Golden Age 3-D Features

[bavanut]

I can offer a few quick observations before I get back to the Great Big Project I'm working on (which I predict will make most of you very happy once it is officially announced):

If you happen to see a photo of a three-strip Cinerama camera, you'll note how close together the lenses are. Now, certainly, this is mostly owing to the fact that all three strips of film are moving in close proximity to one another inside the unit. But having the lenses close together happens to be very helpful for reducing needless parallax. The closer the vantage points of the three lenses, the better is the illusion of one sweeping panorama.

Likewise, when Cinemiracle was designed, it employed mirrors to enable its three cameras to capture one sweeping view from essentially a single vantage point.

The Paravision rig as originally conceived apparently oriented its mirrors in such a way that it captured the equivalent of a 2.74:1 image with as little needless parallax as possible. As has been mentioned, the goal was to create a double-wide rear projection plate. In rear projection, the seam separating the two images could be concealed behind carefully selected set dressing or scenic elements--a tree trunk, an upright column, a corner post of a front porch, or who knows what.

Reorienting the mirrors so that they faced forward transformed the unit into a stereoscopic camera rig. What I have learned from surviving documents is that Paramount repurposed their original "process" unit for stereoscopic 3-D, they sure did, but they soon augmented that rig with a second, very similar unit, newly built for the express purpose of shooting 3-D. They also built a third camera rig, a very remarkable "L"-configuration unit that allowed very small interaxials. I had originally been perplexed when camera reports for Sangaree indicated several miniature shots with tiny interaxials, but when I later discovered the existence of this "L"-configuration rig (which they actually called "Base 2"), it all suddenly made sense.

Some of you may be familiar with an article that appeared in American Cinematographer in late 1953 in which they catalog the known 3-D camera rigs at various studios. It is generally a very helpful article, but I have learned there are some inadvertent omissions. I have so far identified more than 30 discrete camera rigs used to make English-language films in 3-D between 1950 and 1955. Among the omissions: The article as I recollect has no knowledge of the Base 2 and Base 3 rigs at Paramount.

Incidentally, I have come to admire Milton Gunzburg greatly as I've learned more and more about his life story. But... neither he nor Friend Baker nor Lothrop Worth properly understood how all the rival camera rigs worked. They sincerely believed Natural Vision was just slightly more innovative than it actually was. Gunzburg in particular was convinced that some in Hollywood were stealing principles and techniques proprietary to Natural Vision, when in fact this was simply not the case at all. I have phone transcripts and legal correspondence that would curl your hair, or make it stand on end! So, I do happen to agree that the emphasis Paramount placed on the priority of its camera rig design was probably a deliberate ploy to deflect potential accusations of design theft.

May I just say, I too am very excited about the Pine-Thomas box set. I'm going to pick up one or two myself. I never dreamed I'd own one copy of these fun films, but soon I will have small handfuls!

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by bavanut

I can offer a few quick observations before I get back to the Great Big Project I'm working on (which I predict will make most of you very happy once it is officially announced):

If you happen to see a photo of a three-strip Cinerama camera, you'll note how close together the lenses are. Now, certainly, this is mostly owing to the fact that all three strips of film are moving in close proximity to one another inside the unit. But having the lenses close together happens to be very helpful for reducing needless parallax. The closer the vantage points of the three lenses, the better is the illusion of one sweeping panorama.

Likewise, when Cinemiracle was designed, it employed mirrors to enable its three cameras to capture one sweeping view from essentially a single vantage point.

The Paravision rig as originally conceived apparently oriented its mirrors in such a way that it captured the equivalent of a 2.74:1 image with as little needless parallax as possible. As has been mentioned, the goal was to create a double-wide rear projection plate. In rear projection, the seam separating the two images could be concealed behind carefully selected set dressing or scenic elements--a tree trunk, an upright column, a corner post of a front porch, or who knows what.

Reorienting the mirrors so that they faced forward turned the unit into a stereoscopic camera rig. What I have learned from surviving documents is that Paramount repurposed their original "process" unit for stereoscopic 3-D, they sure did, but they soon augmented that rig with a second, very similar unit, newly built for the express purpose of shooting 3-D. They also built a third camera rig, a very remarkable "L"-configuration unit that allowed very small interaxials. I had originally been perplexed when camera reports for Sangaree indicated several miniature shots with tiny interaxials, but when I later discovered the existence of this "L"-configuration rig (which they actually called "Base 2"), it all suddenly made sense.

Thanks for chiming in Mike. Intuitively it feels like there should be a HUGE difference between a panoramic rig and a stereoscopic rig but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

It's also a bit mind-blowing knowing that they were using tiny interaxials to shoot miniatures stereoscopically all the way back in the 50s, over 5 decades before Coraline!

Edit: also a great big project that hasn't been officially announced yet? I dare not even say what I hope THAT is...

[Hillary Hess]

The conversation regarding the origin of the Paravision camera is of great interest to me, yet the incredulity that it originated as a rig to shoot process plates is a head-scratcher. Having a background plate twice the width of the Academy ratio would be much more desirable than a 3-D rig at the time. And remember, the rig was designed by Farciot Edouart, the recognized master of process photography. Clearly he wasn't a one trick pony, and could understand with just a realignment of the mirrors, the rig could be used for stereo photography. After all, the use of 45 degree mirrors goes back to the very beginning of stereo imaging with Charles Wheatstone's first stereoscope about a century earlier, on this date in fact, June 21, in 1838.

Regarding the use of mirrors rather than side-by-side cameras pointing the same direction, I concur with Mike Ballew. It is preferable to minimize parallax and that would be the best way to make it practical. In addition, side-by-side cameras make threading one of them impossible without partial disassembly of the rig. The Naturalvision/Paravision orientation allows for quicker reloads on a set where time is money.

To further illustrate the fact the industry was interested in the rig to create wider rather than deeper images at the time, I submit the attached photo. It was taken on December 10, 1938, the night Gone With The Wind began production with the Burning of Atlanta sequence. Film historian Ronald Haver wrote the sequence was originally to be shown on a screen "twice as wide" as normal, and was actually filmed. This photo confirms it! The timing even allows this could be the original incarnation of Paravision rig on loan from Paramount with a pair of three-strip Technicolor cameras filming what is slated as the "Cosgrove Split Screen" footage, referring to Selznick's special effects man Jack Cosgrove. I'd love to know if he and Edouart we pals. According to Haver, the footage was test screened on a sound stage, but Selznick was ultimately convinced by business partner Jock Whitney (and MGM) the spectacular sequence didn't need the gimmick.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by bavanut;20215994
Reorienting the mirrors so that they faced forward transformed the unit into a stereoscopic camera rig. What I have learned from surviving documents is that Paramount repurposed their original "process" unit for stereoscopic 3-D, they sure did, but they soon augmented that rig with a second, very similar unit, newly built for the express purpose of shooting 3-D. They also built a third camera rig, a very remarkable "L"-configuration unit that allowed very small interaxials.[B

I had originally been perplexed when camera reports for Sangaree indicated several miniature shots with tiny interaxials[/B], but when I later discovered the existence of this "L"-configuration rig (which they actually called "Base 2"), it all suddenly made sense.

I was looking at those Sangaree shots just the other day. It's the boat miniatures right? I think it's one of the rare examples of high-speed photography in a Golden Age 3-D film. It appears that they built a large scale miniature of one section of the ship for the collision with the boat, and a full miniature of the ship at a smaller scale.

Somewhat disappointing that they cut away from the final explosion. Perhaps the miniature was saved to reuse on a later film.

Your description of an "L"-configuration makes me think of the rig seen in behind the scenes photos of Harryhausen test footage for an unmade film. Would that be a similar setup?

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Hillary Hess

The conversation regarding the origin of the Paravision camera is of great interest to me, yet the incredulity that it originated as a rig to shoot process plates is a head-scratcher. Having a background plate twice the width of the Academy ratio would be much more desirable than a 3-D rig at the time. And remember, the rig was designed by Farciot Edouart, the recognized master of process photography. Clearly he wasn't a one trick pony, and could understand with just a realignment of the mirrors, the rig could be used for stereo photography. After all, the use of 45 degree mirrors goes back to the very beginning of stereo imaging with Charles Wheatstone's first stereoscope about a century earlier, on this date in fact, June 21, in 1838.

Regarding the use of mirrors rather than side-by-side cameras pointing the same direction, I concur with Mike Ballew. It is preferable to minimize parallax and that would be the best way to make it practical. In addition, side-by-side cameras make threading one of them impossible without partial disassembly of the rig. The Naturalvision/Paravision orientation allows for quicker reloads on a set where time is money.

Oh I never doubted that the rig was built for process photography first. I just really overestimated how far apart you'd want the cameras to be for such a rig to function correctly so it seemed unusual to build it the way they did but it all makes sense now, especially with your point about the issues with loading cameras that were side by side.

[jimqk]

Originally Posted by bavanut

I can offer a few quick observations before I get back to the Great Big Project I'm working on (which I predict will make most of you very happy once it is officially announced)

Do you mean to say that - in addition to everything else the archive is working on (THE DIAMOND WIZARD, ROBOT MONSTER, BWANA DEVIL) - there's also something that you refer to as the "Great Big Project" in the works?

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by jimqk

Do you mean to say that - in addition to everything else the archive is working on (THE DIAMOND WIZARD, ROBOT MONSTER, BWANA DEVIL) - there's also something that you refer to as the "Great Big Project" in the works?

No doubt it’s that long-awaited double feature of CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON and PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE…

[bavanut]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

No doubt it’s that long-awaited double feature of CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON and PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE…

I wish! But 3-D needs more fans, not fewer, and we wouldn't want any of you to perish from an overload of joy!

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

No doubt it’s that long-awaited double feature of CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON and PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE…

I can't speak for everyone but I'm personally hoping for something related to terror of the bloody variety, that may or not involve someone named Frankenstein

[jimqk]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

I can't speak for everyone but I'm personally hoping for something related to terror of the bloody variety, that may or not involve someone named Frankenstein

There have been some 3-D Film Archive projects over the past couple of years that, behind the scenes, were classified ABOVE TOP SECRET/EYES ONLY. Nobody in the wild had any inkling certain titles were secretly being restored and prepared for Blu-ray consumption until after the work was completed.

Bob, in recent years, has apparently adopted more stringent secrecy policies, holding cards so close to his vest I'm unsure if he even knows what they are. Information in this covert world of 3-D restoration is doled out to individuals on a need-to-know basis only, and these agents are likely sworn to secrecy. Bavanut's admission of a "Great Big Project" actually may be in violation of the strict security protocols instituted under these secrecy policies. But, alas, the best laid plans of mice and men, as we know, oft go astray, and a cat has emerged from the proverbial bag. We can only speculate on the title, however, but I'm sure whatever it is, it will be a great surprise to all of us.

[bavanut]

Originally Posted by jimqk

We can only speculate on the title, however, but I'm sure whatever it is, it will be a great surprise to all of us.

From the sound of things, a surprise more astonishing than any of you imagine.

[br3ttD]

Originally Posted by bavanut

From the sound of things, a surprise more astonishing than any of you imagine.

[petergee]

It’s got to be Hondo

[Oboler]

Originally Posted by bavanut

From the sound of things, a surprise more astonishing than any of you imagine.

An entire catalogue…. AND world peace???

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by bavanut

From the sound of things, a surprise more astonishing than any of you imagine.

For me, that would be PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE, GORILLA AT LARGE, or CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON. But I’ll take FURY OF THE WOLFMAN or MAGNIFICENT BODYGUARDS in a pinch.

[cinerama]

Back on 1/1/2021 Bob Furmanek said:

“Certain studios (Warner Bros, Sony) have a very strict internal policy that restoration work must be done in-house. Sadly, they stopped doing 3-D restorations once display manufacturers dropped support of the format several years ago. That's why such highly requested titles as Second Chance, Phantom of the Rue Morgue, The Charge at Feather River, Son of Sinbad, Dangerous Mission, Popeye - the Ace of Space, The French Line, Fort Ti, The Stranger Wore a Gun, Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, Gorilla at Large, Money from Home, Flight to Tangier and many others have not been released. The left/right 35mm elements do exist so hopefully, they will one day see the light of day.

In other cases, the rights holders are simply not interested. That's the reason they are not available. Lord knows we have tried.

Other titles (The Glass Web, Nat King Cole with Russ Morgan's Orchestra, Hawaiian Nights, I the Jury, La Marca del Hombre Lobo aka Frankenstein's Bloody Terror) Flesh for Frankenstein, Hondo, Robot Monster, Cat-Women of the Moon and Starchaser are tied up with complex legal issues and the miles of red tape have prevented any positive movement. After trying to obtain rights for the past decade, I have no reason to be optimistic these films will ever get cleared for 3-D Blu-ray release. I wish I could say otherwise.”


Since then, none of the major studios (Warner, Sony) 3-D titles have been released on Blu-ray 3-D. Flesh for Frankenstein has been released, Robot Monster, I, The Jury, Bwana Devil, Diamond Wizard, Prison Girls and the roadshow version of The Bubble will be released.

Unless the major studios have changed their plans, that leaves us with The Glass Web, Nat King Cole with Russ Morgan's Orchestra, Hawaiian Nights, La Marca del Hombre Lobo aka Frankenstein's Bloody Terror, Hondo, Cat-Women of the Moon and Starchaser.

But, Mike Ballew did say it's a "Great Big Project". Money From Home, filmed in 3-strip Technicolor would be a big project.

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by petergee

It’s got to be Hondo

That was exactly my first thought. But that seems way too good to be true?!! Fingers crossed.

[robtadrian]

Anybody in the SE Pennsylvania area...the Ambler Theater in Ambler PA are screening Dial M for Murder on August 7th at 7pm also at the County Theater in Doylestown August 24 at 7p

[Dan_Shane]

I can appreciate the urge to speculate on the big secret project, and I don't criticize anyone who chooses to join in.

For myself, I'm pretty much glossing over such posts so that the big reveal can have its full effect on me when it happens. 3DFA already has so many promised joys to release in the coming months that I don't want to take a chance on mild disappointment that another I, THE JURY type reversal could cause.

Let Mike's surpise happen when it happens, and I will be happy. My 3-D disc collection is already larger than I could have imagined a few years ago, so future releases are icing on the cake.

Keep 'em coming at your own pace, 3DFA. You've already proved that your judgment is best.

[cinerama]

Originally Posted by petergee

It’s got to be Hondo

I thought that also but, Mike Ballew did said it's a "Great Big Project". Hondo has already been converted to digital 3D so, that's not a "Great Big Project". Money From Home on 3-strip Technicolor would be six strips of film. That sounds big to me. Also, the 3D Film Archive did convert 15 minutes of it years ago. But in the past, all the predictions I have made were wrong.