A Nightmare Before Christmas 3D -10/20/06
10-23-06, 05:31 AM
#26
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw this yesterday with my 7-year old, and had a great time. Disney did an excellent job turning this 2-D film into a 3-D experience. Highly recommended!
10-23-06, 08:58 AM
#27
Moderator
I honestly did not think the conversion to 3D really worked - there just wasn't enough depth. I thought the 3D effects for the IMAX version of 'Ant Bully' were jaw dropping,here though, was lacklustre at best. 'Knick Knack' on the other hand worked and looked better. Interesting to note that the original Touchstone title card was replaced with 'Walt Disney' and castle animation intro. The 5.1 soundtrack also sounds remixed as well as a retexted end credits with extra 3D pictures of the films characters.
10-23-06, 06:37 PM
#29
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a self proclaimed 3-D expert to chime in!
The "traditional" method for 3-D movie projection has always been, polarized format, using clear gray lensed glasses. This is how ALL major 3-D movies of the 1950's wave were originally seen. It's also been the traditional method for most 3-D features since then, including the wave in the 1980's.
In the 1950's, they used two seperate 35mm prints shown by two synchronized (or in many cases, not so synchronized) projectors. Later on, they used a single projector method which put the left and right eye images on one strip of film. Different approaches, both with advantages and disadvantages, but both polarized, clear glasses 3-D.
The red/blue anaglyph stuff has only rarely been used for *movies*, and when it was, usually for low budget porn or flat 2-D movies that had short 3-D sequences inserted into them, such as FREDDY'S DEAD or THE MASK (1961). Some of the B/W 3-D movies like CREATURE FROM THE BLACK.LAGOON were down-converted to anaglyph form for kiddie matinees in the early 70's, but these versions don't much resemble the original 3-D versions. Even worse red/blue TV versions of these films have really done damage to the reputation of the originals.
Recently, we've seen SPY KIDS 3-D and SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL in anaglyph, but these are very much the exception. Sorry to say the upcoming NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D is also going out this way.
Now, on to NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. I thought the Digital (Real D) conversion was pretty good. After all, this was a 2-D film converted, and I thought it was pretty natural. It doesn't have as much depth as movies shot in 3-D, but considering I never thought it would even be possible to fake 3-D at all, I thought this came out well. It looks like a view master reel, and having not seen the film in a theater before, I had a great time.
There will be no IMAX version; the film is being shown in Digital Polarized 3-D only in Real D equipped theatres.
It's easy to get IMAX and Digital 3-D confused; after all, they BOTH use the polarized, clear glasses. Just remember, IMAX is giant sized FILM, and Real D is digitally projected from a hard drive. The people behind these formats are in competition, so for now, if a movie is playing one format, it won't play in another. Maybe things will change later.
In short: NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, MONSTER HOUSE, CHICKEN LITTLE and Disney's upcoming MEET THE ROBINSONS are showing in Digital, polarized 3-D using clear glasses.
SUPERMAN RETURNS (partial), THE ANT BULLY, OPEN SEASON, THE POLAR EXPRESS , etc are showing in IMAX 3-D using clear polarized glasses.
Same format, different method of delivery.
The "traditional" method for 3-D movie projection has always been, polarized format, using clear gray lensed glasses. This is how ALL major 3-D movies of the 1950's wave were originally seen. It's also been the traditional method for most 3-D features since then, including the wave in the 1980's.
In the 1950's, they used two seperate 35mm prints shown by two synchronized (or in many cases, not so synchronized) projectors. Later on, they used a single projector method which put the left and right eye images on one strip of film. Different approaches, both with advantages and disadvantages, but both polarized, clear glasses 3-D.
The red/blue anaglyph stuff has only rarely been used for *movies*, and when it was, usually for low budget porn or flat 2-D movies that had short 3-D sequences inserted into them, such as FREDDY'S DEAD or THE MASK (1961). Some of the B/W 3-D movies like CREATURE FROM THE BLACK.LAGOON were down-converted to anaglyph form for kiddie matinees in the early 70's, but these versions don't much resemble the original 3-D versions. Even worse red/blue TV versions of these films have really done damage to the reputation of the originals.
Recently, we've seen SPY KIDS 3-D and SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL in anaglyph, but these are very much the exception. Sorry to say the upcoming NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D is also going out this way.
Now, on to NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. I thought the Digital (Real D) conversion was pretty good. After all, this was a 2-D film converted, and I thought it was pretty natural. It doesn't have as much depth as movies shot in 3-D, but considering I never thought it would even be possible to fake 3-D at all, I thought this came out well. It looks like a view master reel, and having not seen the film in a theater before, I had a great time.
There will be no IMAX version; the film is being shown in Digital Polarized 3-D only in Real D equipped theatres.
It's easy to get IMAX and Digital 3-D confused; after all, they BOTH use the polarized, clear glasses. Just remember, IMAX is giant sized FILM, and Real D is digitally projected from a hard drive. The people behind these formats are in competition, so for now, if a movie is playing one format, it won't play in another. Maybe things will change later.
In short: NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, MONSTER HOUSE, CHICKEN LITTLE and Disney's upcoming MEET THE ROBINSONS are showing in Digital, polarized 3-D using clear glasses.
SUPERMAN RETURNS (partial), THE ANT BULLY, OPEN SEASON, THE POLAR EXPRESS , etc are showing in IMAX 3-D using clear polarized glasses.
Same format, different method of delivery.
10-23-06, 10:40 PM
#31
Moderator
so why should film (IMAX) look more dimensional than DLP?? With the exception of 'Chicken Little' which I though was the best (DLP 3D presentation), all other films (including the IMAX 3D trailer for 'Open Season') I have seen in the IMAX 3D film format seemed superior in replicating a truly three dimensional field of vision.
Last edited by Giles; 10-23-06 at 10:42 PM.
10-24-06, 10:55 AM
#34
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true; the IMAX school of thought is that the action should start at the level of the screen and come forward. They want the entire movie to seem to take place right in front of your face. This is a choice they are making, probably because of the types of auditoriums the films usually play in. While in some case this can work quite well (THE POLAR EXPRESS) for example, it can also lead to eye strain, because the eye has to focus on the foreground for a long time. I've seen more 3-D than almost anyone I know, and I find the IMAX approach a bit tiresome. It also lessens the impact of gimmick shots, when things seem to move forward. IMAX 3-D can be great, but I've also seen many of the documentaries that were a real pain the eye balls to watch.
Traditionally, 3-D photographers have paid attention to the "stereo window". Most of the action would be composed just behind the level of the screen, and layering back into the distance. Occasionally, something might be put through the "window" or screen level and seem to come into the audience space. This method is how the vast majority of 3-D movies have been shot, and still the best way, I think. It's also the way I compose still 3-D photos I shoot. Sort of imagine yourself sitting in front a window and looking out, and you'll get the general idea. This approach allows a very natural depth and does not overly strain the eyes of the audience if photographed and projected correctly.
The Digital 3-D camp is using the latter approach, but that said, they are obviously limiting the amount of depth on the screen. The 3-D effect in the films released so far is for sure less than what is traditional, and certainly less than what is possible using this format. The general consensus is that they are making this creative choice right now to appeal to the widest possible audience and to ensure that complaints of eye strain and headaches are held to an absolute minimum. The "stereo base" they are using is for sure less than IMAX is using, but it's also a heck of a lot easier to watch. The Digital group is trying to get 3-D movies back in to wide release (think thousands of screens eventually) while IMAX is limited to a few specialized venues. In order to make this happen, they are being conservative right now. That's the take on it.
I am certain that as time goes on, you'll see a more traditional amount of depth in many of these movies. They are simply taking baby steps now to train the audiences!
Traditionally, 3-D photographers have paid attention to the "stereo window". Most of the action would be composed just behind the level of the screen, and layering back into the distance. Occasionally, something might be put through the "window" or screen level and seem to come into the audience space. This method is how the vast majority of 3-D movies have been shot, and still the best way, I think. It's also the way I compose still 3-D photos I shoot. Sort of imagine yourself sitting in front a window and looking out, and you'll get the general idea. This approach allows a very natural depth and does not overly strain the eyes of the audience if photographed and projected correctly.
The Digital 3-D camp is using the latter approach, but that said, they are obviously limiting the amount of depth on the screen. The 3-D effect in the films released so far is for sure less than what is traditional, and certainly less than what is possible using this format. The general consensus is that they are making this creative choice right now to appeal to the widest possible audience and to ensure that complaints of eye strain and headaches are held to an absolute minimum. The "stereo base" they are using is for sure less than IMAX is using, but it's also a heck of a lot easier to watch. The Digital group is trying to get 3-D movies back in to wide release (think thousands of screens eventually) while IMAX is limited to a few specialized venues. In order to make this happen, they are being conservative right now. That's the take on it.
I am certain that as time goes on, you'll see a more traditional amount of depth in many of these movies. They are simply taking baby steps now to train the audiences!
Last edited by Steve Phillips; 10-24-06 at 11:43 AM.
10-24-06, 11:11 AM
#35
Moderator
Originally Posted by Steve Phillips
It's true; the IMAX school of thought is that the action should start at the level of the screen and come forward. They want the entire movie to seem to take place right in front of your face. This is a choice they are making, probably because of the types of auditoriums the films usually play in. While in some case this can work quite well (THE POLAR EXPRESS) for example, it can also lead to eye strain, because the eye has to focus on the foreground for a long time. I've seen more 3-D than almost anyone I know, and I find the IMAX approach a bit tiresome. It also lessens the impact of gimmick shots, when things seem to move forward. IMAX 3-D can be great, but I've also seen many of the documentaries that were a real pain the eye balls to watch.
Tradionally, 3-D photographers have paid attention to the "stereo window". Most of the action would be composed just behind the level of the screen, and layering back into the distance. Occasionally, something might be put through the "window" or screen level and seem to come into the audience space. This method is how the vast majority of 3-D movies have been shot, and still the best way, I think. It's also the way I compose still 3-D photos I shoot. Sort of imagine yourself sitting in front a window and looking out, and you'll get the general idea. This approach allows a very natural depth and does not overly strain the eyes of the audience if photographed and projected correctly.
The Digital 3-D camp is using the latter approach, but that said, they are obviously limiting the amount of depth on the screen. The 3-D effect in the films released so far is for sure less than what is tradional, and certainly less than what is possible using this format. The general consensus is that they are making this creative choice right now to appeal to the widest possible audience and to ensure that complaints of eye strain and headaches are held to an absolute minimum. The "stereo base" they are using is for sure less than IMAX is using, but it's also a heck of a lot easier to watch. The Digital group is trying to get 3-D movies back in to wide release (think thousands of screens eventually) while IMAX is limited to a few specialized venues. In order to make this happen, they are being conservative right now. That's the take on it.
I am certain that as time goes on, you'll see a more tradional amount of depth in many of these movies. They are simply taking baby steps now to train the audiences!
Tradionally, 3-D photographers have paid attention to the "stereo window". Most of the action would be composed just behind the level of the screen, and layering back into the distance. Occasionally, something might be put through the "window" or screen level and seem to come into the audience space. This method is how the vast majority of 3-D movies have been shot, and still the best way, I think. It's also the way I compose still 3-D photos I shoot. Sort of imagine yourself sitting in front a window and looking out, and you'll get the general idea. This approach allows a very natural depth and does not overly strain the eyes of the audience if photographed and projected correctly.
The Digital 3-D camp is using the latter approach, but that said, they are obviously limiting the amount of depth on the screen. The 3-D effect in the films released so far is for sure less than what is tradional, and certainly less than what is possible using this format. The general consensus is that they are making this creative choice right now to appeal to the widest possible audience and to ensure that complaints of eye strain and headaches are held to an absolute minimum. The "stereo base" they are using is for sure less than IMAX is using, but it's also a heck of a lot easier to watch. The Digital group is trying to get 3-D movies back in to wide release (think thousands of screens eventually) while IMAX is limited to a few specialized venues. In order to make this happen, they are being conservative right now. That's the take on it.
I am certain that as time goes on, you'll see a more tradional amount of depth in many of these movies. They are simply taking baby steps now to train the audiences!
10-24-06, 07:44 PM
#37
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Steve Phillips
It's true; the IMAX school of thought is that the action should start at the level of the screen and come forward. They want the entire movie to seem to take place right in front of your face. This is a choice they are making, probably because of the types of auditoriums the films usually play in. While in some case this can work quite well (THE POLAR EXPRESS) for example, it can also lead to eye strain, because the eye has to focus on the foreground for a long time. I've seen more 3-D than almost anyone I know, and I find the IMAX approach a bit tiresome. It also lessens the impact of gimmick shots, when things seem to move forward. IMAX 3-D can be great, but I've also seen many of the documentaries that were a real pain the eye balls to watch.
Originally Posted by Steve Phillips
Traditionally, 3-D photographers have paid attention to the "stereo window". Most of the action would be composed just behind the level of the screen, and layering back into the distance. Occasionally, something might be put through the "window" or screen level and seem to come into the audience space. This method is how the vast majority of 3-D movies have been shot, and still the best way, I think. It's also the way I compose still 3-D photos I shoot. Sort of imagine yourself sitting in front a window and looking out, and you'll get the general idea. This approach allows a very natural depth and does not overly strain the eyes of the audience if photographed and projected correctly.
10-25-06, 08:26 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this on Friday and I have to say I was disappointed. The jack in the box pumpkin from the beginning was what I thought the rest of the film was going to be.
Granted, it was awesome to see it on the big screen again, but there was no "jumping out at you" scenes, which would have been very cool. .
Granted, it was awesome to see it on the big screen again, but there was no "jumping out at you" scenes, which would have been very cool. .
10-25-06, 10:16 AM
#41
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by msblue
Granted, it was awesome to see it on the big screen again, but there was no "jumping out at you" scenes, which would have been very cool. .
10-25-06, 10:47 AM
#42
Moderator
Originally Posted by Falc04
Like Steve mentioned above, it's the 'depth' of the scenes that is so well done. The foreground and background shots are perfectly in snych. Like someone mentioned, it's like looking into a viewmaster...which I found to be really cool.
10-25-06, 11:37 AM
#43
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I saw it and although being a big fan of the movie, was not impressed at all with the 3D conversion. The content before the movie had better 3D effects than the movie itself.
10-25-06, 01:01 PM
#44
Moderator
Originally Posted by mmconhea
I saw it and although being a big fan of the movie, was not impressed at all with the 3D conversion. The content before the movie had better 3D effects than the movie itself.
10-25-06, 01:35 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i saw this last night and loved it. sure it didn't have things jumping out at me, but thats not what i really wanted. i thought the expanded depth of field was cool, as was the iconic shot of jack on that hill in front of the moon.
10-30-06, 07:27 PM
#46
DVD Talk Special Edition
Anyone know how long this is going to be shown. Im thinking of making the 3-4 hr trek this weekend to San Fran to catch it. I just want to be sure it will still be playing. Fandango dosent seem to give show times of anything after this thurs.
10-31-06, 07:27 PM
#48
New Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it just my theater's speakers going out or were some lines cut from the movie? After the opening Halloween celebration and everyone is complimenting Jack, one of the witches says "'Walls fall'?! You made the very mountains crack, Jack." When I saw that scene in the new version, the line is cut and we just hear the Professor's wheelchair coming in.
Anybody else notice this or was my theater just haven't sound issues in one of the channels?
Anybody else notice this or was my theater just haven't sound issues in one of the channels?
10-31-06, 10:15 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aron41
Was it just my theater's speakers going out or were some lines cut from the movie? After the opening Halloween celebration and everyone is complimenting Jack, one of the witches says "'Walls fall'?! You made the very mountains crack, Jack." When I saw that scene in the new version, the line is cut and we just hear the Professor's wheelchair coming in.
Anybody else notice this or was my theater just haven't sound issues in one of the channels?
Anybody else notice this or was my theater just haven't sound issues in one of the channels?
i wasn't "wowed" by the 3d (monster house, however, was great) - but it was a cool experience to see this in the theater again!