In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

107 Moving in Stereo Phil LoPiccolo/2003 From Computer Graphics World, August 2003, 56. Courtesy Computer Graphics World magazine. Q: Why did you decide to use stereoscopic visual effects in Spy Kids 3-D? A: I wanted to bring stereo 3-D effects back to theaters. And I thought doing a sci-fi movie for kids and setting it in a video game would be a great way to do it. The first thing I did was get Chris Olivia, a lead artist at Troublemaker Digital, to work up some test shots using footage from Spy Kids 2. It was astounding. We had this rush of adrenaline. It worked so well that we ended up making 90 percent of the movie in stereo. Q: Stereoscopy in films seems to have been merely a novelty. Is it intended to be something more this time? A: If you look at stereo 3-D movies from the past, you see why they didn’t work: The stories weren’t very good, the stereoscopic effect was not very good, and it wasn’t used as a crucial element in the story. So I think people just assumed that the idea wasn’t a good one. What I wanted to do was form the movie around the experience of being immersed in a virtual world. When you and the main characters put on the glasses, you enter the world of the game. Q: What was the best stereoscopic movie? A: Most people would say House of Wax. But when I realized that, I knew we were home free. We all knew we could easily beat that, and be the best stereo movie ever made. That’s one of the main reasons I wanted to do the movie. It’s a genre we could redefine. Q: Why did filmmakers abandon stereo 3-D effects? A: It was very difficult to do. In fact, now that I’ve made a movie using 108 rober t rodriguez: inter views the latest in high-definition cameras and 3-D digital equipment, I don’t even know how filmmakers ever pulled it off before. They were shooting blind. They had to lock down the camera, set a convergence, then let it ride. It’s just impossible to see what you’re doing when shooting on film, but for stereo 3-D that’s critical. Film is obsolete. I’m hoping the industry wises up and lets it go the way of the eight-track tape where it belongs. Q: Why is making a stereoscopic film easier now? A: This movie could not have been made even a year ago, because this is all very new technology. We have HD monitors and a dual HD projector on the set. We can put on glasses and watch the stereo effect as we’re shooting. And we can change the intraocular distance and monitor convergence on the spot. But, that said, it all starts with a moviemaker who really wants to go out and do something different, someone who is willing to learn the technology and use it in a creative way. Q: Is it also less expensive to produce stereo 3-D now given the new digital tools? A: It was less expensive than if we were to shoot it on film. In fact, this movie had the same budget as the first two Spy Kids movies. So with careful planning, there were no extra costs, and the movie is bigger than the last two in every way. Q: Is this the first of a new wave of stereo 3-D films? A: I’d love to do another 3-D movie, if for no other reason than to put to use the knowledge my crew and I have gained over the past year. As for others, it’s up to those who are willing to go out and learn it and apply it in a way that makes it worthwhile to the audience. I certainly hope there are more. Q: What has been the response from audiences? A: The response has been even stronger than I thought it would be. I’ve been to theme parks where they have ten-minute 3-D movies, and those always get big responses. But there’s something really different about seeing a long narrative story set in the 3-D world. You can invest more in the characters and in the world, and be transported beyond what a regular movie could ever hope to...

Share