Tweet 3-D Film Archive

Dear Friends,

I am pleased to introduce the 3-D Film Archive, LLC.

Founded in 1990, we are the first organization dedicated to saving and preserving our stereoscopic film heritage. The Archive has located and restored original dual-strip 35mm Polaroid prints of more than thirty features and two dozen shorts from 1922-1955, the “Golden Age” of 3-D cinema.

Our new website is now on-line: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/

Some of the articles include Lost 3-D, Top Ten Myths, History of the Archive, Restoration, the Holy Grail and the wide 3-D release of HONDO, co-written with Jack Theakston.

I hope you will find the site of interest. If so, please share with your colleagues and associates.

In addition, the cyan side of the first 3-D short from 1922 is MIA. Please see this page for more information: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/holygrail

I've worked in the preservation field since 1980. My first industry job was working for John E. Allen at his restoration facility in Park Ridge, New Jersey. My career highlights can be found here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/31830 ... consultant

If you have any questions pertaining to Golden Age 3-D, I will be happy to answer and assist in any way that I can.

Thank you very much!

Cordially,

Bob Furmanek
President and Founder
3-D Film Archive, LLC

I also appreciate the work you and Jack Theakston have done in dispelling so many myths about aspect ratios in general through primary-source research.

Thank you very much, Paul. We try our best!

Bob

Bob,

What a great site you have there. Thank you for the effort and information. It is nice to see years of dedication
to saving the experience of 3D movies threw the ages is showing the fruits of your effort. Keep up the great
work you are doing.

Pookybear

A First-Class Website from two First-Class Historians and Preservationists. Well-Done Bob and Jack!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Thank you Richard and Pookybear, that's very much appreciated!

Bob

I've just updated the 3-D Myths page with more documentation on the release of DIAL M FOR MURDER: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths

Thanks!

Bob

We should also note that Our Mr. Bob has recently been given the signal honor of having his name turned into a verb by Internet lunatic Jeffrey Wells, who insists that the 1.85 aspect ratio is a fascist conspiracy and that all non-'Scope films up to and including PSYCHO should be viewed at 1.33:1; to crop a film to its correct ratio is to "Furmanek" it.

Congratulations, Bob! Webster's awaits!

Mike S.

Ha! If I have just one claim to fame in this life, that will be it.

Thanks, Mike!

Meat Cleaver Fascist Bob

Yeah, Man!!!

[Christopher Jacobs]

You forgot to crop that photo to 1.85:1 -- it's not 1.33, but it's still only about 1.5:1!

Magnificent, Ray.

You haven't lost your touch!

Fascist Furmanek

Fascinating. Even though I can't watch 3D, i enjoy reading about the process,

Great site, I put in a plug for it in my posting on Wednesday: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/ ... n-blu-ray/

Daniel, thank you very much. I enjoyed your review and really appreciate the link to our site.

If there is anything 3-D related that I can help with, just let me know.

Bob

Hi Mr Furmanek

Dial M for murder and Rear Window was shot on 3D.
The restoration of Dial M for Murder used some cenes from the "another eye" (sister frame).

I would like to know if the stereoscopic version was preserved or restored for Rear Window and Dial M for Murder, or just a 2D version was really restored.

I also want to know how purist you are, in terms of preserve original. For example, are you in favor or against to improve the stereoscopy?
Supose a films was preserved in 3D, but was not a very good 3D, with many scenes with some problems to align the eyes (it was a often problem to shoot 3D right). With actual technology it's possible to get the two sister frames (right left eye) and get the precise depth of the elements by the real 3D recorded (not by usual 3D estimation of actual 3D conversions we saw today). The real preicse depth and the sister frames can, in theory generate a alternate camera angle, more adequate to a very fine align and pleasant 3D watch.

Would you be in favor of such thing ?


Sorry for so many questions

Bob has a great site. It to his credit that we have so many films from the era preserved. I attended both 3D EXPOs in Hollywood and saw films that really showed off the process in first class order. My favorite was "Gun Fury" (1953 Rock Hudson) which was ordinary in 2D but in stereoscopic vision it was like being in a western vista.
George Feltenstein of WB hinted in radio interview of the restoration and possible 3D home release of "Dial M..." and "House of Wax" (we can hope this will happen).

I would like to know from Bob which films he plans on releasing to the public (hopefully in Blu-Ray 3D)?
Thanks again Bob for a great web site.
Bill

Rear Window was shot in 3D? News to me.

But apparently it was considered by Hitchcock, and it's now being converted to 3D, for better or worse.

Uhhnn, I think I mixed things here..

Probably was Hope (1948) that was shot in 3D.

But I'm sure that Dial M for Murder was shot on 3D.


Anyway my point is that even if shot in 3D, the actual technology could make it better. By algorithm analize of the 2 frames (left and right eye) the somputer can get the precise depth of each thing on a scene, the real depth, and create a more adequate righ or left eye to allow the public the best 3D possible, with very fine align and easier to enjoy.

Rear Window was shot in 3D? News to me.

But apparently it was considered by Hitchcock, and it's now being converted to 3D, for better or worse.

Thanks for your nice comments, Bill. We'll be releasing all of the titles mentioned on the home page of our website: www.3dfilmarchive.com

All Darc: Concerning DIAL M FOR MURDER, it's been a few years since I've seen it but I don't offhand recall any flat shots in the film. Sometimes one of the cameras would malfunction so it's not unusual to find occasional flat shots. Most of the Golden Age 3-D films have them.

Concerning our restoration techniques, we are going shot by shot through all of our films and fixing any alignment issues in order to optimize the 3-D presentation. It's a well-used cliche but in this case, it's true. Our 3-D films have never looked this good before!

I'm not in favor of altering the directors vision in any way. That would include creating pseudo 3-D utilizing digital techniques. Besides, those programs are astronomically expensive. Who has that kind of money?

For the record, REAR WINDOW was never planned for 3-D and was filmed flat and composed for widescreen 1.66:1.

Thank you!

Best,
Bob

We've just uploaded the first 3-D footage to our YouTube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/3DFILMARCHIVE/videos

First, be sure to use our handy YT3D tutorial to optimize your viewing experience.

Once you've got everything looking its very best, RETURN TO BRONSON CANYON with Bob Burns in the miracle of third-dimension.

Who knows, maybe even Ro-man will make an appearance...

Enjoy!

Bob

Uhhnn, I think I mixed things here..

Probably was Hope (1948) that was shot in 3D.

But I'm sure that Dial M for Murder was shot on 3D.

I'm guessing you mean Rope, which was enough of a technical nightmare to make with its long-take approach, I can't imagine what it would be like to add 3D to that mix. It was not a 3D film (and predated the 3D craze by a few years). But you're right, Dial M for Murder was in 3D. I caught a screening of it in the '90s, but it was an analglyphic print, and the 3D wasn't very effective.

Anaglyphic DIAL M?

That HAD to be some un-authorized version. Warner Bros. has never shown in it any system other than Polaroid.

Bob

Anaglyphic DIAL M?

That HAD to be some un-authorized version. Warner Bros. has never shown in it any system other than Polaroid.

This was in Canada, is it possible that WB fudged the 3D release up here? I remember it involving red/blue glasses and had a less-than-satisfactory image, but maybe it's my memory that's at fault and it was Polaroid after all (we're talking 20 or so years ago). It was at the Bloor St. Cinema in Toronto, and all the cliches about 3D movies causing headaches sadly came true on this occasion.

But I will bow to your expertise, Bob. This handy graphic has it pegged as Polaroid only (along with listing every other 3D release of note), although it doesn't distinguish between the '50s edition and its '80s reissue.

This page will answer all of your questions as to what was shown anaglyph in 1953: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths

This page will answer all of your questions as to what was shown anaglyph in 1953: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths" target="_blank

I've seen that page, great info to have for sure! I'm just wondering about the '80s reissue of Dial M (and whether or not my memories are playing tricks on me). I see there was an old Japanese release of it in analglyph on video disc (VCD?), but that was probably done in the video transfer process, and not from an analglyph print.

No, the 1982 re-issue was side by side anamorphic Stereovision, utilizing the same Polaroid lens system as the earlier HOUSE OF WAX re-issue in 1972.

My suspicion is the anaglyph was some amateur, homemade job made from the Japanese laser disc. If somebody ran that theatrically, YIKES!

No wonder everyone got headaches.

No, the 1982 re-issue was side by side anamorphic Stereovision, utilizing the same Polaroid lens system as the earlier HOUSE OF WAX re-issue in 1972.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I doubt very much this theatre would have been set up to run side-by-side anamorphic Stereovision, especially since this was so many years after that '80s reissue.

My suspicion is the anaglyph was some amateur, homemade job made from the Japanese laser disc. If somebody ran that theatrically, YIKES!

No wonder everyone got headaches.

It looked lousy, whatever it was. If they did show blown up video (using early '90s projection technology), that would explain a lot, although there weren't any Japanese subtitles on the version I saw (as there are in the clip on YouTube).

It appears I may be the one who needs to have his head (or at least his eyes) examined. I just heard back from a friend who saw the 3D fest at the Bloor Cinema in 1989, and although he didn't see Dial M, he did catch REVENGE OF THE SHOGUN WOMEN, COMIN' AT YA!, and THE FANTASTIC INVASION OF PLANET EARTH all in proper Polaroid 3D, and Dial M had to be one of those early '80s prints as well then.

Someone pass me the ginkgo biloba...