Tweet 3D Focus: Famous Harold Lloyd Scene Converted to 3D

[silentfilm]

http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/2011/02/16/fam ... ted-to-3d/

2D – 3D conversion of 1923 famous clock scene from Harold Lloyd’s film classic – Safety Last


The four minute sequence, in which American slapstick comedian and producer Harold Lloyd dangles from a clock tower, was digitally remastered, colorized and converted to 3D by motion picture 2D to 3D conversion company Legend 3D. Harold Lloyd was a huge fan of 3D, taking an estimated 200,000 stereoscopic pictures during his lifetime. His Granddaugher, Suzanne Lloyd approached Legend 3D last year to attempt a 2D – 3D conversion of the scene to honour her legendary grandfather’s work during the International 3D Society’s 2nd Annual Creative Arts Awards on February 9th.


Suzanne Lloyd stated, “The tasteful colorization and 3D conversion that Legend3D has performed on my grandfather’s Safety Last clip has given it new life. Harold Lloyd’s film masterpiece from 1923 has been updated for audiences old and new, preserving the magic and dignity of the original film.”

According to Dr Barry Sandrew, Founder of Legend 3D, the sequence was relatively easy to convert from 2D to 3D. Although they are separate processes, the colorization and conversion were worked on simultaneously and the whole project took just a week to complete. In one of the most famous images from the silent film era, a select few watched Harold Lloyd clutch the hands of a skyscraper clock with traffic rushing below him in glorious 3D.

President of the International 3D Society, Jim Chabin, observed this 3D film conversion as a stride in 3D technology, stating, “Bringing Harold Lloyd back to the screen after almost 100 years is a work of brilliance, precision and 3D magic. Everyone who has seen this piece has reacted with excitement and thrilling pleasure. It’s a work of art and of great movie-making.”

One would naturally assume that only modern digital films could be converted to 3D but the conversion of this 1923 black and white silent film impressed audiences possibly even more than the contemporary 3D being displayed during the ceremony.

Dr Barry Sandrew told 3dfocus.co.uk “If you talk to the president of the i3DS and Suzanne Lloyd they will both tell you the Harold Lloyd scene really was the highlight of that event in terms of what was being displayed in 3D. People really did not expect to see a 1923 clip in color and in 3D. Plus it ‘popped into’ 3D from the original source material. People were amazed and we got more than applause in the end; people were yelling and generally going crazy – it was wonderful.”

Err, I don't know if I like the idea of this or not personally. Colorized stills are one thing, but not a Silent film. Unless, it can be made to look exactly like vintage Two-Color Technicolor. Useful in particular for films where the Color sequences only survive today in Black and White.

Wouldn't fake 3D show up such old filmcraft as matte paintings, hanging models for what they are ???
Besides, I'm a firm believer in leaving films as their filmmakers intended; Ditto for colourisation too; tinted and toned, if that was what they were aiming for, plain monochrome if that was what was intended.

And having looked at the before/after images on the link....that looks absolutely awful. Unless "Hand-coloured lobby-cards" was the look they intended...

I hope colorization of silents/talkies and then converting to 3D isn't a new way for copyright holders to make money. Ted Turner got burned when he colorized films years ago, and I hope the same thing happens now. The filmmakers would be turning over in their graves, because it's not definitely something they wanted. Too bad we're not like France, where the artists who created the works must be consulted before any such thing can take place.

Sorry to say that I'm really disappointed in Suzanne Lloyd for having this done. It is not right and I'm sure that Harold definitely would not approve. Is it just a 4 minute clip, or the entire film?

Even worse is that trailer of The Electric Light Orchestra scoring Fairbanks THE THIEF OF BAGDAD! Truly horrible! Who ever thought this was a good idea???

Absolutely horrible. Pandering to the least common denominator is what this is.
This is nothing less than the beginning, though.
Like colorization before it, this will be a new way to squeeze more money out of the work.

Despicable.

I'm amazed that it was allowed - under the flimsy excuse that Lloyd was interested in 3D. The next thing we'll be hearing is "It's what Harold would've wanted....."

I hope colorization of silents/talkies and then converting to 3D isn't a new way for copyright holders to make money. Ted Turner got burned when he colorized films years ago, and I hope the same thing happens now. The filmmakers would be turning over in their graves, because it's not definitely something they wanted. Too bad we're not like France, where the artists who created the works must be consulted before any such thing can take place.

And I hope it is. It will give them incentive to take care of their properties. Does anyone recall how when Turner colorized some of his properties, he also struck beautiful, new, sparkling b&w prints of them?

Bob

I am sympathetic towards Suzanne Lloyd's quest to make her grandfather's films as familiar to the generations today as Chaplin's - and I suspect that is her benchmark. But Chaplin and his heirs never needed 3D or colorization. HL, like Pickford, made a huge mistake for their posterity by keeping their films out of circulation for decades. Even today, you can say to younger folks, "Chaplin," and they will nod with, "Oh, Charlie." But in many quarters it's still circa 1970 and the question remains, "Harold Who?" I wish Ms. Lloyd well if she thinks these new gimmicks will help the cause but somehow I doubt it.

LEAVE THE FILMS ALONE!!!!! They're fine as they are.
We don't need no stinkin' colour or no stinkin' 3D!

[Mike Gebert]

If they don't go any further than playing with one sequence, then it's an amusing tribute to his own interest in 3-D.

If they do go further, then please let me assure them that my kids and their friends laugh their tails off at Harold Lloyd just fine in silent black and white.

The problem with colorization has always been that 1927 or 1946 or whatever is still another time and another set of mores, no matter what color it is. You can't make them into what's hip for shallow teenagers who only want 2011, no matter what you do to them.

Nicely put, Mike

I couldn't make it but I had friends there. It was just the one sequence, and it was related to his interest in 3D.

If they don't go any further than playing with one sequence, then it's an amusing tribute to his own interest in 3-D.

I think that's where this argument begins and ends. It's not an attempt to bring a new and different `Safety Last', it's a demonstration of 3D that happens to use the most famous sequence of a notable supporter of the form. No need to get too het up.

No need to get too het up.

We like to get het up 'round here. Doncha know that by now???

If they don't go any further than playing with one sequence, then it's an amusing tribute to his own interest in 3-D.

It was only a tribute to Harold Lloyd by his Grand Daughter, Suzzane. Suzzane was raised by Harold so she was keenly aware of his interest and fascination with 3D. She told me Harold would have been extremely excited to see the conversion and very grateful for the effort. Legend3D donated the conversion work for the 4 min sequence. This should be nothing to get excited about. It was a very suitable tribute to an Industry pioneer and visionary.

I can't find the video online. Will they be releasing the clip for folks to see?

There's a new film of The Great Gatsby being made by Baz Luhrman and it's going to be in 3-D... My question: why?

If it's by Baz, it'll be edited by people on crack, with no shots lasting longer than 2.5 seconds.

You're right.... Just the way Fitzgerald imagined it....

There's a new film of The Great Gatsby being made by Baz Luhrman and it's going to be in 3-D... My question: why?

I think it's a very interesting choice. I have very few nice things to say about James Cameron's `Titanic' (if he'd cut out the first half and most of the exposition I'd be better disposed), but one thing it did do was to show that you could do a big `effects' movie where the effects were in the service of the storyline and not the other way around, as was so often the case in the late 90s.

There are an increasing number of film-makers considering 3D in the same way. The New Yorker recently interviewed Benicio del Toro, and he describes it as the `aquarium effect' - not the cliched `duck the spear' 3D of the past but a greater feeling of overall immersion. As an artistic decision, it's not unlike MGM choosing to go Technicolor for the Oz sequences in `The Wizard of Oz'.

There is no film-maker about whom I hold more polarised opinions (I saw `Romeo + Juliet' seven times at the cinema; I'd be perfectly happy never to see `Moulin Rouge' ever again), so I'll reserve judgement until I see what Luhrmann comes up with.

If it's by Baz, it'll be edited by people on crack, with no shots lasting longer than 2.5 seconds.

Well, he can't have it both ways. Many producers are learning that it takes roughly 5-6 seconds for the eyes to readjust each time there's a cut in a 3-D movie. If he tries his ADD editing style on GATSBY, he's in for a sorry surprise. Joe Dante's THE HOLE was re-edited by its producers, who thought the cutting was too leisurely. After watching their own version in 3-D, they realized their mistake and returned to Joe's cut.

That said, why does 3-D only have to be for cartoons and big visual effects movies? I wouldn't mind seeing a straight drama or comedy in depth.

Mike S.

Well, he can't have it both ways. Many producers are learning that it takes roughly 5-6 seconds for the eyes to readjust each time there's a cut in a 3-D movie.

You are right about that.

The recent film James Cameron was involved with about the cave was great and a sight to behold but the eariler scenes had too much fast panning and quick shots. Made my head spin. I hope there are no more 3-D films made that way. If so, it wouldn't take Columbo to figure out who killed the mainstream 3-D format for the third time.

The staccato editing style ruins many new films (for many it doesn't matter since they're trash from the getgo) and while it can add excitement to a chase scene or such, entire films edited with these 5-10 second bites simply ruin the narrative flow, depriving them of any kind of depth. And think what it does to an acting performance (or the appreciation of one) if it's chopped up into 5-10 second pieces.

The "pastell postcard coloring look style" was cleary intentional.

Check this colorization clip from the same colorization company:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roX9C4ca4Oc


They have a fine technology, as the clip above shows, and could did a far better if a natural look was the intention of this small project.
The same for the bright contrast image, since we see footage with less highlight gloss from the same film on youtube. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5FYKDij18 )

But personally, in my humble opinion, instead of the "vintage postcard pastell coloring look" I would prefer a 2 color technicolor look, even simulating the slight color variation along the slight flickering.

In two color technicolor, the usual slight hue fluctuation we see, from reds to green and vice versa, it's due the slight flickering from the old film developing technics, and not necessarily a aging effect.

3D conversion it's a lot more expansive than colorization, and silent films unfortunatelly have no market for such expense.
Now we wait to see if the 3D conversion of 2D classic and successful films from 70's, 80's and 90's will create or not a polemic, like clorization did in the middle 80's.

And what about some cartoons ? Some charactersa do not follow the laws of tridimentionality. Remamber Mickey Mouse ears never appers by side, even when his head is cleary by side. Mickey's ears always appears as a kind of circumferences.

Capture from blu ray of Hugo 3D:


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... osition=14" target="_blank


Not sure if it's the same 3D converted segment...

There are an increasing number of film-makers considering 3D in the same way. The New Yorker recently interviewed Benicio del Toro, and he describes it as the `aquarium effect' - not the cliched `duck the spear' 3D of the past but a greater feeling of overall immersion. As an artistic decision, it's not unlike MGM choosing to go Technicolor for the Oz sequences in `The Wizard of Oz'.

There is no film-maker about whom I hold more polarised opinions (I saw `Romeo + Juliet' seven times at the cinema; I'd be perfectly happy never to see `Moulin Rouge' ever again), so I'll reserve judgement until I see what Luhrmann comes up with.

I liked the 3D in Hugo (and it's the only 3D film I've sat through where I could actually see it); it served the story well. I'm interested in seeing how Luhrmann uses it, especially in a property like Gatsby. I don't have polarized opinions about Luhrmann. I enjoy his films. Like you, I loved his Romeo & Juliet, adored Strictly Ballroom, and liked (GASP!!) Moulin Rouge lots.

Back in 1966 when I was introduced to computers I remember remarking that I wouldn't be surprised that one day I might see black and white pictures made into colour. "Impossible!" I was told.

In the late 1980's it was no longer impossible. The first attempts I saw of a colouring process was on a Laurel and Hardy picture. I thought it looked dreadful. The background was purplish and the colours not clearly defined. The colours in the foreground were somewhat garish and the overall effect was of something quite unnatural. I understood when purists started to kick up a fuss - we did not want our favourite pictures to look like horrid copies of the original.

Of course that was the beginning of the colouring process and in the last few years I have seen quite marvelous examples of the work and I take as an example "It's a Wonderful Life". Here the colouring has been done so well it is virtually impossible to tell it from a "natural" colour picture.

The argument put forward by the purists is that the producers never intended their pictures to be in colour. Well, I don't know about that! From what I can gather, there were two problems with making pictures in colour in the early days. One was that it was overbearingly hot on the set with the amount of lights needed to photograph in colour and second, the costs of making a picture in colour were prohibitive.

An example of the nonsense spruiked about an intention to only use black and white film is the unmasking scene in "The Phantom of the Opera" which was photographed in two-colour Technicolor. Because of the heat generated by the number of arc lamps needed, Lon Chaney's make-up lost it's adherence to his face - and the colour scenes were thus abandoned.

If the colouring process endangered the original film - I would be dead against it, however the original film needs to cleaned up in order for the process to proceed - this must be seen as something of a gain. For the purists, the black and white film is still there - it's just that there is a colour version also available. I see nothing wrong with that.

If the colour process were to be applied to silents and early talkies - I would prefer it being used to make into colour those parts of the original which are now only available in black and white. I am sure the process could easily be tweaked to resemble two-colour Technicolor.

As to 3D - again why not? Personally I would love to see this Harold Lloyd scene done in colour and 3D - it would bring a totally new perspective to a very familiar favourite.

(With films that have been coloured - I have both the original black and white version as well as the colour version).