posted March 22, 2009 09:06 AM
Had a demonstration of Digital 3D films yesturday saw several clips from films. Really impressed by the picture on screen. The cinema uses a normal no gain screen, I believe many use silver screens or screens with gain. A single 2K Christie Projector was being fed by a Dolby 3D unit, and we wore poloriod glasses. I think this system will speed up the introducion of Digital into cinemas. If you not seen a new film in Digital 3D I suggest a visit to one. I'm now going to look out for a full length one to see.
Posts: 282
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2007
posted March 22, 2009 01:34 PM
I saw Disney´s "Bolt" in digital 3D a few weeks ago and can confirm that the 3D is really good, BUT once you start "looking for it" you´ll notice every object is FLAT; i e if the dog Bolt is very close to the camera, his nose is not nearer to us than his ears. I have´nt seen any of the new live action films -does this work better with real actors?
Personally I don´t think 3D is (or ever was) a very important aspect of motion pictures, and it seems to me the films now being launched in 3D don´t have very strong scripts. There was a 3D wave in the fifties, one in the early eighties and now there´s a third wave. Seems to me (at least up until now) this is a thing you launch once in a while to catch a new generation of moviegoers.
Posts: 953
From: Sunland, CA, USA
Registered: Dec 2006
posted March 22, 2009 02:18 PM
I've seen Coraline, which was stop motion, in 3D. Although the 3D was good, it could be better if it were on film. If you go to Imax and see one of their documentaries, such as Deep Sea 3D you will be more impressed.
The problem with Digital 3D is light. The more light the better depth. Perfect example, if you have the It Came from Outer Space super 8mm 3D, at the end they are standing outside waiting for the space sphere to take off and it is a little dark so the 3D is not that noticeable. Then a light shines over them as the ship passes over them and the 3D just pops out.
A 3D over and under 'print' is normally printed 4 points lighter than it would normally. When 3D was projected with 2 projectors that really made a difference.
Don't forget you are wearing Polaroid glasses and the projector also has the same but with opposite polarity for each eye.
posted March 22, 2009 02:37 PM
I was *very* impressed with the 3D on "Monsters vs Aliens". It's the Tru 3D system, with the active shutter lenses and glasses, very effective wherever you seat in the theatre. This is the system they had on Journey to the Center of the Earth.
posted March 22, 2009 04:39 PM
Journey to the Center of the Earth has exceptional 3D and utilizes the Real D 3-D system with circularly polarized glasses, which totally eliminates the old problems with linearly polarized glasses (loss of 3D effect when the head is tilted). The best 3D I have ever seen is at the Kennedy Space Center here in Florida, where they have a truly awesome IMAX 3D film about the Apollo moon landings - it's just like being on the moon!
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
Posts: 453
From: Barking, Essex, UK
Registered: Mar 2006
posted March 22, 2009 08:57 PM
I don't really like 3D movies unless they are short subjects or Imax documentaries. I think that films made this way spend too much time throwing things at you at the expense of good old filmaking. I also always seem to get a headache whenever I watch one. I did see a 3D presentation of Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" and the effects were quite subtle. When Grace Kelly is being strangled by Anthony Dawson and reaches back for her scissors and stabs him it was very good use of 3D, but I still prefer watching it flat.
Posts: 963
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Feb 2006
posted March 22, 2009 10:32 PM
Larry is correct, the lack of light in digital 3D takes away its impact. They spin that the films are graded for 4-6 footlamberts instead of 16 for film, but they look plain dull!
IMAX film 3D is simply the best format I have ever seen.
There are still many complaining about eye strain however with all the new systems.
posted March 23, 2009 03:51 AM
Did not have the problems on my demo that are mentioned above. I understood that the cinemas can choose from 3 makes of Server this I saw being used was the Dolby 3D one. It was said the other two are the most bought bt cinemas, no reason given. Cost maybe, I wonder. Picture was not dark on a no gain screen. Understood cinemas in other systems use silver screens, in the old days I never liked them. Other screens with gain can be used.
Posts: 282
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2007
posted March 23, 2009 12:32 PM
When I saw Disney´s "Bolt" in digital 3D the screen did not appear dark, rather the opposite. However the screen was not particularly large, I´d say perhaps 4 - 5 meters wide. They can only run this in two cinemas in Stockholm at the moment, so I guess it was tricky to set it up.
I saw Lawrence of Arabia last week, a brand new 70mm print, screen roughly 15 meters wide -I´ll take that over digital 3D.
Cheers Lars
[ March 25, 2009, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Lars Pettersson ]
Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006
posted March 23, 2009 03:58 PM
I have not watched the new "Digital 3D" yet, there are now two cinemas in this city that can project it and what I have heard, although its very good they do charge $18-$20 a ticket for a family that makes it expensive for just a two hour movie. "Ice Age 3" is due out soon so I will make the effort to go and see it in 3D just to see what its like. Its strange that I would have thought that the interest to watch 3D out here would have been a lot more but this does not seem to be the case. I know when I asked around our staff at work none of them "mostly young" have not yet seen 3D yet, they dont seem to be that interested. I think the ticket price has had a bearing on it. Time will tell how succesfull it will be but at the moment the interest in digital 3D seems a bit flat.
Myself I would rather pay to watch a movie in 35mm or 70mm "better still" that used to run in the old Cinerama Theatre "those were the days" To get me to go to the movies these days, other than where I work I would expect to watch a film print with good picture and sound, but most importantly it must have a... "good story".... and thats something Digital 3D movies dont seem to have a lot of at the moment.
Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003
posted March 25, 2009 07:55 AM
Dave,
A slight correction... the Dolby Digital 3D system does not use polarized glasses as you say because it's a very sophisticated form of the old anaglyphic system. The glasses exactly match a colour wheel that is mounted in the PJ light-path with the 2 halves of it alternating the chroma value (filtering the colour) of the light falling onto the DMD's and matched to alternating Left and Right images. Hence (as you say) a regular screen is used and the system can be utilised by any digital cinema without the cost of an additional silver screen. This system will possibly be 'the one' for now because of this flexibility.
posted March 25, 2009 08:16 AM
Sorry Ricky we did wear glasses. http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/solutions_d3ddc.html Note "The comfortable, lightweight glasses used with Dolby 3D Digital Cinema feature passive technology that requires no batteries or charging."
Posts: 525
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
posted March 28, 2009 02:09 AM
I just finished an install with Dolby 3D. A few points made as simple as possible:
The Dolby 3D system does not require a gain screen. It is not a polarized system, but uses color filtering and brightness controls that is re-balanced to produce normal looking colors from both eyes. You can lean your head to the side and not lose the effect. The glasses are re-washable, so they do not become customer souvenirs.
Also know that only installs from the last 2-3 months will have triple-flash technology. This greatly helps the 3D effect regardless of the type of 3D system being used.
Posts: 873
From: Southern England
Registered: Apr 2008
posted March 29, 2009 03:54 PM
I've never been a fan of 3D and believe that artistically it is worthless. There, I said it. As said above it is something that is trundled out when the cinema is in trouble: the 50s to fight TV, the 80s to fight video and now, to fight everything competing for the audience. It fills me with horror that I hear Cameron's 'Avatar' is being made in 3D. He should know better. As for 3D TV, again it has been around for some time and it gives me a headache. If you want 3D drama go to the theatre!
Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003
posted March 31, 2009 06:21 AM
Dave,
A slight misunderstanding on your reading of my post. I agreed you wore glasses for Dolby Digital 3D viewing but just not the polarised variety as you stated. Just trying to enlighten
posted March 31, 2009 06:54 AM
No problem Ricky. I failed to find in thier web site just what they were. In the long gone past some cheap 3D films used a red and and green lens, better ones used dark poloriod ones. Now the ones we used at the demo looked alike more like the old poloriod ones but much lighter in colour thus I said and assumed poloriod.
Now I understand it will be later in the year before the local muti-plex will have an acted 3D film. Also at the demo I heard the Dolby equipment is not used at many cinemas, 1 of 2 others used.
If all 3 give the same results well good, but if they differ in quality I hope the cinemas not going for the cheapest and quality suffering.