 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 20, 2016 - 11:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
Here is what Robert Hayes wrote about SEPTEMBER STORM way back in 1989, in his book 3-D Movies:
" I saw a poorly projected version, so I can't really assess the value of the stereo-photography. Having seen it flat recently, though on TV, it doesn't appear to have been staged to show off 3-D very well. I contacted the present owners, and they stated they only have a panned-and-scanned 35mm preprint and have no idea where the dual anamorphic 3-D original is.
"It is unfortunate that the TV version, which has the Stereo-Vision credit removed from the billing, was taken from a 'scope print, since this was shot spherical and converted to anamorphic via SuperScope 235 technology. The only stereoscopic edition known to still exist is at the Library of Congress."
So, Hayes confirms Manderley's understanding that the ultimate negatives are spherical and not anamorphic. But given the disdain with which Hayes is viewed by most, perhaps Manderley wishes to reverse his position. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, shot open-matte with the Natural Vision rig with compositions planned for anamorphic extraction. The full aperture left/right negatives were junked in the early 1960's and the only surviving 3-D elements are the anamorphic 35mm printing negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 21, 2016 - 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
Here is what Robert Hayes wrote about SEPTEMBER STORM way back in 1989, in his book 3-D Movies:
" I saw a poorly projected version, so I can't really assess the value of the stereo-photography. Having seen it flat recently, though on TV, it doesn't appear to have been staged to show off 3-D very well. I contacted the present owners, and they stated they only have a panned-and-scanned 35mm preprint and have no idea where the dual anamorphic 3-D original is.
"It is unfortunate that the TV version, which has the Stereo-Vision credit removed from the billing, was taken from a 'scope print, since this was shot spherical and converted to anamorphic via SuperScope 235 technology. The only stereoscopic edition known to still exist is at the Library of Congress."
So, Hayes confirms Manderley's understanding that the ultimate negatives are spherical and not anamorphic. But given the disdain with which Hayes is viewed by most, perhaps Manderley wishes to reverse his position.
I read Hayes cover-to-cover years ago. As a result, I now have a book, almost equal in size, of corrections.
I certainly don't want to represent myself as an acolyte of Hayes......but is this the first time he's ever been correct?
Actually, though, I think I read about this 3-D "extraction" discussion years and years before Hayes, perhaps around the time of STORM's release, possibly discussing it in relation to the MGM B&W CinemaScope period ca 1957-58, when they were extracting anamorphic releases from flat negatives in a SuperScope-235-like process.
I once went to see SEPTEMBER STORM projected in CinemaScope at a small neighborhood theater, but when I got into the theater, I realized I hadn't been given 3-D glasses, and inquired. Turns out the manager had simply printed a 3-D pressbook ad in the newspaper without bothering to wipe the 3-D logo off it, and was never intending to run the film in 3-D!!!
On the other hand, I couldn't imagine really wanting to sit through SEPTEMBER STORM in CinemaScope and 3-D anywhere but at a high-end first run theater in those days other than as an absolute curiosity anyway.
In many cases, it was bad enough with the pre-Panavision projection lenses to see CinemaScope---but the doubling of the image and focus and alignment problems could have made the experience in 3-D/CinemaScope unbearable.
With CinemaScope double-system 3-D projection, not only might you have had right-left/top-bottom alignment problems, but with the twisting barrel Scope lens to straighten the image, you might have had angular image alignment problems as well.
Bob.....where did you find the flat/spherical confirmation information you've mentioned above?
Was it ever written up in the ASC magazine? Or the trades of the day?
In regards to the old technical achievements, it was so difficult to do these kinds of things successfully in those days. You really HAD to want to do them to even make the attempt. I still marvel at the difficulties of shooting and lighting 3-strip Technicolor, and bow down to the breathtaking visual results that were often accomplished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming it's successfully funded, around when would you expect the LA and NYC premieres to actually take place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once we lock in the funds for the restoration, we'll begin negotiating with potential exhibitors. I'm guessing late 2016/early 2017. Repertory theater schedules are usually booked 3 to 4 months in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We average two-three months per title. Once the funds are available, we'll jump on this and have the 3-D Blu-ray for backers no later than December
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maltin's review was based on viewing a 16mm, pan and scan flat print.
He told me at the second World 3-D Expo in 2006 that he was revising many of his 3-D reviews after finally seeing the films as they were intended. It does make a difference!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless some actual period documentation surfaces on what exactly was done optically to create the anamorphic left/right prints, I would take any theories with a grain of salt.
No matter how it was done, this proposed restoration will look as good (and in many ways better) than what was seen theatrically in 1960. As with all of our restorations, left/right panel matching and vertical alignment will be spot-on, not to mention the correction of any flipped shots that found their way into the negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
