3-D Film formats beyond Real-D, Dolby3D and Xpand 3-D

Digital 3-D projection is fantastic and the way forward for a prosperous future of 3-D, but despite all the huffing and puffing of the Avatar PR machine, 3-D film consumption at home is still 99.9% an anaglyph business. In recent weeks, anaglyph family member ColorCode 3D has been the main format chosen for 3-D TV broadcast in the US and the UK. While we are all familiar with the pro's and con's of the amber-blue di-chromatic system, it can still not be called much more than a clever rehash of the original stereoscopic format: anaglyph. But then, when it comes to 3-D, there has historically so far always been a constant re-invention of the wheel with few meaningful exceptions.

What can strike many as odd is that patents are granted time and again for 3-D display systems that do nothing new compared to long time existing systems. Sure, it is good for business when technologies are protected, but to lock away existing formats that have been with us for 150 years behind lawsuits and license fees may prove to be a crippling blow to an already fickle, unstable industry. What we need to do now is open up the knowledge and share the technology, or a 3-D industry will yet again not be able to establish itself properly and return to the small club of elites in the 3-D know.

Throughout the years, in 3-D feature film production, the 5 stereo encoding systems of Twin Strip, Side-by-side, Over-under, Lenticular and Anaglyph have been used and patented under many different names. 102 to be precise. Hosting the 3-D Filmography at the3drevolution.com, I have been able to compile the following 3-D feature film format names list for your reading pleasure. I personally love the crazy, wild names and I would hate to see the tradition of the invention of a 'new' zany 3-D process with every film release disappear. But, like with the non-use of negative parallax by 3-D film makers these days, the trend is getting more and more disappointingly dull: the '3-D' is mentioned as much as possible in advertising but just as that: 3-D. Or maybe 'Digital 3-D' (and, of course, Real-D and IMAX 3D), but no longer 'SpaceTerrorScopeVision 3-D'. Does it really remind people of bad 3-D experiences of the 1950's? I seriously doubt it. It is not like throwing a pick-axe at the camera in Real-D 3-D is any different as a film-going experience than seeing it hit the negative parallax barrier in StereoVision. I think the trend has more to do with the 'if it's digital, it's got to be good' attitude, regardless of the fact that two digital cameras will still need to be strapped together on a real world slide bar. And if you ask me, the act of aligning the cameras can and should still be called 'StereoCineScope-a-Rama' whenever possible, even when it doesn't sound very digital.

On to the list then. Some of the names refer to the technique in which the film was shot shot, some to the format it was printed in. Because, to give just one example, you can shoot over-under as well as printing in the format.


Glorious 3-D in Twin strip (dual source) format has been known under the name of:

3-D Video, 3Vision, Ciné Stéréo Télévision, Clear-Vision, Columbia 3-D, Depth Dimension, Dimension 3, Disney 3-D, Dual-Techniscope, Dual-VistaVision, Dynoptic 3-D, Fairall Process, Freddy Vision, Friese-Greene Stereoscopic Process, Fusion 3-D (Reality Camera System), Future Dimension, Hi-Vision 3-D, IMAX 3-D, Iwerks 3-D, Kwong-Tzan 3-D, Lipton Three-Dimensional Filmmaking System, Loucks & Norling 3-Dimension, Maurer 3-D, Metroscopix, Metrovision Tri-Dee, Miller Stereoscopic Process, Monogram 3-D, Natural Vision, Natural Vision 3-Dimension, NFBC 3-D, Norling-Leventhal 3-Dimensions, nWave 3-D, Paravision, Parkes 3-D, Parrish 3-D, Pathé 3-D, Plasticon 3-D, Plastigram 3-D, Pola-Lux 3-D, Porter-Waddell Stereoscopic Process, PSC 3-D, Ramsdell 3-D, Richardson 3-D, Sensorama, Showscan 3-D, Spacemaster 3-D, Stereo Base and Stereo-Cine.


Side by Side straight, rotated, anamorphic or in any other combination can also be called:

3D30, Bolex Stereo, Dudley 3-D, Elgeet Stereo, LazerVision, Nord 3-D, Optovision, Pola-Lite, Powell 3-D, Quadravision 4-D, Raumfilm-System, Shochiku Natural Vision, Sistema Gaultiero Gaulterotti, Stereokino, Stéréoscopic Lumière, Stereo 70, Stereovision 70 (Hi Fi Stereo 70, Triarama, Super Cinema 3-D), Tri-Delta Stereo, Western 3-D, Wolff 3-D and Wondavision (Deep Throw 3-D).


Over Under (above/below) has been recording and projecting 3-D film under the name of:

3-Depix, 3-Dynavision, ArriVision, Cinedepth, Cubic 3-D, ESI-3D, Fuji Vision, Future Dimensions, Hi Stereo Vision, Impact 3-D, McNabb 3-D, Optimax III (Dimensionscope), Plasztikus Film, Spacevision, StereoVision (Future Dimensions), StereoVision TenPerf 70, Super Touch 3-D (Real-a-Rama, Super 3D, Ultra-Cubic 3-D) and Z3D.


Checkerboard, lenticular and raster encoding is more something of a post production format, but one 3-D system manages to already shoot in it:

Cyclostéréoscope.


Anaglyph (di-chromatic), the grand daddy of them all, is also known by the name of:

3-Dimensions, 3D Plus, ColorCode 3-D, Cosmovision, DeepVision, HorrorScope (MiracleVision), Natural Vision 3, Smart Anaglyphic Fatigue Eliminator, Triangle 3-D, Trioscope and Trioviz.


And that's it. If your very own invented (or favourite) stereo format is in this list, but put in the wrong category, or does not feature in the list yet, please do contact me so that the misplacement can be rectified. The list aims to be correct and precise as possible - a challenge in these hairy days of Wild West 3-D reinvention and land grabbing!

Contact Alexander Lentjes by e-mail.
The 3-D Filmography can be found at: www.the3drevolution.com/3dlist.html

Top three 3-D movies of all time

Just a quick top three after a recent visit to Box Office Mojo:

The top three 3-D movies of all time
Numbes reflect total International Gross
Corrected for inflation (ticket price)

1. Spy Kids 3-D (2003)
35mm Anaglyph projection
$230,504,018

2. Jaws 3-D (1983)
35mm Polarized projection
$197,970,873

3. Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D (2008)
Digital 3-D projection
$96,387,658

So not only is the highest grossing 3-D movie of all time a very 'simple' anaglyph 35mm projection, its budget is definitely also the lowest of the three.

It is good to see a polarized 35mm projection on the number two spot, and then, finally, a digitally projected 3-D film. James Cameron must be hissing and huffing and puffing. Well, with his upcoming 3-D movie Avatar having a $195,000,000 budget and a niche Sci-fi market to play the movie to, he will certainly continue to do so...

And so which film of the top three is the most recognizable and memorable of them all? Exactly, Jaws 3-D. That film from 1983 that today’s journalists can’t bash enough – whenever they aren’t generally bashing anaglyph as a release format, that is. Too bad then it’s not them, but Robert Rodriguez who is laughing all the way to the bank with a hefty $186,000,000 cheque in his pocket for the anaglyph Spy Kids 3-D. People, wake up to the reality of what works in 3-D and why.

Top Ten List of 3-D stereoscopic film shots

Top ten

List of stuff chucked and poked at the audience in 3-D
throughout the history of stereoscopic film

About as far out of the screen 3-D as anaglyph 3-D will allow

Eye-poking 3-D

There is a lot more possible in stereo 3-D than poking stuff in the eyes of the audience, but it's usually the one part that everybody remembers of a 3-D film. In fact, it is probably the very thing that made you interested in 3-D films and 3-D film production in the first place!

So out-of-screen (negative parallax) 3-D is a good place to start when thinking of producing a 3-D stereoscopic film or video. And the best way to learn about what works well and what caused nausea and headaches, is to look at how it's been done before. Because he who does not know the 3-D past is doomed to repeat its eyestrain mistakes.

Out of Screen 3-D: how and how much

First, a little bit more about out-of-screen 3-D effects. It doesn't hurt to understand what it really is you're trying to accomplish here! Creatively, the 3-D in your project needs to pay off to actually be worth all the trouble and still integrate with the story being told. Because, narratively speaking, there is no good reason to poke stuff in the eyes of the audience. Normally, that only takes the viewer out of the story and reminds him that he is watching a 3-D movie.

Overall, the dimensionality easily distracts the viewer from the story and its characters. This way, the viewer is removed from the experience of enjoying the story and has to switch brain sides to enjoy the technicality of the 3-dimensional spectacle. And herein lies the paradox of 3-D film: you need the of-screen effects, but they can take the viewer out of the movie. Subtlety needs to be employed.

This is something special-effects-driven movies without a good plot have in common with stereoscopic cinema, and its audience may be wooed in the first few minutes, but will be unimpressed by the whole thing at the end of the movie. Also, when watching a 3-D movie that does not perform the usual bag of out-of-the-screen tricks, its audience will question the need to shoot the film in 3-D in the first place.

Can 3-D out-of-screen shots be used without acknowledging the existence of the camera (camera access) and the existence of the audience? How can in-your-face 3-D be used without taking the viewer out of the story? The 3-D directors of today and tomorrow have to ask themselves these questions to take 3-D film to the next level of cinematic evolution. We certainly have! Because not employing intelligent 3-D is going to be seen as clumsy as the first attempts at cinematic storytelling of the 1900s.

Without further ado then, here's the of top ten items coming out of the screen in 3-D films and TV programs:

There are, of course, many more fantastic 3-D eye-poke shots in existence. Should you know of shots that would sit comfortably in this list any any future extended list, please don not hesite to contact 3-D Revolution Productions and we'll see if we can get our hands on that particular piece of 3-D movie magic.

The Top Ten List
Of items coming out of the screen in 3-D films
As composed by Alexander Lentjes of 3-D Revolution Productions

1. Fuzzball - Captain EO (1986)

He's so cute! Now imagine him up close... very close...

You can't fault a 3-D film shot by Francis Coppola, produced by George Lucas and shot with a dual 65mm Hines rig. It's pretty much 3-D perfection. And the shot with Fuzzball coming closer to the audience than any furry alien sidekick creature ever did is one of the most memorable off-screen moments in 3-D film history. A true shame this 70mm twin-strip film is locked up in a movie conservation vault, somewhere in Disneyland. With no way to even get a glimpse of the 3-D effects for research purposes...

So apologies for this image not being in 3-D; it is almost impossible to get 3-D plates of 4-D attractions. If you know of a 3-D version, do let us know!

2. Brains - The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005)

Your classic 3-D brain drain


Featuring this high on the list because it's the most bizarre object in 3-D ever. The effect itself is not that memorable, but, uniquely, the brain does hit a virtual camera lens and slides down as if real brains and cameras are involved. A very rare use of the acknowledgement of the presence of a 3-D camera.


3. Paddleball ball - House of Wax (1953)

Duck! Or cover your eyes

The classic of classics. Serves no function other than to come out of the screen and hit you in the eye. Especially because the actor is talking straight to you, the viewer. It was a bit of a tradition in ‘53/’54 and before to have producers talk to the audience about the 3-D process involved and about how to put on the 3-D glasses just before the start of the movie. But having the paddleball scene happen mid-movie in a special interlude, that is something very unique indeed. It is actually quite clever to use an ‘Interlude’ to do some extreme off-screen 3-D, because that kind extreme effect will definitely remind you that you are watching a 3-D film and will take you out of the story. This way, the story and its characters remain intact and the storytelling spell is not broken.

4. Piranhas - The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005)

Don't forget to feed the 3 dimensional fish

The predominant use of 3-D for horror movies ties in with the primal reaction that volumetric images still have on us. It is still a unique, very real experience, and a medium that really benefits from this emotion is horror. 3-D is also still a medium in its infancy, and is thus being used for very basic, primal stories.

Without a doubt, using dangerous animals like piranhas does exactly that: tie in with our primal reaction to both volumetric imagery and predators. Using piranhas at their actual size is a clever way to work with the size limitation of out-of-screen objects. This size limitation is dictated by the fact that 3-D images mustn’t be cut off by the screen edge and the available space in which objects can come out of the screen is thus a narrow, cone-shaped area.

So all round, using piranhas is a logical, well thought out 3-D solution.

5. Tarantula - Shrek 4-D (2003)

A big, fat, hairy spider - right in your face!

Staying with the small animals, this 4-D special animation is so well balanced, it should be used to research good 3-D. A big, fat, hairy spider is always nice to see dangled in 3-D before your very eyes – very real and very scary! And its presence ties in perfectly with the story at that point. It’s a shame this shot is followed by a whole bunch of tarantulas coming down at once, because it’s simply too many out-of-screen object to focus on. 3-D one-upmanship is a dangerous practise.



6. Pistons - Motor Rhythm (1936)

An animated Chrysler engine - they don't make 'em like that any more

You may wonder how pistons manage to make their way into a 3-D movie and even floating out of the screen. Motor Rhythm is a promotional film for Chrysler, so it all makes sense. And it’s eye-poking in stop motion, as early as 1936. Of course objects were sticking out of the screen in 3-D as early as 1923, but never in animation, let alone in stop-motion! Amazing quality of this short overall, but the objects that come out of the screen do get way too close to the camera, resulting in unfusable imagery. A bit clumsy and strange for such an otherwise perfect 3-D presentation.

7. Van Gogh’s paint - Medium – Still Life (2005)

Painting in 3-D was driving Van Gogh crazy

Very creative use of 3-D. Here we have Vincent van Gogh pouring paint onto a sheet of glass just over an upward-looking camera and then start brushing it to start his painting. Well though out, very well executed, but why is this section in 3-D again? This episode of Medium struggles to come up with a good reason to do 3-D and although the use of the 3-D is very well done, there is no real story-driven reason to suddenly have 3 dimensional scenes in an otherwise flat episode...

8. Lance with liver - Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)

Quite a dramatic de-livery

Pure gruesomeness and extreme fleshploitation - Andy Warhol at his film making best. This 3-D shot is a classic pole-poke as employed in many, many 3-D films, but with the added bloody liver at the end of it. Maximum gore, if pretty much fantasy, in your face!

9. Birthday Cake - The Three Stooges – Pardon my Backfire (1953)

The Three Stooges doing what they do best: good ol' pie throwing

Suspended on wires to approach the camera at a slow speed, in a straight line. Perfect for 3-D. It also fits in perfectly with the whole setup of this Three Stooges short: every shot is thought out to be able to chuck things at the camera in a complete clowning around vaudeville slapstick act. Nothing wrong with a little bit of pie throwing, but if you’re going to do it, do it right, just like this!

10. Fish Head - Jaws 3-D (1983)

Fish head!

You’ve got 90 minutes of film, a big production budget and an amazing franchise as a subject to do some interesting things in 3-D with. So what do you decide to have come out of the screen? A fish head!

That’ll please them for sure. A fine example of why 3-D didn’t stick around longer in the 1983-84 fad, being outdone in amount of releases and quality by the 1953-54 wave of 3-D films. Here’s hoping and preying the current 2008-09 period of 3-D popularity manages to find better objects to poke at the audience.


At 3-D Revolution Productions we can certainly help you seriously to do just that: creating compelling, thrilling and well thought out 3-D shots. Just contact us for more information on we can help you with your 3-D Film Production.