Talk:3-D film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 3-D film article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

Contents 1 3-D Film 2 Cleanup 3 Scientific, education & military uses 4 Citations 5 Power of Love 6 dark lens and a clear lens 7 Ghosting with circular polarisation 8 Stereoscopic Viewing Devices

[edit] 3-D Film

Hello! Can anyone help me with telling me what technology of 3D is this? Here´s the link

A 3-D film is actually 4-D: height, width, depth and TIME. User:69.243.96.8 added IP --Wittkowsky 08:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, but TIME isn't the point in explaining a film-format --Wittkowsky 08:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol, well it isn't anyway. It only creates the illusion of a third (or fourth) dimension. Borb 18:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I did what I could with the language and style in the main movie section, but someone with more knowledge of the topic should probably go in now and add/delete factual material. -- Tenebrae 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that the most important information has been added, I am removing the cleanup tag, as this is a functional and intelligible article. Thephotoplayer 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

New developments section is still written in non-ency language, makes predictions (contrary to Wiki standards), needs Wikistyle punctuation (movie titles in ital, not quotes), citations, and general polish. - Tenebrae 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having gone in and read the "History" section, I believe the cleanup tag was removed too soon. I had to make several adjustments, and did not have time to finish the whole section. Please see the reasons for the changes, on the tabbed History-of-edits page. - Tenebrae 16:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job, but for future reference, don't leave your edits in bold on the front article-- it looks bad, and that's what invisibe markup is for. There's certainly nothing on the page that is a prediction, as all of those events have been announced publicly. What source needs to be cited? Thephotoplayer 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Honest to goodness, I had another Wikipedian say I should leave notes in bold and specifically not use comment-out, invisible markup tags. The Wiki rules are so long are not always navigable, I couldn't anything specific in them about this. In any case, here are my suggestions for what needs cited in the sentences below — as well as an observation that this reads a bit Disney-centric, especially if six 3D animated films are planned for near-future release. What studios have announced them? Has production begun, or are the sources just testing the wind?

Chicken Little from Disney, in digital 3D, proved that method's feasibility, opening to excellent business and strong audience feedback, in Nov-Dec. 2005. Due to these successes, at least six animation films are sheduled for release prior to December 2006. Both IMAX 3D film, and new digital 3D will be used for these films. Disney hopes to have 750 digital 3D installations in place for their fall 2006 3D release, Meet the Robinsons.

What does "strong audience feedback" mean? How is this measured? What is your source? Who announced those six (presumably 3D) animated films. (Just noticed: "scheduled" misspelled). I'm not sure that the sentence beginning "Disney hope to" is necessary; lots of companies hope for lots of things, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic facts. Hope I'm being clearer than I am harsh/blunt! Thanks — Tenebrae 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought you were referring to the earlier part of the article. I didn't write the Disney paragraph (in fact, I have written in nothing but the golden era and early history sections). I've reworded the Disney paragraph, which I myself have admittedly biased issues with (750 theaters this year is an unrealistic figure). On the other hand, Chicken Little on its last numbers grossed over $132M at the B.O., so it was somewhat accurate in describing the renewed interest in 3-D. Thephotoplayer 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely -- box office figs. are easy to check. It was the audience-feedback part that was unquantifiable; lots of parents (I know!) take kids to whatever animated movie is playing, but it doesn't always mean they (or even the kids) like it themselves. Plus promotion, ads, etc. can bring in an crowd, but the movie may not change their attitudes about a genre or form. Anyway, thanks for all your work and care! -- Tenebrae 07:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

James Cameron made an amusement park 3D film starring Arnold Schwarzeneger as the Terminator, the most expensive 3D film at the time, and soon after made "Titanic." Both of these preceded the "Abyss" documentary.

Just a note from a lay person: "positioned side by side, generally facing each other and filming at a 90 degree angle via mirrors" appears to be misleading. I have always thought that the cameras were side by side, pointing in the SAME direction, as our eyes are also. Also, I would think that early in the article there would be mention of Holography.

[edit] Scientific, education & military uses

Does this section really need to be here? It is really not relevant to 3-D Films. The Photoplayer 06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I have removed the scientific section. If someone has reason to believe it should have stayed, please post it here before reverting it. This means a loss of one image, but I will be posting several more for the early films and '50s era 3-D.

[edit] Citations

Can those following this article please list any citations this page might need? I can't find any, but I have written the bulk of this article and I'm obviously overlooking things. Anyone? The Photoplayer 04:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've written the bulk of the article, you should add citations to the sources that you've been using. (e.g. you just added a sentence about "In Tune With Tomorrow" being reshot in color - you could cite the book/article/whatever that information came from). Since there's quite a lot of info here, though, it might be simpler to just add a References section listing your sources, rather than dozens of 'ref' tags. Davepape 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is one textbook on 3D, Hayes' 3D Movies, which everyone seems to use.

I've added citations to the first paragraph of "Introduction of Polaroid." However, in searching for sources for the second paragraph, I'm coming up dry. Here's the text:

"In January 1936, Land gave the first demonstration of Polaroid filters in conjunction with 3-D photography at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.[citation needed] The reaction was enthustiastic, and he followed it up with an installation at the New York Museum of Science.[citation needed] It is unknown what film was run for audiences with this installation."

After extensive Googling, the only reference I found for the Waldorf and Land is his demo of polarizing filters for sunglasses -- and that was 1938. --ChrisWinter 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got a source for this, which I've yet to put in because I've been too busy, but I'll get around to it. The same goes for most everything else-- I was setting up for citations and sort of left it at that stage.

OK, I'll work on other articles. --ChrisWinter 03:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the Hayes book-- DO NOT USE THIS AS A SOURCE. It is RIDDLED with errors and Hayes himself does not cite any sources, so it's as good as him making it all up (which, in my opinion, he did).The Photoplayer 00:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really hard to read with all the "{citation needed}" marks all over the document. Can we do something about that? Anonymous 04:46, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power of Love

Does anyone have a real source on this? The R.M. Hayes book lists it, but his book is almost completely inaccurate, thus he is not a reliable source. The New York Times has a review for it and says nothing about 3-D, and there are no ads, either. I'm sure if Paramount/Zukor had a 3-D process on their hands, there would have been a big SOMETHING about it. Therefore, I nominate for deletion of article, unless someone comes up with some more compelling facts. The Photoplayer 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody? The Photoplayer 00:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph deleted. The Photoplayer 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dark lens and a clear lens

What system uses cardboard glasses with one dark and one clear lens? Is the dark one circular polarization? --Gbleem 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the Pulfrich effect. The dark lens isn't polarized, it's just darker - it's a weird effect of human visual perception. Davepape 13:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghosting with circular polarisation

"The use of circular polarization improves on the older technique of linear polarization in that there is no ghosting or leakage".

Can anyone quantify the "no" in that statement? It sounds like marketing-speak to me. I'm particularly interested in ghosting in as much as it affects those with vision in only one eye. I understand that previous linear polarisation and red-green systems are pretty unwatchable with one eye because of the ghosting. (If you have two eyes, then the intended image is visible in both eyes, and the ghosts only in one eye each, significantly reducing their visibility. You don't get this help with one eye - you're totally reliant on the filter). I'd be interested to know if the circular polarisation improves the situation enough to make a 3D film tolerable. --KJBracey (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stereoscopic Viewing Devices

This section has no value to the article; it seems like an advertisement for either iPod or some researchers who have made a slightly more modern View-master/Nintendo Virtual Gameboy. Either way, it has no scientific value and only slightly relevant historical value. Kegon (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)