Talk:3D film/Archive 1

Anaglyph in the 50s, as false as "2+2=5"!
During the early "Golden Era" of 3-D cinematography of the 1950s the anaglyph system was the most popular in American theaters.

I don't know where that nonsense came from but it is obvious that no real research was done to back that statement up and the section about the golden era later in this article directly contradicts it!

John Elson (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

Answer to the lay person... Movie cameras are not exactly thin. Some stereo rigs had the cameras facing each other or at right angles, with both or one (respectively) of the cameras viewing the scene in a mirror. Unless the mirror camera(s) is/are inverted, the final print will have to be made with the negative "flopped". —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSommerwerck (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

There is a proprietary system similar to this called "Color-code" which is being used more and more to distribute web-based stereoscopic content. AlatarK (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

The article also neglects to mention that, in linear-polarization systems, the filters are not vertical and horizontal, but tipped at 45 degrees from the vertical. The reason is that this causes less image darkening and ghosting ff the viewer tips their head.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Parallax/3D TV History
In the parallax section, towards the end of the page, from the fifth line onwards, beginning at '3D TV and Computer Games Imagine immersing yourself....' and ending at'.... no other stuff would be needed.', the tone of the article changes almost to that of an advertisement. The same is true of the 3D TV History section. Either the offending portions could be deleted or a better written section concerning the future of 3D film could be created in it's place.

This is however my first post at Wikipedia, as such I will refrain from making these changes straightaway. I'll check back again and see if the changes are in place or I'll make them myself. --Mukundnadkarni (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging the 'Techniques' section with the "3-D display" article?
It seems to me that by attempting to delete the "techniques" section from this article, and by attempting to merge it with the "3-D display" article, that by attempting to do so that a disservice would be done. Specifically, by attempting to do so, information in Wikipedia would be deleted where the particular aspects of creating 3-D movies is described, and an attempt would be made to somehow condense this information into a generic article about generic 3-D images. I see no need to delete such information from Wikipedia simply because it happens to be specific to the film industry. Scott P. (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Harry Potter 3D be mentioned?
The latest Harry Potter 6 movie contains a 12 minutes 3D opening. Should it be mentioned? Kowloonese (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of technical terms
HDTV is a consumer format, yet it is sprinkled throughout the article in relation to custom built HD formats such as fusion 3d.

Also, real-d is a projection method, not a format. All films released in real-d are also available in dolby 3d, so to say a film is released in real-d format is at best incorrect and at worst just plain biassed.

This article needs some serious expert attention so that these terms are used correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttle (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Real-D is both a format and projection method. Real-D as a format referes to its patent on transfering two seperate frames side by side. This would be used to transfer a 3-D image theough legacy devices such as non 1.4a compliant HD Devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.4.8 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

3D vision
The 3D effect in normal life only applies to objects which are close to the head - about arm's length. Any further than that and the effect disappears because the eyes are not sufficiently far apart. It follows that the 3D effect in films can only work for objects which are that close to the camera, which very rarely happens. I don't see what difference 3D can make to ordinary films.

Are the centers of your pupils only 1/2 inch apart? Stereoscopic vision is normally quite acute out to about 20 feet and is noticeable out to about 200 feet. John Elson (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-stereoscopic systems
The use of the term "pseudo-stereoscopic" in this article is questionable at best, especially this sentence:

Alternative systems, such as Pulfrich effect and Chromadepth exist, but fall under the realm of "pseudo-stereoscopic" in that two, separate records are not recorded or projected.

This seems to imply that "stereoscopic" refers to the method rather than the effect. The term "stereoscopic" refers to the solid appearance of images (stereo meaning solid and scopic referring to seeing) and it has nothing to do with two (or more!) separate images being recorded or projected, that is simply the means by which it is accomplished. Using this logic, holograms would not be truly stereoscopic!

Pulfrich is based on the fact that if one eye is looking through a dark lens it takes longer for the image to be processed and thus the image seen by one eye lags behind the other. If the object or the camera is moved laterally this produces right eye and left eye images and thus a stereoscopic effect. If there is no other motion, this effect is just a real and natural as any other form of stereoscopy, and at any one instant is essentially the same thing as taking image pairs by shifting the camera laterally. The main difference being that if the motion stops the lagging eye catches up and the effect disappears.

Of course, there will usually be other motion of the subject, and this produces spurious stereoscopic effects that are clearly artificial. Note that they are artificial because they don't represent the true depth of the subject, but the effect itself is very real.

Chromadepth produces an artificial effect because it also has nothing to do with the actual depth of what is being viewed, but the image seen by the viewer is truly stereoscopic.

A similar usage:

Modern computer technology also allows for the production of pseudo-3D films using CGI and without the need for dual cameras

It is worth pointing out here that the first stereoscopic images were drawings which predated practical photography. Charles Wheatstone speculated that a method of making very accurate drawings could be coupled with his device, the first stereoscope, to produce images indistinguishable by sight from the actual objects. This is not exactly what photography is, since it is done by a device rather than an artist, but he had the right idea!

CGI could be thought of as a really advanced form of drawing and the effect is produced by making right and left eye views of the scene being produced. Theatrical presentations done through this process are every bit as "3D" as dual camera productions. The stereoscopic effect is every bit as real as the colors and textures contained in these movies or, for that matter, the motion seen on the screen!

You could rightly argue that CGI is not a form of photogrpahy, but when the correct parallax is produced between right and left images the stereoscopic "3D" effect is as real as any other form of stereoscopy!

The logic behind this use of "pseudo" needs to be explained because the way it is used in this article seems nonsensical.

John Elson (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Silver Screens
Silver screens didn't usually have to be installed for a theater to show 3D. Silver screens were standard equipment in most theaters for a long time, thus leading to the expression "stories from the silver screen."

John Elson (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While some earlier theaters used silvered screens in order to increase gain, by the 1950s when Polaroid 3D technology became available, most screens in the US were matte white, and had been since the 1920s, because silver screens could affect side-seating. It was well documented in trade journals from the era (such as BoxOffice and Variety) that not only did you have to have a silver screen in order to project 3D, but that most theaters would have to include this into their cost, since they had matte white screens.  The Photoplayer  22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all silver screens work for 3D -- a 3D screen needs to be polarization retentive (i.e. when reflected of the screen, polarized light needs to retain its polarization). I can attest from experience that the old "open the legs, pull up the holder bar, rotate the barrel, and pull up the screen" silver screens did not do an adequate job of this. Perhaps theater screens, with much less physical handling, were better. AlatarK (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten pretty good results with a Daylight Silver Pacer, but maybe I'm not as pick as you are. John Elson (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Master Image 3D
"Master Image 3D is the world's most widely used technology outside the USA" Has anyone a citation for that part of the sentence? It's also needed for the article Master Image 3D which is nominated for deletion because of lack of notability. Please can anyone provide sources since it's clearly notable. --Hancoast (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What about health complaints?
66.65.139.33 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

discrepancy in "The modern 3D revival (2003–present)"
The first paragraph of this section discusses 3-D feature films shot with high definition cameras. It lists Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (2003). The very next paragraph states the following about a music video by Insane Clown Posse dated 2004: "This was the first 3-D film shot in hi-definition video, making a world record.[31]" If its year is 2004, how can it precede Spy Kids 3D? The source for the "world record" assertion is not a primary source and does not list its own sources. I think the paragraph about the ICP music video ought to be removed.

Randallgood (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the "first 3D film shot in HD" claim, but left the ICP paragraph in for now. Perhaps it was the first music video shot in 3D HD, or something..? 83.102.22.138 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My own view is that this section is filled with self-serving hype for various people and techniques (e.g. "was built for Cameron by Emmy nominated Director of Photography Vince Pace, to his specifications"). If every production describes whatever new element has been created, the whole section becomes boring and nearly unreadable. AlatarK (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The section should only list technically, commercially or critically important landmarks. 83.102.22.138 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge with 3D Display!
I assume by now (March 2010) everyone will agree that a discussion of stereoscopic movies (e.g. Avatar) does not belong in the same place as stereoscopic displays (e.g. DepthQ, Zalman, etc.), therefore I will delete the reference in the main article that suggests that we merge them. AlatarK (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[removed] AlatarK (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

3D movies
If you go to a 3D movie, feel uncomfortable and remove the glasses, will the movie be blurred or can you still watch it clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.241.250 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that the film would be unwatchable. In systems that use polarization, the image would be appear to be double exposed, in other words, blurred by superimposed perspectives.  I am not sure if the same applies to methods that use the Eclipse/Shutter glasses like Xpand 3D.--Kencaesi (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-conversion
Recent films like Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans have been shot in 2D and converted in post-processing to 3D. This has engendered vitriolic criticism. I came to this article hoping to find out about the techniques used for 2D-to-3D post-conversion (both the how and a comparison of pros and cons of various methods), and about the what and why of the vehement criticism (and whether it was related to specific methods or more general). However, there is nary a word about the criticism, and the technical aspects are dealt with only very off-hand with this passage: "Through the entire history of 3D presentations, techniques to convert existing 2D images for 3D presentation have existed. Few have been effective or survived. The combination of digital and digitized source material with relatively cost-effective digital post-processing has spawned a new wave of conversion products."

Any editors who are qualified to expand on this, please do so. I think it warrants a separate section, and maybe even an article on its own. --Lambiam 11:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that I am at least partially qualified to expand on it, but it is a minefield of partial techniques, patents, and deliberate obfuscation by those players that (may only pretend to) have something to contribute to the technology. IMAX developed a 2D to 3D technology many years ago, and some other party came up with a similar system contemporaneously. There were extended cross-lawsuits, culminating in a friendly compromise that left IMAX the sole owner of that particular technology.

That being said, there is extensive word-of-mouth that some of the post-Avatar product, hurriedly converted from 2D to 3D, does not adhere to any proper 2D to 3D conversion methodology. AlatarK (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that in avatar and a few other 3d films everything seemed completely three dimensional while in most other 3d films the effect appeared to be various flat images at various apparent depths, almost like a diorama of cardboard cut-outs. Is that my imagination or does it reflect somehow on how the the 3D was filmed?  post production vs 3d filming?  If the answer is known this needs to be in the article.Zebulin (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, but which is better and why?
I have seen both the polarising and eclipsing solutions but there is no comparison between them to identify why more than one competing standard exists. From what I have read I speculate that the polarising option means cheap glasses but expensive projectors, while eclipsing has expensive glasses but more conventional projectors? Efficacious (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is essentially correct, but the former is expensive not only because of the projectors but also because of the polarization-retentive screen required. You can also add the Infitec (Dolby) glasses into the second category if you like. Real-D is a hybrid solution that has both inexpensive aspects (single-projector, cheap glasses) as well as costly ones (polarized screen, proprietary z-screen device, per-seat licensing fees). The bottom line is that every one of the current approaches has both significant cost issues and specific advantages it can tout for PR purposes. At the moment, the various alternatives available in the industry are diverse, but no one approach has a clear technological lead. AlatarK (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean "which do most people prefer?", then all I can say is that after more than fifteen years of working with both polarized and alternate-eye systems, I continue to find the balance of viewer preferences to be very close to fifty-fifty, although perhaps slightly more inclined towards the polarized systems. Of course, exhibitor preferences are a different kettle of fish. AlatarK (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Eclipse Method
Is there any history of using this particular term for this technique? I've often heard it called "Alternate-Eye", "Shutter-Glasses", "Frame-Sequential" (somewhat incorrectly), and many other things, but never "Eclipse Method". Does anyone know of any references or precedent for using this name? AlatarK (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * References are given, did you read them? John Elson (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eclipse refers to the technique in general, whereas "Shutter Glasses" would be a particular method for accomplishing it. The term has frequently been used in the magazine Stereo World and an article contemporary with the first use by IMAX referred back to the eclipse method using mechanical shutters in the Teleview system. John Elson (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll take your word for it. AlatarK (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting category 3-D-Films
The category 3-D films should be splitted in 2 subcategories: Filmed in 3-D and Converted to 3-D. The relatively cost-effective digital post-processing has spawned a new wave of conversion 3-D-Films. It is also very interesting for the viewer as converted 3-D is mostly seen as very bad viewing experience (see Clash of Titans, Alice in Wonderland and so on). --Bothary (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Jojhutton (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

3-D film → — Per multiple discussions, including this most recent one. I also personally believe that it should be moved, too. The situation is somewhat similar to the move request that I made for "E-mail". Gary King ( talk  ·  scripts )  00:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for aesthetic and precision reasons if nothing else. No one will be confused by the hyphen.  Yes, WP:COMMONNAME and all that, but that's not the only factor we have to consider.  Powers T 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This request isn't being made because the hyphen might be confusing. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you didn't really give a reason so I had to guess. =)  Referring to the linked discussion, the main argument seemed to be that it would look "clunky", which I don't agree with either.  Powers T 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A hyphenation is appropriate, because it's being used as an adjective.  The Photoplayer  21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See 3D computer graphics, 3D television, 3D modeling, etc. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per good points made in this older discussion, especially Tony1's point: "And then there's the potential for chaos if you use the hyphen within: this WPian knew better: 'I came to this article hoping to find out about the techniques used for 2D-to-3D post-conversion'." This also shows that 3D is more prevalent than 3-D; the latter seems to be more of a thing of the past. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "... used for 2- to 3-D post-conversion" works for me. Powers T 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 3-D is more correct than 3D as an entry in an encyclopaedia. --Bothary (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The other article talks about video games, 3D effect without glasses
Oppose The Digital 3D article talks about 3D video games, part of the information would be lost if these two articles where merged. Also a 3D effect with glasses is done with something placed over an image, this something is called a Parallax barrier you might have seen one before like say a birthday card or paper, now there being used in electronic devices including the 3DS. This video I saw on amazon.com also shows them being proposed as add-ons to 3DTVs. http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/mIZTL4OGWC4FD Also add to an article or correct a statement if you have done your research.Rubberdude2010 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some redundant information in both articles. It needs at least some cleanup and distinction. --Bothary (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Filming in 3D
The article as it stands is entirely focused on projecting in 3D. It would be nice if someone with some knowledge about the process could fill in details on various ways that 3D films have been shot. -- Intractable (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ubisoft 3D
Ubisoft announced they were making Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, and Ghost Recon movies in 3D(link), but didn't give the release date, so when they give the release dates, the movies can be put into the "3-D re-enters mainstream cinema (2003–present)" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.227.217 (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Avatar.
Under "criticism" someone notes Avatar is largely credited with the revival of 3D, this may or may not be confusing to people who read the whole article. Rebirth of 3D is from 1985-2003, and the resurgence starts in 2003, while Avatar came out in 2009. Maybe this needs a new citation to back that up, or should be taken down, because, honestly, I don't personally think that's the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.25.7 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

3D vs. 3-D
We have (at least) four related pages on 3D/3-D technology:
 * 3D television
 * 3D display
 * 3-D film
 * List of 3-D films

Clearly there is an inconsistency between "3D" & "3-D". I checked both Merriam Webster (USA) and Collins (UK) and both show "3-D" and not "3D" ... also, I ran a Google search of each term and found 367 million hits for "3D" and 1.2 billion hits for "3-D".

By both measures, I believe we should be using "3-D" throughout in the above pages (and maybe more).

Enquire (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I see "3D" being used more than "3-D", perhaps because people are lazy. I don't think anyone has a valid reason for caring, to be honest.

Besides, when I look up "3D" on Google I get 86,200,000 results but only 40,200,000 for "3-D"! If you don't put the search term in quotation marks your results are meaningless because the dash is ignored and you find pages containing both "3" and "D", most of which will not contain "3-D" even once!

John Elson (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the convention is to use 3-D when talking about stereoscopic images, and 3D when talking about images genereated in a three dimensional computer evironment. As such, some films are both 3D and 3-D, but in the context of this article we should be using 3-D.

Check out http://the3drevolution.blogspot.com/2009/01/3d-or-3-d-big-question.html for more history on usage.

Buttle (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I never call it "3-D" and I never will. Everybody knows what I mean when I say "3D" and it is by far the more common term. That's why I go by 3Dham or 3dham not 3-Dham John Elson (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not laziness (or we'd all be forced to write N.A.S.A. the way they did many decades ago). It's because the sources—the film producers, advertisers, PR people, cinemas, schedules, newpapers—all use the simpler (and IMO less clunky) "3D". Specific film articles, such as Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, should use "3D". Visitors will find it clunky to have this scientific-style hyphenated gobbledly, unrelated to what they see in real life. PS Google might show a majority of hyphens because of pre-existing scientific usage? This is not optical science: it's cinema, an artform and social construction. Tony   (talk)  02:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Google does not contain a majority of "3-D" with pages that deal with stereoscopic material. That is an illusion created by improper searching. "3-D" produces 789,000,000 results, whereas "3D" produces 2,970,000,000 results. Looking up 3-D (without quotation marks) returns all pages containing either 3 or D, which is just about every page on google, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with 3D! John Elson ★ 3Dham ★  WF6I A.P.O.I. 06:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Image alternation and viewability in recent 3-D methods
The article makes it clear that in the "new 3-D boom" there's been several new methods to create 3-D experience. Some that focus on making the two eyes pick up different streams of images, others more aimed at making the screen show rapidly alternating streams of images, one representing broadly the "right angle", the other the "left angle" and then it would rely on the ingrained image processing routines of the human brain to create the feeling of watching a three-dimensional reality. Because we can't have a conscious, separate view of every image, the run of images will be processed as a a continuous stream, and in this case a 3-D stream. The first of those ranges of methods would often require 3-D glasses of some sort, the other often would not.

So, since there's several new methods in use, it would be good if the article gave a few examples. at each new technique, of titles of films that use the one or other other method, and indicate which ones are gaining wider use by e.g. Hollywood studios. It would be very cool too if that kind of info were added to the local articles on 3-D films, where such info is available.

Another question that kind of ties in with this. I am short-sighted on one eye since age six and if I put my hand over the left eye, my vision gets very blurred. I regularly use ordinary corrective glasses and rely heavily on my left eye. The condition isn't uncommon at all, and the brain has effectively come to simulate or correct to 3-D vision in the near range - I have no trouble with assessing movements or spatial relationships with accuracy in three dimensions. But of course "old 3-D" or any technique that relies on the two eyes picking up different images simultaneously won't work. Which ones of the new 3-D methods would work for me, by making the brain process a 3-D image in simulation from alternating layers of images? I reckon autostereoscopy would work, but that one is not a technology that works for movie theatres is it?


 * All 3D-methods used in cinema or 3D-TV and even autostereoscopy relies on two eyes picking up different images simultaneously. Only holography might work for you because you can see different images even with one eye when you move your head. Of course hologaphy is not (and won't be used in near future) for film. --Fluffystar (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Previously unknown 3-D Nazi propaganda films"
A short paragraph about two recently discovered 3-D "Nazi propaganda films" from the 1930s, which I am about to delete, is based solely on a cited news article which is a classic example of careless and clueless reporting in the popular press.

The discovery of the physical prints themselves is interesting news, but these "previously unknown" films, as the cited article describes them, are So Real You Can Touch It and Six Girls Roll into Weekend [sic], its rough translations of Zum Greifen nah and Sechs Mädel rollen ins Wochenende, two short films which have been prominently mentioned in nearly every account of pre-1952 3-D films published during the past sixty years. Both are already mentioned elsewhere in this article. The news of their reemergence might be added there if a less problematic source can be found to support it, but it would probably just be excess detail in the context of this general article.

As to their content, Ray Zone's 2007 book describes the first as "a short commercial film promoting insurance" (the newspaper article usefully reports that it is musical and includes "close-up shots of sizzling bratwurst on a barbeque") and the second as a self-promotional film made by Zeiss-Ikon, a manufacturer of cameras, projectors and other optical devices, including attachments used to photograph and project 3-D. Given the time and place they were filmed, it would be surprising if there are no swastikas to be seen in them, and perhaps the mere presence of what was then the German national symbol would brand them as "Nazi propaganda" in some people's minds. They were certainly not made "for Goebbels' propaganda ministry" as the news item claims. All films shown in Germany during the Nazi era had to be passed by that dicatatorial and meddling organization, but the subject matter and short length of these two commercial films seem unlikely to have provided much opportunity to inject any substantial "Nazi propaganda". AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. --Fluffystar (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs a structure clean up
The structure of this article need attention. In the current format the article jumps form methods of 3d film to history to methods again.

I propose the following structure:

Timeline
 * Introduction
 * History
 * Early patents and tests
 * Early systems of stereoscopic filmmaking (pre-1952)
 * Introduction of Polaroid
 * The "golden era" (1952-1955)
 * Revival (1960-1979) in single strip format
 * The revival's apex (1980-1984)
 * 3-D formats (1984-Present)
 * The World 3-D Exposition (2003)
 * Developments in the 21st century
 * Filming 3d films
 * Displaying 3d films
 * Commercial products
 * Notable 3d films

Looking at the page on Stereoscopy, the article is much more comprehensive on how the 3d image are produced. Also most of the techniques in this article could also be used in non film settings like in print and video games. Most of the techniques should be merged with that article and only stubs on producing 3d images should be left on here.

also the majority of the history section appears to be without source and very well written... hmmm. any suggestions on this are welcome. Uranium-junkie (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Such a structure would be better. --Fluffystar (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So much missing
that I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix this article. I realize this is not a textbook but a few basics could be added. Like how interocular distance determines how large the photographed will seem. How things can be at the level of the screen...behind the screen or in front of it. How there is a pyramid extending from the viewer's eyes to the corners of the screen and the filmmaker can put things in that space...that's why they throw spears at you...but let, say, a person go into that space when they are cut off by the sides of the screen the 3D illusion falls apart...so the filmmaker has to avoid this. (May not apply with IMAX where the screen is so huge that people may not be aware of the edges.)

Speaking of IMAX...discussion of the LCD shutter glasses they once used that contain their own closeup speakers. Or the new fake IMAX which, when running 3D, is simply twin digital projectors and simple polarizers and glasses...which anyone can do if they spring for a 2nd projector.

How about Stereospace, the twin 70mm 3D system developed by optical expert Dr. Richard Vetter (of D-150 fame) for UA Theatres but never used under that name. How about the Disney theme park films shot in a Stereospace-like twin 70mm format like "Magic Journeys," "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" and, of course, "Captain EO" ?

Plus clean up some of the blather at the end. "Disney Digital 3D" is a meaningless marketing term and does not reflect any photographic or projection system. Or how about this: "Warner Bros. released Journey To The Center Of The Earth (2008) in Real D 3D." Um...no...Warner Bros. released it in digital 3D...and *some* theatres played it in RealD. I personally saw it in XpandD 3D. Perhaps it was shown via the other systems as well.

Actually maybe there should be a description of the current systems: RealD, XpandD 3D, Dolby 3D, Master Image 3D, and Digital IMAX 3D. (plus film IMAX 3D).68.164.11.153 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"3-D" or "3D"?
Should the preferred title of the article be "3-D film" with a hyphen, or "3D film" without the hyphen? The adjective "3-D" or "3D" abbreviates "three-dimensional", which has an obligatory hyphen, so a case can be made that the hyphen belongs there. However, unhyphenated "3D" seems to be somewhat more common. Some statistics. Of the current 92 Wikipedia articles starting with either of the two (not counting cases in which the letter "D" is part of a longer word), 13 have "3-D" whereas 79 have "3D". Google search reports about 123,000 hits for "3-D film" against about 614,000 hits for "3D film". The New York Times has more unhyphenated online uses (but still plenty of hyphenated ones), while The Times (of London) online has slightly more hyphenated cases. Any strong feelings? --Lambiam 10:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The DAB page 3D has all manner of things 3D, but only films are 3-D for some unknown reason. Perhaps we should move it into the 3D film namespace? Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I saw this page yesterday and tried to move it to the plain version that is unfailingly used by producers, cinemas and advertisers. No go: it says the page already exists. To our readers, "3-D" will look clunky after they've seen it in real life as "3D". Tony   (talk)  02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record the stats for 3D film is much lower than of 3-D film. I assume that is also measuring what term a reader is typing in.  —  Mike   Allen   03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stats may be misleading, as we cannot know how many of those arriving at the article do so via the 3D DAB page, which links to 3-D film and not 3D film. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Though I'd say the effect is not so much due to the dab page but rather to the fact we have way more internal than, which is understandable considering that links to redirects are routinely bypassed by bots. Not to mention that a Google search for 3D film returns the 3-D title instead of the redirect, for obvious reasons. All this should explain the disparity in page view hits. --Waldir talk 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the proposal, and since there was little opposition, I'll be bold and move the page. --Waldir talk 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Three-Dimensional"→"3-Dimensional"→"3-D". 3-D is an abbreviation of a hyphenated adjectival phrase. Authors of serious books (the ones with extensive citations of sources, not quickies written to cash in on the current trend) who deign to use terms less formal than "stereoscopic" all seem to use the hyphen. I have just been double-checking my recollection of some arcane details with the aid of Ray Zone's well-researched and relatively recent (2007) book entitled Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952. Note the hyphen. Is one more keystroke really so burdensome? When I see "3D" I tend to read "third", despite the upper case "D", and in some contexts even "three pence", despite being American. Google search surveys that reflect the vast wasteland of commercial websites, blog musings and other low-quality sources should not be unduly weighted as a determining factor. Neither should simple personal preferences, obviously including my own. Chiming in late here, but it seems likely that the discussion will reignite at some point, so herewith I deposit my two cents: that which has been boldly moved can be (and ought to be) boldly moved back. AVarchaeologist (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Don't move back. Wikipedia uses common names, NOT formal terms, see Article_titles. Therefore the result of search engines is more appropriate than specialist books. --Fluffystar (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See also the usage of 3-D film vs. 3D film in google books Ngram viewer: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=3D+film%2C3-D+film&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 --Fluffystar (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Highly questionable statement about Teleview in 2009
Only one feature was ever produced with the system in Sym-Bionic Titan from September 27, 1922 until 2009, and now 2009 in Happy Tree Friends Canada

This is highly questionable and looks like either A, a joke or B, someone saw a reference to "Teleview" and simply assumed it had something to do with the mechanical shutter system for 3D used briefly in 1922. I won't wait long to delete this!


 * This seems to be nonsense. --134.109.240.92 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the section on 3D film production?
The section "Techniques" only explains techniques for presenting stereoscopic imagery, not techniques for producing it. I came here to read about how the "3D converted" movies are produced. I guess there are three methods: Shooting with two cameras, rendering a CGI scene to two different view ports and this mysterious conversion method. I think it warrants a section, no?141.16.91.106 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some information about filming in the article stereoscopy and there is an entire article about 2D to 3D conversion. --Fluffystar (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a section. It still needs expansion. --Fluffystar (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

3-D Film Preservation Fund
Has someone information about the 3D Film Preservation Fund? Are they still active? Because there was no event since 2006 and their site is down. --Fluffystar (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Watching in 2D
Can any of the 3D movie formats (in particular the more modern ones) be usefully watched in the absence of equipment required for viewing in 3D? If so, are there any compromises to viewing quality such as visual artefacts to be ignored? 2.98.247.168 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is possible to watch all 3D films without equipment in 2D without any artefacts. --Fluffystar (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

incorrect?
There is a line in the article that states: From late 1950s until mid-2000s no animation was produced for 3D display in theaters. Although several films used 3D backgrounds.

What about the movie Starchaser from the 80s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.246.225 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right. I have changed it. --Fluffystar (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hint. --Fluffystar (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetic Revulsion & True Motive
This article needs to reflect the viewing public's derision of, and general revulsion with, this VERY GIMMICKY format, and it's true rationale; attempting to delay the inevitable destruction of the movie business model by television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.226.75 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro 3D bias in "criticism" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.81.235.66 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on 3D film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707063258/http://www.3dmovingpictures.com/chopper.html to http://www.3dmovingpictures.com/chopper.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511182208/http://www.berezin.com/3d/samsung_3d.htm to http://www.berezin.com/3d/samsung_3d.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327204348/http://www.collider.com/2010/03/25/director-christopher-nolan-and-producer-emma-thomas-interview-inception-they-talk-3d-what-kind-of-cameras-they-used-pre-viz-wb-and-a-lot-more/ to http://www.collider.com/2010/03/25/director-christopher-nolan-and-producer-emma-thomas-interview-inception-they-talk-3d-what-kind-of-cameras-they-used-pre-viz-wb-and-a-lot-more/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 3D film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231212431/http://www.silentera.com/PSFL/data/P/PowerofLove1922.html to http://www.silentera.com/PSFL/data/P/PowerofLove1922.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-list-movies11-2009jan11%2C0%2C4953295.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407125922/http://www.dpvotheatrical.com/Home_Page.html to http://www.dpvotheatrical.com/Home_Page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sangu??
I suspect that the statement in the opening that 3D film is also known as "three-dimensional sangu" may not be accurate. The only references to the term that I can find are mirrors of this article, and the word "sangu" doesn't seem to have anything to do with film. But I don't know for sure to change it.... PurpleChez (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Beowulf missing?
The 2007 3D film Beowulf seems to be missing from the timeline, even though this article is linked to from the Beowulf article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.0.115 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

More than arms length
From "criticism":
 * "As pointed out in the article "Virtual Space – the movies of the future"[84][failed verification] in real life the 3D effect, or stereoscopic vision, depends on the distance between the eyes, which is only about 2 1/2 inches. The depth perception this affords is only noticeable near to the head – at about arms length. It is only useful for such tasks as threading a needle. It follows that in films portraying real life, where nothing is ever shown so close to the camera, the 3D effect is not noticeable and is soon forgotten as the film proceeds."

I understand Wikipedia "No Original Research". But facutal errors like this can't stay uncommented. Of course depth perception is important in distances more than an arms length! It is essential in any game with balls. Whoever doesn't believe this should wear an eye patch and try to catch a flying ball or throw it with precision, e.g. in a basket. Or try to hit it with a bat. It is also essential when driving. Try to drive on a curvy road with one eye closed. But beware! It's very dangerous. You will find that out very quickly. Depth perception is very important in distances of many meters (or yards). It might not be very noticeably at first in a 3D Movie. But it makes a difference, in the same way as it makes a difference in real life.--TeakHoken2003:C6:F702:F300:D580:6958:C5D5:99C9 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

3D at home
VHD (Video High Density) videodisk (Jaws 3d was released on it) around 5:40. not sure whether it fits in this article.

Maybe a fact of note would be which systems had the ability to produce 3d content for home television or maybe it was a common feature. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

3d or 4d?
It's a movie not a photo. It has width height depth and time... isnt that 4d? And arent 2d movies really 3d? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.170.64 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You really got it wrong here. A film is always 2D and will always be 2D. 3D/4D films don't exist and will never exist, unless you create a hologram that features a film. A 3D film will then be 3D, but then the word film would be confusing, as films are meant to be 2D. 4D, as well, does not exist and will never exist. TudorTulok (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)