|
Author
|
Topic: My Super 8 3-D Monster Movies
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted July 02, 2015 03:20 AM
I got hit with the 3-D bug back in 1982, when I saw my first 3-D movie at 11 years old. I was already a big movie buff with a fair knowledge of film history, and I was mildly outraged that something this wonderful, something they had known how to do since at least the 1950s, was only just now making a bit of a comeback.
As we all know, that particular comeback didn't last long. I wanted more 3-D movies, and since Hollywood didn't seem to be making any, I decided to do it myself.
Here then are links to two honest-to-goodness dual-strip 3-D movies I made in 1985 and 1986, The Freak and The Minotaur. I filmed them using two Chinon cameras on a common base, edited them as best I could without a multi-gang synchronizer, and projected them very imperfectly using a pair of Super 8 projectors I had.
Lately I've had them digitally scanned. I've tweaked the sync and made some much-needed adjustments in convergence, which I did not understand very well as a young teenager. On The Minotaur in particular, you will notice that some shots are marred by illumination asymmetry, as the left eye is darker than the right eye. I hope to correct this problem soon and upload an improved version.
You will also notice that the films are silent, with intertitles and musical accompaniment. I didn't get a magnetic sound camera until Christmas of '86, and then only because it was a closeout special at Sears. So one might say my films have stereo but no sound! ;-)
I hope you will look past the considerable imperfections in these films and find the entertainment value. I am very, very proud of myself for having had the gumption to make them. I've learned a lot about 3-D and films in that time, but I'm still striving to have as much fun as I did from day one.
Thanks a bunch for looking!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WF2mhJ-6yxg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tm9Tm8htxs
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted July 02, 2015 11:27 PM
Martin,
Thanks for the good word! I'm glad you got a kick out of my films.
I wasn't able to pursue more dual-strip 3-D as a teenager owing to tight finances, but I eventually came up with a simple and fairly practical single-strip solution. I put two mirrors out in front of my camera lens, such that the shared edge of the two mirrors divided the film frame right down the center. One mirror was at a 45-degree angle in relation to the camera, the other at... oh... we'll call it a 44-degree angle. This gave two "portrait format" left- and right-eye frames, side by side on the film. So the aspect ratio was not ideal, being about 0.66:1, but the scheme worked.
I found out later, after I'd shot a film this way, that a number of other people have come up with the same scheme down through the years. That was actually gratifying to learn, that I'd been thinking along the same lines as other clever folks.
Of course, if I'd only known about wedge prisms, I could have inserted a pair of those between my camera lens and my mirror arrangement to achieve an anamorphic squeeze, and my stereo pairs would have had a landscape orientation.
If I wanted to shoot 3-D stills today with a single, ordinary digital camera, I'd use the exact same mirror arrangement. I'd set the aspect ratio on the digital camera to 16x9, even for stills. When the 16x9 frame is split down the middle to form two "portrait style" frames, the resulting stereo pairs have almost exactly the same proportions as the familiar Stereo Realist-format slides many of us know and love.
One added benefit to this arrangement, for others who might wish to try it in Super 8 or other formats, is that it allows a measure of control over the interaxial distance, or lens separation. Placing the camera closer to the mirror pair results in the equivalent of bringing your "stereo lenses" closer together, which is ideal for closeups. Placing the camera farther from the mirror pair reults in a wider interaxial, good for scenic vistas and other distant subjects. And of course by swiveling one of the mirrors in relation to the other, one can effect a change in convergence.
I don't know if you're involved with Facebook, Martin, but there are several good groups on there devoted to the stereo hobby. My experience so far is that the members are friendly, welcoming, and encouraging, and on those occasions when they offer criticism, it is always kind and constructive. If you're not already involved, I encourage you to join right in!
Thank you again for the kind words. I hope we get a chance to chat further about this shared interest of ours.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted July 04, 2015 02:07 AM
That's a great question, Bill, and the answer is, I don't know exactly! I got my dad to drill three holes in an ordinary blank electrical outlet cover. The center hole attached to my tripod, and the other two holes had bolts for mounting the cameras. The two tiny holes that were already part of the plate, I used for tiny screws to act as shims, to tilt one of the cameras slightly upward in relation to the other, as a means of fine tuning the vertical alignment. As best as I can recollect and deduce, the cameras were at least 2.25 inches apart, and no more than three inches apart. I regret we never took a picture of that setup.
For most ordinary live-action 3-D, you'd probably want your lenses about as far apart as the average human eyes, 2.5 inches (63 millimeters), or slightly less. But you can get away with more if you're careful-- the 3-D system used to shoot House of Wax back in 1953 had an interaxial (or lens separation) of 3.5 inches, and that flick is just gorgeous in 3-D. And there are certainly circumstances when one is technically and aesthetically justified in choosing a much narrower or much wider intraxial.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
