Titanic 3D Face-Off: Hollywood vs. Anaheim
Am I the only person on the North American continent working the Titanic 3D RealD vs. Panavision 3D story? Apparently so. But long ago I recognized that I’m alone, all alone, and it doesn’t bother me any more.
The long and the short is that next week I’ll be seeing Titanic 3D twice on separate 3D systems. On Tuesday, 4.3, I’ll see Titanic 3D at Paramount’s all-media screening with the film projected with the RealD process and (possibly) a Sony 3D projector. The next day I’ll drive down to see Titanic 3D at the UltraLuxe Anaheim 14, which is the only theatre in the Los Angeles area that’ll be showing the film with Panavision 3D, a year-old process that may deliver a brighter, sharper image. Or not. I won’t know until I’ve compared.
The basics are (a) Roger Ebert and David Poland griped about Titanic 3D looking a bit darkish and filtered when they saw it at special Valentine’s Day screenings in Chicago and Burbank, respectively, (b) I was told by Full Aperture Systems projection consultant James Bond that less murky 3D projection was attainable through Panavision 3D, a 3D image-enhancement system that works with 3D projectors manufactured by Christie, Barco and NEC, (c) Two weeks ago I went out to Panavision headquarters to see a demonstration of Panavision 3D; (d) Panavision 3D seemed well-lighted and well-focused, and definitely looked better than celluloid 3D; and (e) we’ll see what we’ll see when I watch and compare.
It may be that that Ebert and Poland were both unluckily subjected to sub-standard presentations of Titanic 3D, and that there will be nothing wrong or even underwhelming with the RealD presentation of Titanic 3D that I’ll see at the Paramount screening on 4.3.
On 2.14 N.Y. Post critic Lou Lumenick wrote that Titanic 3D director James Cameron “has obviously taken great care in using the technology to enhance the experience of watching his 1997 Oscar winner…the 3D in Titanic is more effective than in most films that were originally filmed in the process. It adds depth and makes the vastness of the titular ship, its decks and corridors look even larger and longer. The already-spectacular effects in the long sinking sequence look even more breathtaking in 3-D. Kate Winslet‘s voluptuous figure in 3-D is one of the most magical effects — along with Leonardo DiCaprio‘s climactic slide into the depths, wonderfully rendered stereotypically.”
Or maybe the Panavision 3D version will look a little bit better. Who knows?
It would so much easier if a theatre in Los Angeles proper had adopted the Panavison 3D process, but (a) I’m told that RealD reps have persuaded an awful lot of theatres to sign exclusivity contracts and (b) it always takes a while for new ideas and new systems to work their way in.
The Panavision 3D version of Titanic 3D will begin showing at the UltraLuxe Anaheim 14, 321 W. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, on Wednesday, 4.4.
In a 2.27.12 piece called “Can Titanic 3D Be Saved From “Filter” Effect?,” I wrote the following:
“Panavision 3D’s system (a) involves no polarization, (b) allows exhibitors to project 3D on white or silver screens, and (c) allows for brighter 3D light levels (which are measured in foot lamberts) than what Bond says is the usual-usual, or 2.5 to 4 foot lamberts.
Panavision 3D, which has only been around for about a year, allows for something closer to 4 or 5 foot lamberts. This cuts into contrast, Bond says, but is nonetheless much more preferable to what most people are seeing with other lower-light-level systems.
Right now Panavison 3D is ‘the very best of all…a very seamless process,’ Bond says.
“The one 3D system that Panavision doesn’t work with, according to Panavision 3D rep Sean Lohan, is Sony’s, which is much less admired among high-end projection consultants. (The Regal Cinema chain, he notes, ‘has finalized a decision to remove any Sony 3D machines they have in the booth.’) And yet in 2009 it was reported that Sony’s 3D projectors are technologically allied with RealD, the 3D projection process that Titanic 3D will be shown through.”
To repeat: I was definitely impressed by Panavision 3D. My pants didn’t unbutton themselves and fall to the floor as I watched the test screening out of Panavision’s Woodland Hills headquarters, but what I was shown did seem brighter than the norm. I really don’t care for that shadowed muddy effect that 3D so often renders, so we’ll see what transpires.
That’s double the ZANEsanity for Mr. Wells. God bless you, sir. I couldn’t do.
“I was told by Full Aperture Systems projection consultant James Bond”
What an unusual name!
Last year, when I saw Cameron at an epic hour long Q&A at the DGA in NYC when Avatar first came out he mentioned about how difficult and expensive of a process it was to recreate the 3D effects and mentioned he would not be doing it again with any other film in the near future. (coughTerminator 2cough)
In addition, beyond the sick amount of money spent to re-3D Titanic what’s up with him realeasing it on the 100 year anniversary of the disaster. That’s like a 3D action film about the World Trade Center coming out on the anniversary of 9/11.
ditto@moviemorlock – that’s dedication, Jeff, sitting thru that hamfest twice in 2 days. The bullets you take for us…
@Kunze – no, I don’t think that’s the same thing.
Not a single person who was on the ship alive anymore to take some sort of personal offense and his film has guaranteed that the disaster and its victims are well known to a few more generations. Otherwise, it was well on its way to becoming a minor historical footnote.
Please pass along info re: Panavision system. I don’t know if anyone in he NJ/NY area is using it.
Full Aperture Systems projection consultant James Bond had either knobbish or ultra cool parents, depending on how you roll.
Like if your last name is Jones, do you even think about calling your son Indiana?
A stereotypical slide into the depths would, I think, be “ho hum just another drowning.” Whereas a stereoscopic slide would be, OH BOY, THERE HE GOES!
The film originally came out in 1997, on the 85th anniversary of the disaster. No one complained aboiut exploitation then, nor do I recall any hue and cry over TITANIC (53) or A NIGHT TO REMEMBER (58). The sinking of the Titanic (which had numerous ramifications for the shipping industry), its rediscovery, and the continuing fascination with the subject ensure that it’ll be more than “a minor historical footnote.”
Kunze,
9/11 was an atrocity commited by deranged maniacs who hi-jacked planes with the aim murdering thousands of people. An act of war.
The other invovled an iceberg and a ship that sank due to sheer hubris. A tragic disaster.
In 85 or 100 years, I doubt a 3-D action film about 9/11 would offend anyone.
Oh, wait, nevermind.
Just remember, Jeff, projection isn’t the only factor when it comes to 3D presentation. (Sorry to repurpose an older post, but it does contain some useful info.)
“Which brings me to the dirty secret about most 3D films; the studios are cutting corners when it comes to presentation (shocking).
What am I talking about? Well it’s like this; ideally, a studio should be preparing two digital intermediates for a 3D film, not one. The 3D version should have it’s color, contrast and luminance adjusted separately so that the overall look is identical to the 2D version. What usually happens is that the 3D version goes out with the exact same settings as the 2D version, which are then destroyed by the dimming effect of the glasses.
Sometimes, the 3D version has it’s luminance boosted to compensate (i.e. 3D PHANTOM MENACE), but color, contrast and luminance are all interrelated. You can’t change one without affecting the others. It’s like turning the brightness up on your television and expecting the colors to remain the same.
Of course, some directors are conscientious, knowledgable and powerful enough to demand that the studio pay for a separate digital intermediate (Cameron, Bay), but the precedent is rare.”
Robert: ” No one complained aboiut exploitation then, ”
Actually, there was a MADTV parody in which they had McDonald’s toy tie-ins for the film.
The Titanic3D is a perfect example of what 3D effects can do to make a movie have much better in terms of clarity of the picture. It is because of the unique experience of watching movies with 3D effects that most people are willing to invest in these systems despite the expensive prices that they come with.
I just watched the movie in my theater and it was so great ! 3D is amazing in this movie
so amazing