DVDizzy Forum

Wasn't this shot in 3-D? Also, is there any other disney movies shot in 3-D? And last question does anyone have any disney 3-D movies?

Well, I can think of Chip'N Dale's "Working For Peanuts" (1953)

and Mickey's Philharmagic (2003) Haven't seen it so i don't know what it shows.

and the perennial favorite of kids and grown-ups Captain Eo... (Haven't seen it, but all i can think of is ooooooo!)

Altho there's always buzz in video magazines about different and upcoming 3-D systems, apparently mainstream Studios aren't too enthusiastic to try releases in them. I'm sure with todays video cards and clever use of home computer resources some of the lab xperimenting UDies could come up with a workable 3-D version, if they HAD the left and right records of the films. Don't know if anything has had the 2 records out there currently available...

mvealf has some 3-D videodiscs. Maybe he would know.

I didn't know that Working For Peanuts was made in 3-d. I will have to keep my eye opened and see if I can find it anywhere.

deathie mouse wrote:Well, I can think of Chip'N Dale's "Working For Peanuts" (1953)

and Mickey's Philharmagic (2003) Haven't seen it so i don't know what it shows.

and the perennial favorite of kids and grown-ups Captain Eo... (Haven't seen it, but all i can think of is ooooooo!)

Altho there's always buzz in video magazines about different and upcoming 3-D systems, apparently mainstream Studios aren't too enthusiastic to try releases in them. I'm sure with todays video cards and clever use of home computer resources some of the lab xperimenting UDies could come up with a workable 3-D version, if they HAD the left and right records of the films. Don't know if anything has had the 2 records out there currently available...

mvealf has some 3-D videodiscs. Maybe he would know.

Disney has never released anything in 3D on video, to my knowledge. Philharmagic is great, a must-see attraction at Disneyworld. Also, Honey I Shrunk the Audience is another great 3D movie (at Epcot), along with Muppets 3D at MGM.

Although not a Disney cartoon, the Bugs Bunny short, Lumberjack Rabbit was originally in 3D. One of the 3D gags was the opening WB logo. It zooms towards you very fast, much further than normal, then goes back to it's normal position. Too bad they didn't release it in 3D on the DVD.

Deathie - count yourself among the very lucky to have not seen Captain EO. It was absolutely abysmal. Whoever replaced it with the far superior but now dated Honey I Shrunk the Kids is a hero.

I second that Mickey's Philharmagic is a must see. It was great. The only character that didnt look that good to me was Jasmine. I cant figure out why Mickey and Donald looked so much better in this than they did in Mickey's twice upon a Christmas. My one year old daughter demands on a daily basis to be brought back and we are having trouble explaining why this isnt possible. She tells us "Donald Duck fall down Mouse Show" Pretty impressive for someone just short of 2 years old. And to be entirely correct Donald Duck falls up.

Disney HAS released a DVD in 3-D. Do you guys have a short memory? Disney DVD released Spy Kids 3-D just last year in 3-D DVD!!! They also included a 2-D version. I have never seen it myself and I wonder how good the 3-D works...
Atomobile

JimmyJac.. err Mr. Toad maybe i should put a Mr. Bill .gifie next to the ooooo


mvealf, maybe in your extensive collection there's the left or right record of something 3D. I've always wondered if maybe some prints would be made from one record and others from the opposite one. Who knows. I tried it once with some jpegs of different eds. of a 3-d movie on dvdbeaver but no dice.

Atomobile you're right , it's just that when i thought of Disney 3D i think more in terms of Mickey and stuff!

mmm i haven't seen that DVD (shot in a HDTV 1080 x 1920 system i believe) (at least some of the previous were)

I think it uses the red/cyan 3D system? Probably would work ok on a computer omonitor that has better accurate color than a consumer TV that has autotint and red push, but a 3D color system is not perfect for a color movie (for B/W it's fine!)

Still it must be better than nothing!

We need a good computer synch system
for color movies.

There's also a very cheap way of making any 2D movie into a 3D movie

but i wouldn't recommend it for extensive viewing periods. I've seen STAR WARS, Empire, Rewrite of the Jedi, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture that way among others and it looked pretty cool. But i got a very big headache . And i looked like Popeye for a few days..

One of my favorite old magazine possesions is the 30-D issue of Cinefantastique

deathie mouse wrote:mvealf, maybe in your extensive collection there's the left or right record of something 3D. I've always wondered if maybe some prints would be made from one record and others from the opposite one. Who knows. I tried it once with some jpegs of different eds. of a 3-d movie on dvdbeaver but no dice.

Hmm, I guess "Working For Peanuts" would be the easiest to test. It's on 4 differents laserdiscs and 1 DVD. So, how would the 2 prints differ? Just more picture information on one of the sides?

There's also a very cheap way of making any 2D movie into a 3D movie but i wouldn't recommend it for extensive viewing periods. I've seen STAR WARS, Empire, Rewrite of the Jedi, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture that way among others and it looked pretty cool. But i got a very big headache . And i looked like Popeye for a few days..

Where did you see 3D Star Wars movies? They did the same thing for Night of the Living Dead. First they colorized it, now it's in 3D. It probably doesn't look very impressive, but who knows.

Deathie mouse,

OK, I tried to capture the same screenshots of the 4 different laserdisc releases of "Working For Peanuts", to see if they possibly released 2 different prints, from the 2 seperate 3D images. Even if they did, can they somehow be combined to re-create the 3D image? I don't yet have the Chip & Dale DVD for comparison, sorry.

Can you tell by looking at these? It looks like they came from different sources because of the obvious color difference. Click on the images for larger photos.<table border="0" width="1%">
<tr>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1A.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1A.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2A.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2A.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="34%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3A.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3A.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1B.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1B.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2B.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2B.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="34%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3B.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3B.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1C.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1C.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2C.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2C.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="34%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3C.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3C.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1D.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/1D.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="33%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2D.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/2D.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
<td width="34%"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3D.JPG"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/dis_fantasia/chip/3D.JPG" width="200" height="150"></a></td>
</tr>
</table>

Hmm. I opened the images up in different windows and flicked back and forth between the two and I noticed that the very bottom laserdisc you posted has a tiny bit more area seen than the others, but I am not sure. I have heard of programs you can use to put 2 separate films together to make a field sequential 3-d formatted movie, but I have never tried it yet.

Unfortunately, color and framing differences don't count. The images above are all for the same eye, so there's no way you can put them together to form 3-D pairs.

Sorry if i've been slow in replying lately.

nice caps mvealf.


On a 3-D pair of pics the differences is not nescesarily more or less background, as Anders points out, but that the left-right pairs don't match in their positioniing of the objects from left to right WITHIN the frame. (tho the backgrounds could shift too, depending on the focal point of the binary focus as 3-D cameras not only focus in image sharpness/distance but also on binary plane of focus , like when your eyes crosseye to see objects closer or focus parallel. to see the horizon and the stars.),

So on a 3-D pair the differences are in the relative left to right positions of the different objects in the frame (including the left-right cutoffs of the backgrounds some times, specialy when the image is suposed to be focusing the nearby objects that are very "close" to you.) For example if the binary focus was set on the horizon (far away) the backgrounds would be similar but close objects would tend to be kind off to the left on one record and to the right on the other , while the opposite would be true: focusing near, the front closer objects would be in similar left to right positions relative to the frame but the backgrounds would be very different swaying to the left or to the right like if they were changing positions (or were panned differently.)

A foucused in the middle objects shot would have these objects similar in both pics, but both the foreground and background objects would be positioned differently relatively to the frame, but in opposite left/right directions (kind of like a X displacement when viewed from "above", the center of the x being the central focused objects unmoved between the two frames)


The color differences and different zoom overscan distortions sizes of the various telecines/transfers makes things difficult to compare. They look to be the same stereo side instead of different. but i kind of found the restored color top one to the second yellowish one directly below to give me some kind of 3-D effect. At first i said it was the color differences etc, so i made them b/w and more similar. I also found the images kind of mismatched on top of each other but this could be due to distortions on the width to height ratios of the scanning beam, so i did my usual " measure two points and resize the pics to be the same pixel distances betweeen points" routine.
For example for the left pic i measured and made the extreme left and right dry trees/palms the same width . On the elephant one i made the eyes the same size.

Then i overlayed the pics and the elements don't match on all their points, but i still don't know if this is a result of unlinear scanning beam or optics distortions in the transfers.

When the left and right trees matched, some of the other middle trees dont match, also the chipmunk didn't line up nor the elephant trunk.

I can move the merging to the left or right and get different stuff to align while other stuff misaligns

On the ellephant one if i align the eyes, the background trees get out of whack the further left they are on the pic (the ones just right next to the elephant line up )

But that also makes me think that that could be just an unlinear distortion of the scanning beam in the telecine transfer or something. (similar to the varistretch unlinear zoom function distortion on some 16:9 displays to make 4:3 fit the 16:9 width w/o distorting the central image.)

Maybe studying true known 3-D image pairs (like those that come in ViewMasters) would help.

if the top two ARE true stereo pairs (which probably they aren't) i think the restored color one would be the right eye one and the yellow one below the left eye one. (yeah you can also mismatch them and ger reversed depth too. Fun....)

There are a couple of cheap ways to try view them on 3-D . one is to put a carboard divider in front of your nose (so the carboard prevents the other eye to see the wrong eye pic) and get close to the screen or pics (you probably need close up focusing glasses too) the other requires you to switch places on the pics

I'm too tired to keep crossing my eyes and try make any of them bloom into 3-D


It's the ra.. dia .. tion.. captain

Because i crossed the eyes too much and mixed up someone's name (Sorry mr. AMO ) this was

Ah, something I'm good at is finding stereograms. And unfortunately, all the frames are from only one side of the 3-D set. I even opened up the pictures in my Paint Shop and re-arranged them just to be sure.

I didn't even realize that this cartoon was released in 3-D! Man, now I want to see it that way!

mvealf wrote:I don't yet have the Chip & Dale DVD for comparison, sorry.

I've now compared your screenshots to the DVD releases, both the German region 2 version, and the Canadian region 1 version. Both appear to be for the same eye as your screenshots above. So we still don't have a proper stereo pair.

what about melody? Is that available on any laserdisc or anything other than the fantasia 2000 dvd?

Zombi6422 wrote:what about melody? Is that available on any laserdisc or anything other than the fantasia 2000 dvd?

Nope. The Fantasia 2000 DVD was the first and only home video release.

Also slow in responding to one of mvealf's questions, which i just saw again, I saw the StarWars/Trek movies in my home directly from the Laserdiscs. Any movie with motion can be turned into a pseudo-3-D movie (kind of like from any 2 channel stereo recording you can extract a 3 or 4 channel pseudo-surround version) but as I said, the proccess in it's crudest form (i used a polarizing filter to dial in the necessary brain fooling trickery) gave me a headache and buffed my eyes. (Well it coulda been i watched for a long time )

Don't know if the 3-D Living Dead film used that particular process, a few TV specials have used it. But as i said, ANY movie with movement can create a certain 3-D effect with this process. And tho it's fake, no true 3-D photography ever exists, the brain (a magnificent thing, the brain) creates a TRUE 3-D image visual from it.
What i found interesting was how the analog video noise and grain separated itself from the plane of the objects in the image and became like a rainy floating noise curtain at the plane of the TV screen so the eye could somehow focus beyond it to the movie itself. (Kind like the phenomenon in which the ears can separate voices in a crowd, which is one of the reasons things usually are more enjoyable and instruments and vocals parts can be isolated better when hearing them recorded in Stereo instead of Mono) Very cool.

Anyway, on the 3-D Review November '04 issue http://www.rollanet.org/~vbeydler/van/3 ... dr0411.htm, there is an article about Disney in 3-D (taken itself from www.magicalmountain.net)
ya have to scroll down a little.

In that same page there's an example of a 3-d pair and without merging them they look practically the same.