Star Wars animated style. I can't believe I never saw this cartoon before. Rotoscoped appearance, similar to The Lord of the Rings by Bakshi.

I've got the DVD, and I watched it recently. It's fun as a nostalgia trip, and some of the design work is cool. The script and story needed some more work. The basic plot setup is ok, but the 4th or 5th time they go flying to some other planet to have a space battle, the rote repetition of Star Wars plot points starts to wear a little thin.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Nocturnaloner

I've got the DVD, and I watched it recently. It's fun as a nostalgia trip, and some of the design work is cool. The script and story needed some more work. The basic plot setup is ok, but the 4th or 5th time they go flying to some other planet to have a space battle, the rote repetition of Star Wars plot points starts to wear a little thin.

Thanks Nocturnaloner for the info. Good to hear it's at least on DVD. The animation and laser effects have me interested, but I agree, the story counts most of all.
I wonder how they were able to get this cel animated movie in stereo 3D? They probably had a 3D camera rig set up to capture the depth of the cel frames stacked on top of each other, so there would be no volume to the characters I'd imagine.

I wonder if anyone's ever seen Star Chaser in 3D?

[poke smot]

I saw some of those in 3d in the theater way back when. This is when 3d was done right!!

[br3ttD]

I have most of these on field sequential 3D DVD or VHS that i got from 'private collectors'. The only ones i don't have is 'The Man Who Wasn't There', and the Earl Owensby films except for 'Rottweiler'. I believe i read that with 'Starchaser' they took an exposure of a scene for one eye view, reverse the film, shift the cel(s) for the other eye and then take another exposure of the same scene. I don't think any of it was rotoscoped like Bakshi did, however they did use computers to plot the movements of the ships. Yeah, i would love to have these on blu-ray. 80's 3D movies are my classics.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by br3ttD

I have most of these on field sequential 3D DVD or VHS that i got from 'private collectors'. The only ones i don't have is 'The Man Who Wasn't There', and the Earl Owensby films except for 'Rottweiler'. I believe i read that with 'Starchaser' they took an exposure of a scene for one eye view, reverse the film, shift the cel(s) for the other eye and then take another exposure of the same scene. I don't think any of it was rotoscoped like Bakshi did, however they did use computers to plot the movements of the ships. Yeah, i would love to have these on blu-ray. 80's 3D movies are my classics.

Thanks Br3ttD. Interesting way of making it 3D by moving the cels and not the camera. Possibly because the cels were stacked very close together versus with some distance between each one for background, character, foreground, etc. From the sound of it, they probably had more control over which layers to make 3D than had they used a 3D rig.

[Nocturnaloner]

For no other reason than I remember how heavily promoted it was, I would think that Metalstorm would exist in pretty good condition somewhere. Who owns it?

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks Br3ttD. Interesting way of making it 3D by moving the cels and not the camera. Possibly because the cels were stacked very close together versus with some distance between each one for background, character, foreground, etc. From the sound of it, they probably had more control over which layers to make 3D than had they used a 3D rig.

One advantage to cel-shifting and shooting both eyes separately is that you can use a different background specifically tailored for each eye-view. They appear to have done this in Starchaser for some of the scenes involving computer-generated corridors.

The disadvantage is the tedium and expense of having to rephotograph everything, knowing that any discrepancies in photography would throw everything off. Under normal cicumstances, it's not that big a deal if one cel gets exposed for an extra frame by mistake, but with 3-D that'd throw the whole thing out of sync.

It seems like the obvious way to photograph cartoons in 3D would be something like a multiplane camera, but I'm not sure it was ever done that way, even at Disney, who had a multiplane. It was so expensive that even for 2D they only ever used it on a few shots in each film.

It's interesting dilemma: how to go about producing 3-D images from 2D drawings. I've seen several approaches taken in viewmaster slides, sometimes to great effect.

[Zivouhr]

Thanks Interdimensional. Good points.
Yes, the Viewmaster 3D was usually great 3D.

[Interdimensional]

I found they varied quite a bit. There were some that just looked like bad coloring book drawings, and there were others that were incredibly effective. But I've been impressed by how a skilled artist can add not just depth, but real volume to a cartoon image.

It would've been a major expense and technical challenge to animate like that though.

[Zivouhr]

Agree.

For the Viewmaster 3D, I usually got the slides with the Zoo animals. Those had strong 3D from what I remember.

[Interdimensional]

I like the creativity of what they did for Disney's The Rescuers: they actually built miniature sets to mimic the background paintings, mixed with the hand-drawn cartoon characters. It's a nice effect.

... not to derail the thread or anything.

[Robert Furmanek]

At long last and after many requests, we have our Silver Age 3-D page on our website. I hope that you enjoy seeing these great posters again!

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/silver-age-1966---1986

[Zivouhr]

Cool! Thanks for posting this info and the poster art!

[Zivouhr]

Very nice, thanks for creating the 3D page with the poster art. The Sci Fi and animated, horror movies in 3D look cool and hopefully get released to blu ray 3D one of these years.

[Robert Furmanek]

There are some new trade ads on our Silver Age 3-D page. Check it out!

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/silver-age-1966---1986

[Zivouhr]

Thanks Robert.
Have you been able to see most of these in 3D? What are your thoughts on the 3D from this era? As good as earlier works? Thanks.

[Robert Furmanek]

I've seen most of them.

The 3-D from the 1970's and 1980's - for the most part - does not come close to matching the quality achieved with dual-camera rigs in the 1950's.

There were cinematographers working on these films who hadn't learned many of the basic rules of stereoscopic composition and photography. You also had new single-strip lens systems that were still green.

Of course, there are exceptions. The use of Space-Vision in THE BUBBLE is excellent.

In 1953, you had DP's who had worked in film since the silent era and knew the cameras and lenses inside and out.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

There are some new trade ads on our Silver Age 3-D page. Check it out!

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/silver-age-1966---1986

that's some particularly shameless promotion. No wonder the De Laurentiis people had to come down on them.

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

I've seen most of them.

The 3-D from the 1970's and 1980's - for the most part - does not come close to matching the quality achieved with dual-camera rigs in the 1950's.

There were cinematographers working on these films who hadn't learned many of the basic rules of stereoscopic composition and photography. You also had new single-strip lens systems that were still green.

Of course, there are exceptions. The use of Space-Vision in THE BUBBLE is excellent.

In 1953, you had DP's who had worked in film since the silent era and knew the cameras and lenses inside and out.

would you think they'd be mostly fixable with current digital techniques? At least in terms of correcting visual issues that might be hard on the eyes. Obviously disregarding any overall film-making incompetence.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

I've seen most of them.

The 3-D from the 1970's and 1980's - for the most part - does not come close to matching the quality achieved with dual-camera rigs in the 1950's.

There were cinematographers working on these films who hadn't learned many of the basic rules of stereoscopic composition and photography. You also had new single-strip lens systems that were still green.

Of course, there are exceptions. The use of Space-Vision in THE BUBBLE is excellent.

In 1953, you had DP's who had worked in film since the silent era and knew the cameras and lenses inside and out.

Thanks for the information! I'm guessing the 3D camera set up in this era may have been different from the dual camera rigs of the 50's? Or mostly the same set up from your knowledge, just with different skill levels as you mention? Thanks.

I see some of the 3D camera rigs today use mirrors in a compact design where one camera points at the mirror to get the other eye's image, to avoid having to separate two cameras too far apart in narrow corridors when filming, and for more flexibility, though I wonder how that affects the final result, since Paul W.S. Anderson shoots in 3D with this style 3D rig, and lately his 3D results are getting milder and more conservative. In the end, I'm thinking it's not the camera set up, but the director and DP who determine the final effectiveness of the 3D.

[Robert Furmanek]

That's a big part of it, the people working the camera have to know how to shoot for 3-D.

Alignment issues can certainly be corrected now. Lens distortion cannot.

Camera rigs using mirrors date back to the 1930's. Here's one built and used by stereo pioneer John Norling.