I watched:

FAMILY GUY:
FXX was playing every ep.

SPIDERMAN: NO WAY HOME:
I enjoyed it, but there were some hoooge plotholes in the resolution
that bugged me.

What did you watch?

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> I watched:
>
>
> What did you watch?

Hey, thanks for asking!

JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.

Disney+ also had a bunch of extras, deleted scenes and behind the scenes
making of stuff.

Fred Bob says “check it out” if you’re looking for a visual assault.

Then as long as I was there I chose the “show all the marvel universe
movies in the order in which they took place“ option thinking I might
actually make it all the way through Captain sticky cheese marvel. It
started with captain America the first avenger which I got about halfway
through before Cox insisted on the daily system update and I let it go for
the night. I did get to see the impossibly cute Clara Oswin Oswald first
though.

FANTASY ISLAND Christmas special discussed elsewhere.

>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On 12/29/2021 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> I watched:
>>
>>
>> What did you watch?
>
> Hey, thanks for asking!
>
> JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
> Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
> which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.
>

It was released in 3D. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it in 3D. I'm
really annoyed I didn't get to see Spider-Man in 3D. I don't care so
much about Jungle Cruise, but I need to seed Spider-Man in 3D, which
will probably mean having to import the disc from Europe.

> Disney+ also had a bunch of extras, deleted scenes and behind the scenes
> making of stuff.
>
> Fred Bob says “check it out” if you’re looking for a visual assault.
>
>

Have you seen the trailers for "The Lost City?" It looks like a
straight rip off of Romancing the Stone, and will probably pair well
with Jungle Cruise.

I watched:

Police Academy (blu-ray) 1984 comedy starring Steve Guttenberg as a
screw up who gets coerced into joining the police academy to stay out of
jail. I haven't watched this movie in forever. It holds up great and
is still LOL funny. I bought a box set of all the movies a few years
ago, and now I'm finally in the mood to watch them all. Plus I have
time! I watched this one with a really good commentary track featuring
the director, producer, and actors Steve Guttenberg, G.W. Bailey, Leslie
Easterbrook, and Michael Winslow. There were times during the movie
when I would hear sound effects and look to see where in the scene the
effects were coming from then realize it was Michael Winslow doing the
effects "live" on the commentary track. Winslow really did carry the
entire franchise on his back, especially after Guttenberg left.

Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (blu-ray) 1985 - The lovable
team of screw up cops from the fist movie are assigned to the worst
police precinct in the city. It's run by Captain Pete Lassard (Howard
Hesseman), who is the brother of Commandant Lassard (George Gaynes) from
the first movie. Hesseman has 30 days to fix his crime stats or he'll
be replaced by a brownnosing toady, Lieutenant Mauser (Art Metrano) and
his sidekick Lt. Proctor (Lance Kinsey). Joining the series is Tim
Kazurinsky as the constant victim Carl Sweetchuck and Bobcat Goldthwait
as Zed McGlunk, the leader of the local street gang. I think I must
have watched this movie a zillion times when I was a kid. It's still
LOL funny.

And this scene from Winslow is as funny as ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH0av1iDYVI

Police Academy 3: Back in Training (blu-ray) 1986 sequel which has
Commandant Mauser (Art Metrano) and Lt. Proctor (Lance Kinsey) from the
second movie teaming up with the two jerk cadets from the first movie to
make sure Commandant Lassard's academy is closed and his gets to stay
open. This is my first time ever watching the movies back-to-back like
this. And I don't remember 3 all that well. But watching 3 immediately
after 2 this is the first time I ever noticed that in 2 Mauser was a
regular cop but now to shoehorn him into 3, suddenly he's running a
rival police academy. And I never realized they brought back the two
original jerks from the first movie. Anyway, to help him win the
contest Lassard brings back his favorite cadets from the first two
movies. This makes *no* sense! But who cares, it's funny! And along
with the returning favorites from the first movie are Sweetchuck and
Bobcat from the second movie who decide to join the academy.

Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol (blu-ray) - 1987 sequel and last
Police Academy movie to star Steve Guttenberg and Bobcat Goldthwait.
They also brought G.W. Bailey back as Captain Thaddeus Harris, replacing
Art Metrano. I knew Art suffered a serious injury and couldn't act, but
according to Wiki the injury was after this movie. He simply didn't
want to make any more Police Academy movies. Lt. Proctor is back, but
now he is Captain Harris' lackey. It is weird watching them
back-to-back and catching little details like this that I never noticed
before. G.W. Bailey's Captain Harris and Art Metrano's Lieutenant
Mauser are completely interchangeable. They even have the same lackey!
I also never realized until now that the same jerk cop from the first
movie came back for 3 and this one. I had *no* idea he was in any movie
other than the first one. I also caught that this movie introduced Tab
Thacker as "House." I *knew* he was in Police Academy 5, but forgot he
was introduced in this movie. I actually don't remember this one all
that well. The only ones I know well are 1, 2, and 6. I didn't even
know Sharon Stone was in this movie until I saw her name in the opening
credits. Anyway, the plot of this one is pretty much a rehash of the
plots of 2 and 3 with the loveable screw up cops helping their friend,
once again Commandant Lassard (George Gaynes), while Captain Harris
tries to undermine them. This time they are helping Lassard with his
Citizens on Patrol program which is an excuse for another group of wacky
police recruits to show up. Does it make the slightest bit of sense
that the same team of police officers would be hanging around the police
academy long after they graduated? No! Even less sense considering in
2 Bobcat Goldthwait was the leader of a street gang trying to kill them,
but now he's in the inner circle. But hey, it doesn't make sense that
the same bridge team are flying on the Enterprise movie after movie
either. You just have to go with it. I always considered this one of
the lesser Police Academy movies, but I guess I was just in a good mood,
because I generally liked it on this viewing.

Rustlers' Rhapsody (Paramount+) 1985 comedy Western written and directed
by Hugh Wilson, who also wrote and directed the first Police Academy
movie. It stars Tom Berenger as Rex O'Herlihan, a Lone Ranger type of
hero who knows everything that's going to happen before it happens
because all western towns are the same. And G.W. Bailey co-stars as his
sidekick. Rex rides into town to stop the evil plans of the local
colonel (Andy Griffith). All western towns either have a colonel or a
railroad coming through, and the town in this movie has both! And in
this town the railroad is populated by Italian Spaghetti western types.
John Waynes' son, Patrick Wayne, also has a role as the "good guy" the
bad guys hire to deal with the hero. This is another childhood favorite
movie. The movie holds up great and continues to be LOL. This is also
available on Hulu. I checked both and they appear to be the exact same
print.

The villains join forces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEiwqEMhS9E

Mayor of Kingstown (Paramount+) - "The Devil Is Us" - A *lot* when down
in this episode, and all of it spoilers!

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
>which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.

I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
3-D for video projection the same as for home video?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>> Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
>> which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.
>
> I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
> 3-D for video projection the same as for home video?
>

That’s an interesting question and my answer is that I don’t have the
slightest idea.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On 12/29/2021 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>> Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
>> which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.
>
> I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
> 3-D for video projection the same as for home video?

There are special cameras that can be used to "film" movies in 3D.
Using those special cameras is why movies like Avatar looked so much
better than previous 3D attempts. For a while when 3D was the big craze
they were shooting in 2D then converting to 3D with mixed results. But
now movies can be shot in 2D and converted into 3D with results that
look just as good.

As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with it.

All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment. For the longest time
I wouldn't upgrade my TV because they don't make 3DTVs in the U.S.
anymore. But I'm upgrading to a projector system and those are still 3D
compatible.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>On 12/29/2021 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>>JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>>>Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
>>>which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.

>>I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
>>3-D for video projection the same as for home video?

>There are special cameras that can be used to "film" movies in 3D.

I know a tiny bit about the filming process, which involved a prism
which changed the angle as if it were seen by each eye individually,
then projected onto film so there were separate photographic tracks.
There was also a process that used separate cameras perfectly
synchronized like Cinerama but that was done for museum exhibits and not
commercial movies.

I know nothing about how 3D is videoed these days.

I'm not talking about making the video recording.

>Using those special cameras is why movies like Avatar looked so much
>better than previous 3D attempts. For a while when 3D was the big craze
>they were shooting in 2D then converting to 3D with mixed results.

It stinks.

>But
>now movies can be shot in 2D and converted into 3D with results that
>look just as good.

I've never seen an example of this. what are you thinking of? I find a
lot of video imaging gets depth of field wrong under circumstances I
don't understand and it takes me out of the movie.

>As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with it.

A 3D print was similar to filming in 3D in the first place. Wasn't the
image recombined, then separated again for projection? That's why we had
to wear polarized glasses.

I am also aware that those 3D broadcasts were not created from 3D film
prints.

>All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment.

I'm asking if 3D projection or viewing at home is the same video process
as projecting 3D video in theater.

>For the longest time
>I wouldn't upgrade my TV because they don't make 3DTVs in the U.S.
>anymore. But I'm upgrading to a projector system and those are still 3D
>compatible.

On 12/29/2021 2:19 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> On 12/29/2021 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>>> Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time.
>>> Much of
>>> which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.
>>
>> I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
>> 3-D for video projection the same as for home video?
>
>
> There are special cameras that can be used to "film" movies in 3D. Using
> those special cameras is why movies like Avatar looked so much better
> than previous 3D attempts.  For a while when 3D was the big craze they
> were shooting in 2D then converting to 3D with mixed results.  But now
> movies can be shot in 2D and converted into 3D with results that look
> just as good.
>
>
> As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with it.
>
> All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment.  For the longest time
> I wouldn't upgrade my TV because they don't make 3DTVs in the U.S.
> anymore.  But I'm upgrading to a projector system and those are still 3D
> compatible.

Afaics, 3-D makes sense only if you have a wide viewing angle, because a
3-D TV (or sitting at the back in a 3-D theater) is like watching all
the action take place in a small aquarium on your desk -- it's cool, but
it actually *dis*-engages you from the drama (...because your vision
stops making the rapid scale-adjustments it affords 2-D). So, yeah, get
that projector, but make it bright enough to fill a large screen...

On 12/29/2021 11:55 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2021 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>> JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>>>> Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much of
>>>> which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.
>
>>> I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
>>> 3-D for video projection the same as for home video?
>
>> There are special cameras that can be used to "film" movies in 3D.
>
> I know a tiny bit about the filming process, which involved a prism
> which changed the angle as if it were seen by each eye individually,
> then projected onto film so there were separate photographic tracks.
> There was also a process that used separate cameras perfectly
> synchronized like Cinerama but that was done for museum exhibits and not
> commercial movies.
>
> I know nothing about how 3D is videoed these days.
>
> I'm not talking about making the video recording.
>
>> Using those special cameras is why movies like Avatar looked so much
>> better than previous 3D attempts. For a while when 3D was the big craze
>> they were shooting in 2D then converting to 3D with mixed results.
>
> It stinks.
>
>> But
>> now movies can be shot in 2D and converted into 3D with results that
>> look just as good.
>
> I've never seen an example of this. what are you thinking of? I find a
> lot of video imaging gets depth of field wrong under circumstances I
> don't understand and it takes me out of the movie.
>

I'd have to look at a list to know what was shot in 2D and converted vs.
shot in 3D. But looking at a list, off the top of my head I'd say:

The Nightmare Before Christmas - This was obviously shot in 2D at a time
when 3D wasn't even contemplated, but the 3D conversion is *excellent*

For more modern movies I'd say the Marvel movies which were shot in 2D
and converted. They all look great. Two highlights are Guardians of
the Galaxy and Infinity War.

I think the most recent ones I saw were Black Widow which looked fine,
and Eternals, which also looked fine but the 3D seemed to very much be
an after thought with that one.

>> As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with it.
>
> A 3D print was similar to filming in 3D in the first place. Wasn't the
> image recombined, then separated again for projection? That's why we had
> to wear polarized glasses.
>
> I am also aware that those 3D broadcasts were not created from 3D film
> prints.
>
>> All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment.
>
> I'm asking if 3D projection or viewing at home is the same video process
> as projecting 3D video in theater.
>

I think the confusion is you're thinking of old school 3D the way it
used to be and I'm describing the way it is now. Except you know a lot
more about filming technique than I do. But you're filtering my
explanations into a world that doesn't exist any more. Most modern
movies aren't shot on film. The theaters don't use film either. It is
all digital. The same goes for at home viewing. Whether you are
watching a 2D or 3D movie at the theater or at home it is essentially
the same process. For 3D you need a pair of 3D glasses. For most 3D
movies you watch at the theater you need a pair of polarized 3D glasses.
IMAX has it's own proprietary 3D technology that's not compatible but
also uses polarized glasses.

For at home 3D viewing there are two options: passive 3D and active 3D.

Passive 3D is the same 3D technology you get in the theaters (IMAX
excluded). The theater and home 3D glasses are interchangeable. Active
3D is not polarized. The glasses require a battery and sync with the
display. And a Sony active 3D glasses may not work with Samsung, which
may not work with Panasonic, and so on.

My first 3DTV used active technology, which at the time was arguably
better than passive. My second TV was passive, but it's a 4KTV which
allowed for a better 3D image than was possible with 1080 3D. My new
system (which hasn't been installed yet) will be active 3D. I'm not too
happy about going from passive back to active, but the 3D should be
flawless.

One more thing. Some old school 3D movies that used the red and blue
glasses are now being converted into new 3D which use polarized glasses.
I have two on my shelf, but I haven't watched either yet, so I can't
speak to how the conversion looks.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>On 12/29/2021 11:55 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

[acceptable upconverting to 3D]
>>I've never seen an example of this. what are you thinking of? I find a
>>lot of video imaging gets depth of field wrong under circumstances I
>>don't understand and it takes me out of the movie.

>I'd have to look at a list to know what was shot in 2D and converted vs.
>shot in 3D. But looking at a list, off the top of my head I'd say:

>The Nightmare Before Christmas - This was obviously shot in 2D at a time
>when 3D wasn't even contemplated, but the 3D conversion is *excellent*

>For more modern movies I'd say the Marvel movies which were shot in 2D
>and converted. They all look great. Two highlights are Guardians of
>the Galaxy and Infinity War.

Thanks

>I think the most recent ones I saw were Black Widow which looked fine,
>and Eternals, which also looked fine but the 3D seemed to very much be
>an after thought with that one.

>>>As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with it.

>>A 3D print was similar to filming in 3D in the first place. Wasn't the
>>image recombined, then separated again for projection? That's why we had
>>to wear polarized glasses.

>>I am also aware that those 3D broadcasts were not created from 3D film
>>prints.

>>>All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment.

>>I'm asking if 3D projection or viewing at home is the same video process
>>as projecting 3D video in theater.

>I think the confusion is you're thinking of old school 3D the way it
>used to be and I'm describing the way it is now.

I know but I really wanted to know if the 3D video projection system in
a movie theater is in any way comparable to what someone would use at
home, configured for a smaller room.

>Except you know a lot more about filming technique than I do.

It was something I read at one point, and I think it applied to only one
of the 3-D systems.

>But you're filtering my
>explanations into a world that doesn't exist any more. Most modern
>movies aren't shot on film. The theaters don't use film either. It is
>all digital. The same goes for at home viewing. Whether you are
>watching a 2D or 3D movie at the theater or at home it is essentially
>the same process. For 3D you need a pair of 3D glasses. For most 3D
>movies you watch at the theater you need a pair of polarized 3D glasses.
> IMAX has it's own proprietary 3D technology that's not compatible but
>also uses polarized glasses.

I saw Superman Returns 3D in IMAX. I was aware that no IMAX cameras were
used to film and I guess IMAX cameras are all mothballed. I refuse to
attend IMAX with digital projection.

There were scenes I thought the depth of field was distorted. There was
only a small portion of the movie in 3-D.

>For at home 3D viewing there are two options: passive 3D and active 3D.

>Passive 3D is the same 3D technology you get in the theaters (IMAX
>excluded). The theater and home 3D glasses are interchangeable.

Thanks. That what I was asking about.

>Active
>3D is not polarized. The glasses require a battery and sync with the
>display. And a Sony active 3D glasses may not work with Samsung, which
>may not work with Panasonic, and so on.

>My first 3DTV used active technology, which at the time was arguably
>better than passive. My second TV was passive, but it's a 4KTV which
>allowed for a better 3D image than was possible with 1080 3D. My new
>system (which hasn't been installed yet) will be active 3D. I'm not too
>happy about going from passive back to active, but the 3D should be
>flawless.

>One more thing. Some old school 3D movies that used the red and blue
>glasses are now being converted into new 3D which use polarized glasses.
> I have two on my shelf, but I haven't watched either yet, so I can't
>speak to how the conversion looks.

Huh. As I recall, in projection, there were two images layered on top of
each other and the colored lens blocked one image from the eye.

Never quite understood how polarized glass worked and I don't have any
idea what active technology does.

Thank you very much.

In article <sqibaa$aje$2@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>JUNGLE CRUISE on Disney+
>>Man did this have a lot of stuff going on on screen the whole time. Much
>>of which was indecipherable. I assume it was intended to be seen in 3-D.
>
>I don't know anything about this. With no more film projection, is the
>3-D for video projection the same as for home video?

I never understood the appeal of making a 3D movie or TV show.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <sqiuoi$mul$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Never quite understood how polarized glass worked and I don't have any
> idea what active technology does.

Polarized glass is a mystery to me, too, but I've seen exactly one film
in 3D, and it used that process. It was Spacehunter: Adventures in the
Forbidden Zone (1983), the Molly Ringwald film that came out just
before Sixteen Candles. I don't think the 3D worked very well, and
there was no other reason to see the movie.

On 12/29/2021 7:39 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <sqiuoi$mul$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Never quite understood how polarized glass worked and I don't have any
>> idea what active technology does.
>
>
> Polarized glass is a mystery to me, too, but I've seen exactly one film
> in 3D, and it used that process. It was Spacehunter: Adventures in the
> Forbidden Zone (1983), the Molly Ringwald film that came out just
> before Sixteen Candles. I don't think the 3D worked very well, and
> there was no other reason to see the movie.

I know you said Spacehunter, but at first I thought you meant
"Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn" I have that movie in 3D. It
is notoriously one of the *worse* 3D movies released. To say the 3D is
bad would be an insult to bad! But Spacehunter was never released on
blu-ray in 3D in the U.S. So I'm assuming you are referring to the
theatrical release. If you are comparing 80s 3D to modern 3D then you
are comparing apples to bowling balls. Not even close to being in the
same ball park. The same goes for Superman Returns which was filmed in
2D and converted to 3D. And keep in mind that also pre Avatar.

There was good modern 3D pre Avatar, but Avatar was a game changer.
You can tell "good" 3D by what camera system was used. Avatar, Step Up
3D, and Resident Evil: Afterlife, which were the gold standard for
reference 3D were all filmed using the Fusion Camera System. At the
same time you were getting movies filmed in 2D then converted into 3D,
and like I said before with mixed results. Most film-goers probably had
no idea if the movie was filmed in 3D or converted, they just know the
3D looked bad and gave them a headache, then blamed all 3D equally.

On 12/29/2021 4:33 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2021 11:55 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> [acceptable upconverting to 3D]
>
>>> I've never seen an example of this. what are you thinking of? I find a
>>> lot of video imaging gets depth of field wrong under circumstances I
>>> don't understand and it takes me out of the movie.
>
>> I'd have to look at a list to know what was shot in 2D and converted vs.
>> shot in 3D. But looking at a list, off the top of my head I'd say:
>
>> The Nightmare Before Christmas - This was obviously shot in 2D at a time
>> when 3D wasn't even contemplated, but the 3D conversion is *excellent*
>
>> For more modern movies I'd say the Marvel movies which were shot in 2D
>> and converted. They all look great. Two highlights are Guardians of
>> the Galaxy and Infinity War.
>
> Thanks
>
>> I think the most recent ones I saw were Black Widow which looked fine,
>> and Eternals, which also looked fine but the 3D seemed to very much be
>> an after thought with that one.
>
>>>> As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with it.
>
>>> A 3D print was similar to filming in 3D in the first place. Wasn't the
>>> image recombined, then separated again for projection? That's why we had
>>> to wear polarized glasses.
>
>>> I am also aware that those 3D broadcasts were not created from 3D film
>>> prints.
>
>>>> All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment.
>
>>> I'm asking if 3D projection or viewing at home is the same video process
>>> as projecting 3D video in theater.
>
>> I think the confusion is you're thinking of old school 3D the way it
>> used to be and I'm describing the way it is now.
>
> I know but I really wanted to know if the 3D video projection system in
> a movie theater is in any way comparable to what someone would use at
> home, configured for a smaller room.
>
>> Except you know a lot more about filming technique than I do.
>
> It was something I read at one point, and I think it applied to only one
> of the 3-D systems.
>
>> But you're filtering my
>> explanations into a world that doesn't exist any more. Most modern
>> movies aren't shot on film. The theaters don't use film either. It is
>> all digital. The same goes for at home viewing. Whether you are
>> watching a 2D or 3D movie at the theater or at home it is essentially
>> the same process. For 3D you need a pair of 3D glasses. For most 3D
>> movies you watch at the theater you need a pair of polarized 3D glasses.
>> IMAX has it's own proprietary 3D technology that's not compatible but
>> also uses polarized glasses.
>
> I saw Superman Returns 3D in IMAX. I was aware that no IMAX cameras were
> used to film and I guess IMAX cameras are all mothballed. I refuse to
> attend IMAX with digital projection.
>
> There were scenes I thought the depth of field was distorted. There was
> only a small portion of the movie in 3-D.
>

It was filmed in 2D and converted to 3D. But only 20 minutes was in 3D.
I never saw it in 3D. Back when it came out I didn't live near an
IMAX and seeing movies in IMAX/3D wasn't a thing yet.

>> For at home 3D viewing there are two options: passive 3D and active 3D.
>
>> Passive 3D is the same 3D technology you get in the theaters (IMAX
>> excluded). The theater and home 3D glasses are interchangeable.
>
> Thanks. That what I was asking about.
>
>> Active
>> 3D is not polarized. The glasses require a battery and sync with the
>> display. And a Sony active 3D glasses may not work with Samsung, which
>> may not work with Panasonic, and so on.
>
>> My first 3DTV used active technology, which at the time was arguably
>> better than passive. My second TV was passive, but it's a 4KTV which
>> allowed for a better 3D image than was possible with 1080 3D. My new
>> system (which hasn't been installed yet) will be active 3D. I'm not too
>> happy about going from passive back to active, but the 3D should be
>> flawless.
>
>> One more thing. Some old school 3D movies that used the red and blue
>> glasses are now being converted into new 3D which use polarized glasses.
>> I have two on my shelf, but I haven't watched either yet, so I can't
>> speak to how the conversion looks.
>
> Huh. As I recall, in projection, there were two images layered on top of
> each other and the colored lens blocked one image from the eye.
>
> Never quite understood how polarized glass worked and I don't have any
> idea what active technology does.
>

I can't claim I understand either. But they are way better than red
blue glasses!

But as far as active, that uses technology beyond just a piece of
plastic. From wiki:
"...Each eye's glass contains a liquid crystal layer which has the
property of becoming opaque when voltage is applied, being otherwise
transparent. The glasses are controlled by a timing signal that allows
the glasses to alternately block one eye, and then the other, in
synchronization with the refresh rate of the screen. The timing
synchronization to the video equipment may be achieved via a wired
signal, or wirelessly by either an infrared or radio frequency..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shutter_3D_system

You would never encounter active 3D unless you were at someone's house
who used the technology. But if you did use it, other than turning "on"
the glasses, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from passive. When
I had my first TV, it was active 3D and I never had a problem with it.
But I now prefer passive 3D simply because I wear prescription glasses
and I can put a passive 3D clip on over them. I can't do that with
active 3D. I have to wear the actual 3D glasses over my prescription
glasses. But that's just a minor annoyance. And supposedly the active
3D picture quality is better, so I guess there's that.

In article <sqjfnh$3q8$1@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 12/29/2021 4:33 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >> On 12/29/2021 11:55 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >
> > [acceptable upconverting to 3D]
> >
> >>> I've never seen an example of this. what are you thinking of? I find a
> >>> lot of video imaging gets depth of field wrong under circumstances I
> >>> don't understand and it takes me out of the movie.
> >
> >> I'd have to look at a list to know what was shot in 2D and converted vs.
> >> shot in 3D. But looking at a list, off the top of my head I'd say:
> >
> >> The Nightmare Before Christmas - This was obviously shot in 2D at a time
> >> when 3D wasn't even contemplated, but the 3D conversion is *excellent*
> >
> >> For more modern movies I'd say the Marvel movies which were shot in 2D
> >> and converted. They all look great. Two highlights are Guardians of
> >> the Galaxy and Infinity War.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >> I think the most recent ones I saw were Black Widow which looked fine,
> >> and Eternals, which also looked fine but the 3D seemed to very much be
> >> an after thought with that one.
> >
> >>>> As far as projection goes, being on actual film has nothing to do with
> >>>> it.
> >
> >>> A 3D print was similar to filming in 3D in the first place. Wasn't the
> >>> image recombined, then separated again for projection? That's why we had
> >>> to wear polarized glasses.
> >
> >>> I am also aware that those 3D broadcasts were not created from 3D film
> >>> prints.
> >
> >>>> All you need for home 3D is compatible equipment.
> >
> >>> I'm asking if 3D projection or viewing at home is the same video process
> >>> as projecting 3D video in theater.
> >
> >> I think the confusion is you're thinking of old school 3D the way it
> >> used to be and I'm describing the way it is now.
> >
> > I know but I really wanted to know if the 3D video projection system in
> > a movie theater is in any way comparable to what someone would use at
> > home, configured for a smaller room.
> >
> >> Except you know a lot more about filming technique than I do.
> >
> > It was something I read at one point, and I think it applied to only one
> > of the 3-D systems.
> >
> >> But you're filtering my
> >> explanations into a world that doesn't exist any more. Most modern
> >> movies aren't shot on film. The theaters don't use film either. It is
> >> all digital. The same goes for at home viewing. Whether you are
> >> watching a 2D or 3D movie at the theater or at home it is essentially
> >> the same process. For 3D you need a pair of 3D glasses. For most 3D
> >> movies you watch at the theater you need a pair of polarized 3D glasses.
> >> IMAX has it's own proprietary 3D technology that's not compatible but
> >> also uses polarized glasses.
> >
> > I saw Superman Returns 3D in IMAX. I was aware that no IMAX cameras were
> > used to film and I guess IMAX cameras are all mothballed. I refuse to
> > attend IMAX with digital projection.
> >
> > There were scenes I thought the depth of field was distorted. There was
> > only a small portion of the movie in 3-D.
> >
>
> It was filmed in 2D and converted to 3D. But only 20 minutes was in 3D.
> I never saw it in 3D. Back when it came out I didn't live near an
> IMAX and seeing movies in IMAX/3D wasn't a thing yet.
>
>
> >> For at home 3D viewing there are two options: passive 3D and active 3D.
> >
> >> Passive 3D is the same 3D technology you get in the theaters (IMAX
> >> excluded). The theater and home 3D glasses are interchangeable.
> >
> > Thanks. That what I was asking about.
> >
> >> Active
> >> 3D is not polarized. The glasses require a battery and sync with the
> >> display. And a Sony active 3D glasses may not work with Samsung, which
> >> may not work with Panasonic, and so on.
> >
> >> My first 3DTV used active technology, which at the time was arguably
> >> better than passive. My second TV was passive, but it's a 4KTV which
> >> allowed for a better 3D image than was possible with 1080 3D. My new
> >> system (which hasn't been installed yet) will be active 3D. I'm not too
> >> happy about going from passive back to active, but the 3D should be
> >> flawless.
> >
> >> One more thing. Some old school 3D movies that used the red and blue
> >> glasses are now being converted into new 3D which use polarized glasses.
> >> I have two on my shelf, but I haven't watched either yet, so I can't
> >> speak to how the conversion looks.
> >
> > Huh. As I recall, in projection, there were two images layered on top of
> > each other and the colored lens blocked one image from the eye.
> >
> > Never quite understood how polarized glass worked and I don't have any
> > idea what active technology does.
> >
>
>
> I can't claim I understand either. But they are way better than red
> blue glasses!
>
> But as far as active, that uses technology beyond just a piece of
> plastic. From wiki:
> "...Each eye's glass contains a liquid crystal layer which has the
> property of becoming opaque when voltage is applied, being otherwise
> transparent. The glasses are controlled by a timing signal that allows
> the glasses to alternately block one eye, and then the other, in
> synchronization with the refresh rate of the screen. The timing
> synchronization to the video equipment may be achieved via a wired
> signal, or wirelessly by either an infrared or radio frequency..."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shutter_3D_system
>
> You would never encounter active 3D unless you were at someone's house
> who used the technology. But if you did use it, other than turning "on"
> the glasses, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from passive. When
> I had my first TV, it was active 3D and I never had a problem with it.
> But I now prefer passive 3D simply because I wear prescription glasses
> and I can put a passive 3D clip on over them. I can't do that with
> active 3D. I have to wear the actual 3D glasses over my prescription
> glasses. But that's just a minor annoyance. And supposedly the active
> 3D picture quality is better, so I guess there's that.

You've just reminded me that we bought a 55" for the living room about
ten? twelve? years ago, and that it's 3D-capable. (You really couldn't
buy a big set that wasn't.) I don't know if there's any programming.
The glasses are still in their boxes, which are stashed ... somewhere.

On 12/30/2021 1:44 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <sqjfnh$3q8$1@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>

>
> You've just reminded me that we bought a 55" for the living room about
> ten? twelve? years ago, and that it's 3D-capable. (You really couldn't
> buy a big set that wasn't.) I don't know if there's any programming.
> The glasses are still in their boxes, which are stashed ... somewhere.

Back when everyone had a 3DTV there was a lot more programming out
there. One of the Olympics was broadcast in 3D and Comcast even had
some 3D channels. 3D is still extremely popular in other countries but
in the U.S. the only 3D you're likely to find is on old blu-ray movies.
They are still available to buy through Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc.

I still prefer 3D as the best viewing experience possible, but it is
harder and harder to find new movies released on blu-ray in 3D. If you
want new movies in 3D you usually have to import it. Although the new
Dune is being released on blu-ray in 3D in the U.S. But one of the
benefits of importing 3D is you can often get it as a 3D/4K combo.
Fortunately there are lots of other 3D fans online so word gets out
which movies are released in 3D or 3D/4K combo and where you can find them.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 12/30/2021 1:44 AM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <sqjfnh$3q8$1@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
>> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> You've just reminded me that we bought a 55" for the living room about
>> ten? twelve? years ago, and that it's 3D-capable. (You really couldn't
>> buy a big set that wasn't.) I don't know if there's any programming.
>> The glasses are still in their boxes, which are stashed ... somewhere.
>
>
> Back when everyone had a 3DTV there was a lot more programming out
> there. One of the Olympics was broadcast in 3D and Comcast even had
> some 3D channels. 3D is still extremely popular in other countries but
> in the U.S. the only 3D you're likely to find is on old blu-ray movies.
> They are still available to buy through Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc.
>
> I still prefer 3D as the best viewing experience possible, but it is
> harder and harder to find new movies released on blu-ray in 3D. If you
> want new movies in 3D you usually have to import it. Although the new
> Dune is being released on blu-ray in 3D in the U.S. But one of the
> benefits of importing 3D is you can often get it as a 3D/4K combo.
> Fortunately there are lots of other 3D fans online so word gets out
> which movies are released in 3D or 3D/4K combo and where you can find them.
>

Which reminds me the news articles about Alicia Witt’s parents being found
dead are all crediting Witt as being in DUNE. They just don’t mention which
version…

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> writes:

> Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (blu-ray) 1985 [snip]

> And this scene from Winslow is as funny as ever:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH0av1iDYVI

Great choreography. "Whoa, not the broccoli."

> Rustlers' Rhapsody (Paramount+) 1985 comedy Western written and
> directed by Hugh Wilson, who also wrote and directed the first Police
> Academy movie.

I had *no* idea that the same guy who created _WKRP_ and _Frank's Place_
created these spoof movies. Now I have to put them on my "at some point
in the future" list (which may be sooner than later since my free
Paramount Plus month ends in about three weeks).

> Mayor of Kingstown (Paramount+) - "The Devil Is Us" - A *lot* when
> down in this episode, and all of it spoilers!

O.K., so is it good? Maybe I'll fold it into the P+ rotation.

-Micky

On 1/10/2022 10:19 PM, Micky DuPree wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> writes:
>
>> Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (blu-ray) 1985 [snip]
>
>> And this scene from Winslow is as funny as ever:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH0av1iDYVI
>
> Great choreography. "Whoa, not the broccoli."
>
>

They found a way to shoehorn in a scene like this in every Police
Academy movie after. But by far my favorite is the one in 6, with 2 a
close second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDM0p42jq_Q

>> Rustlers' Rhapsody (Paramount+) 1985 comedy Western written and
>> directed by Hugh Wilson, who also wrote and directed the first Police
>> Academy movie.
>
> I had *no* idea that the same guy who created _WKRP_ and _Frank's Place_
> created these spoof movies. Now I have to put them on my "at some point
> in the future" list (which may be sooner than later since my free
> Paramount Plus month ends in about three weeks).
>
>
>> Mayor of Kingstown (Paramount+) - "The Devil Is Us" - A *lot* when
>> down in this episode, and all of it spoilers!
>
> O.K., so is it good? Maybe I'll fold it into the P+ rotation.
>
> -Micky
>

Yes, definitely fold it into rotation.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> writes:

> On 12/29/2021 4:33 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> Never quite understood how polarized glass worked and I don't have
>> any idea what active technology does.
>
> I can't claim I understand either. But they are way better than red
> blue glasses!

Ugh, here goes an oversimplified explanation from about 40 years ago.
I'm sure the better, more recently informed will step in to correct.
This, of course, would be the old-fashioned "passive" method, and I'm
going to try to avoid most of the technical terms, so don't flame me for
calling waveforms "wiggles."

So, light travels from a source towards your retinas. The color(s)
is/are determined by how fast it varies or wiggles in a sine wave back
and forth along the line of travel to your eyes. With an ordinary
source of light, the lines of light can have their "wiggles" oriented in
all directions and angles, so long as they continue to make their
boogie-woogie way towards your retinas.

A polarized lens (at least of the kind that they used to use for
sunglasses) will only let through the light waves that are wiggling at a
specified angle. Say, for example, a lens is designed, manufactured,
and mounted in an eyeglass frame to let through light waves that are
wiggling horizontally with respect to the lens, but blocks all the other
waves.

Then for your other eye, you rotate another such lens 90 degrees and
mount it on the other side of the eyeglass frame so that it only lets
through light waves that are wiggling vertically with respect to the
lens, and blocks all the others.

This way you can film and project two images that will be filtered in a
mutually exclusive way by the two lenses to give you the stereoscopic
sensation. I guess that after the manufacture, the tricky part is
making sure the filters in the two lenses are exactly perpendicularly
oriented with respect to each other. If they're a little "off" of an
exact 90 degrees, I assume you get blurriness.

> But as far as active, that uses technology beyond just a piece of
> plastic. From wiki: "...Each eye's glass contains a liquid crystal
> layer which has the property of becoming opaque when voltage is
> applied, being otherwise transparent. The glasses are controlled by a
> timing signal that allows the glasses to alternately block one eye,
> and then the other, in synchronization with the refresh rate of the
> screen. The timing synchronization to the video equipment may be
> achieved via a wired signal, or wirelessly by either an infrared or
> radio frequency..."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shutter_3D_system

Whoa, cool.

> And supposedly the active 3D picture quality is better, so I guess
> there's that.

The passive system, by design, is cutting down on a lot of the light
that reaches your eyes (which is why they can use the technology for
sunglasses). I'm sure that there are ways to compensate, but yeah, the
active system sounds like it would be technically superior.

-Micky