You need to familiar the history with Stereoscopic Vision (3D) Movies

All the 9 articles about 3D vision by me in this forum, I am talking about the True Color 3D movies, with polarized shutter glasses, not Anaglyph cyan and red ones. (anaglyph is not a good method for 3D vision.)
From scientific viewpoint, let us review about 3D visions.
Before 1953, the reproducing of 3D images and movies was used by anaglyph method, even now, the anaglyph method is still the low end method to see some 3D movies, why? because the cyan (left eye view) and red (right eye view) images overlapped to one duotone print or one combined scene of 3D movie scenes, then, no need of special projector (one projector only), viewer just put on cyan-red paper glasses, and seeing 3D vision in monocolor. The classic CRT TV monitor can show 3D anaglyph movies, but viewing monocoloring 3D only.
1953, Warner published new polarized method 3D movies worldwide, to attract people to go theater to save the recession of the ticket box. Yes, the polarized method of 3D movies display perfect true color and real 3D vision naturally, make big tide over whole world. But, why the boom of 3D quickly faded at that period?
The most reason is that, theater uses two projectors with Kodak movie films (separate left and right eyes film) to project to special high reflection screen, sometimes the high heat burned down film, the theater need a skill operator to join the broken film, and need very quickly operating time to continue the movie projects, it is a very difficult job, because the 3D movies need critically the correct left and right eyes scenes simultaneously, if not so quickly to recover the continuity, maybe the audience will do money back action from theater.
This is why the boom 3D era quickly faded.
Another reason is the alternatives had invented:
1. Panorama Movies:
(picture1 illustrate the setup of panorama movie principles)
The famous movie "How West Was Won" is the leading one.
Panorama movies also soon faded, this time it is not the left and right eye simultaneous problem, insteadly,it is the 3 frames combined simultaneous difficulty. (the 3D illusion is your imagination, not the Panorama very wide angle screen did.)
1953 the same time, Fox uses french Dr. Cretien's Hypergonar lens to shoot very wide film called CinemaScope, (the lens at shooting end is to shrink parallel to fit 35mm film (1.33:1), when in the projecting end to enlarge parallel the 35mm film's movie to very wide angle scenes (2.66:1). The famous one is Christian story "The Robe", this kind of movie is to make the very wide angle of scenes, let the audience's eyes feel as if he were participating in the scene, to imitate the pseudo 3D experience. But it is not the true 3D, similarily to Panarama, but a very inportant benefit is that it is one film one projector only, the theater no need a special projecting operator to handle the problems like the film burn down.
These time, another kind of movie called PanaVision Todd AO, published by Paramont, they use 70mm film to instead of 35mm film, the aim is to raise the resolution four times, the higher resolution let audience to feel the very natural scene to imitate 3D vision, but it is still not the real 3D movies.
IMAX first use 70mm film to shoot 3D movies with twin lens, obviously it is perfect for 3D vision.
In classic color CRT TV set (60Hz), like i-O glass's virtual FX 3D converter adapter, to let the 3D movie's left and right eyes view each to occupy 30 Hz interactively, use simultaneous liquid shutter glasses to let the audience's each eye to accept each own scene, then the true color 3D movie achieved.
New era now, the 3D TV (120Hz and 240Hz), DLP projector (120Hz), and the storage of movies use harddisk instead of the film, called Digital 3D Theater.
My conclusion is that: why the world's 3D standard so late to regulate the hard equip (liquid TV), let the audience wastes abundant money to buy the un-matured products (compatible problems), it is a kind of waste earth resource very much, as for me, I insist to use my cheapest Optoma DLP projector with USB harddisk only (no need of PC computer) to enjoy marvellous true color 3D movies at home, I have not purchased any 3D TV yet, I will wait for the mature equip one appears.

Wrightway Stone
[email protected]

 

I agreed on your viewpoint. "the world's 3D standard so late to regulate the hard equip, let the audience wastes abundant money to buy the un-matured products".
I think the standard is difficult to establish, because both active and passive 3D technology have their defects, and both can impact on standard estanblishing.
Personally, I insist that flicker free 3D projector is only natural, healthy 3D display equip.

 

but in a few years this TVs will be in top sales.

 

Some interesting thoughts and a fine write-up, Wrightway. Actually this old codger was there for all of them. The cyan-red paper glasses actually came out in the early 1940's. There was an old Three Stooges movie done in that format. Of course most of the Stooges movies were "shorts" of about 20 min. So that process was used to attract a curious audience, while another film was the main feature.

Actually the format you refer to as the Warner Polarized method came along in 1952 in a film called Bwana Devil. Sadly most 3D movies that followed shortly thereafter were stinkers. Noteable exceptions would be Creature from the Black Lagoon, The House of Wax, and John Wayne's Hondo. I assume Hitchcocks Dial M for Murder would have been great 3D as Hitchcock did everything with class. But by the time he finished shooting the Pic, 3D had lost its luster, and Dial M was released in the usual 2D format. I am not sure if anyone ever saw the completed 3D prints.

The Panorama Movies that you refer to, actually known in their time as Cinerama, started with a feature called This Is Cinerama, a reserved seat theatre presentation of the early 1950's and was the biggest money maker for that format. How the West was Won was the final Cinerama film, as you are correct in that showing that format required a major theatre overhaul and therefore could be economical to do only in large cities.

CinemaScope which still exists, of course, was bastardized in smaller communities where theatres often tried to show the features, like The Robe, on their regular screens, often just cutting off the top and bottom of the screen, failing to install surround sound in the theatre, etc. CinemaScope was designed to be shown on a much larger screen that was slightly curved. Todd AO's first feature, I believe was Around the World in 80 Days, also a road show presentation shown in its correct viewing format in larger cities, and bastardized in the smaller ones. This was all taking place, of course, during the deline in motion picture attendance and the increase in TV viewing. I have often thought that had the theatre owner stayed true to the formats being introduced, they would have had a much better chance to maintain their audiences. Remember, in those days, a 21" TV was considered huge!

The original IMAX relied on its huge, multi-story high/wide screen and clear images to create an illusion of depth. It did a great job, but originally was not considered a format profitable enough to attract feature films. It consisted initially of 40 min travelogue type films. Still does to some extent. The 3D processes and the intro of feature films in IMAX have come along in recent years, and I think provide an absolutely fabulous 3D event for the audience.

I think, however, that what we have here is, historically, not unlike progressive entertainment development. Did we not first have BetaMax, followed by VHS, followed by DVD, followed by Blu Ray, followed by . . . . . . Etc>

An did not the first Warner Bros Sound movie have the sound track on a large disk, like a record from the old 78 rpm days, followed by sound strip film, followed by multi-sound strip on film, followed by Dolby encoding, followed by . . . . . Well you get the idea. And as to sound itself the first sorround sound was actually Quadraphonic (and its 4 formats that probably really killed it), followed by Dolby, then DTS, then SDS, etc.

I guess I am one of the goofy ones. I own 3 3D TV's, all 65", all DLP, two in my FL home and one in my MI home and have fun with all of them. And yes, the technology will change as time progesses. It always does. I have no doubt that glasses-less 3D will arrive in the future. But why wait?

All in all, Wrightway a fine synopsis. Well done.