just came home from the most amazing movie experience in my life.

i fully understand now why movie companies want to push 3D.

why James Cameron is working on Avatar in 3D.

1080p on bluray and hd-dvd is dead. hell ordinary cinema is dead to me. how on earth can you watch ordinary cinema again when you have watched beowolf in 3D in IMAX?

what you will see and experience is so far out of this world. there is nothing like it. after i went home i put in the Patriot in my bluray player and yes it looks nice but who cares. the experience is the same, will always be the same as i have watched it in ordinary cinema or dvd or now bluray.

but Beowolf in 3D = WOW!

the format that can get that 3D format in your home will win the format war. plain and simple. no more discussion needed.

all we need now is HD-DVd or bluray or any other format what can give me next year BEOWOLF in 3D in my home!

if not. then who cares! i want BEOWOLF i want indiana jones next year in 3D etc. all big blockbusters should be made for 3D. i dont care how long it takes or will take do it!!!

ok that was just my rant for today. now go all see it. it is the best thing ever :)

Here you go (NSFW): link (http://www.buyvivid.com/details.link/tid/886392/dvd/Screw-My-Wife-Please---3D---HD.htm)

3D HD DVD is already here.

Edit: Sorry, did some more reading and it appears it's a typo... this is WMV-HD, not HD DVD as it states.

Haven't seen Beowolf, but I agree with your premise on new releases to certain extent. Many films aren't meant to be presented in 3D, for those that are; this would be a great way to exercise the capabilities of HDM. The question is, are the displays compatible?

I think it's a matter of running two 1080p streams simultaneously.

So I believe whichever format is capable of such would be the one that could do Beowulf in 3D.

Mits. has promised their new BD player will be 3D ready. It will make 2D films into 3D films. But this can only work on RPTV's and FPTV's - not on FPD's.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notag/mitsubishi-blu+ray-player-to-broadcast-2d-movies-in-3d-292940.php

There is an HD DVD that is 3D - BUGS (german) but it is in the old red/green system.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/51yAlKT-B1L__AA240_.jpg

It is to my understanding that BD can output dual 1080P streams (please correct if I am misinformed) because the SoC's use dual equal processing power CPU's while HD DVD uses a large and a small.

But good to hear that Beowulf in 3D is a great looking film.

When you saw it at your IMAX theater . . did the image fill the screen . . . or was it letterboxed?

I still consider 3-D to be a gimmick.

I have yet to see a perfectly seamless 3-D presentation, and that includes IMAX, stuff at Disney Theme Parks, etc.

One of my eyes turns out. I can't see any of the 3d effects. Let's skip this crap and just go holographic.

And you didn't even see the best 3D I don't think.

Beowulf is also being shown in "Dolby 3D" and "Real D", newer technologies than the old Imax 3D.

I plan to catch a Dolby 3D showing in Hollywood sometime soon

3D is most definitely cool, but I'm not sure how it would work in feature length films. Watching Nightmare before Xmas in 3D was a hoot, but if it went on for another 45min i'd probably get a headache. Most 3D technologies operate by tricking the brain/eye, and that is probably why we get these headaches.

Put it another way, if DLP's rainbow effect gives some people fits, could you only imagine what 3D would do to some? I don't think it would be mass-market friendly.

One of my eyes turns out

??????????;)

3D? again? yawn. If the Star Wars in 3D demo at CEDIA was any indication of what to expect, I'll pass.

And you didn't even see the best 3D I don't think.

Beowulf is also being shown in "Dolby 3D" and "Real D", newer technologies than the old Imax 3D.

I plan to catch a Dolby 3D showing in Hollywood sometime soon

?

The "new" (READ: less expensive) 3D systems you quote use a single projector running at 2024x1080 with a refresh rate of 144 Fps (then split into 2 light beams at 72 FPS each)

The "old" IMAX 3D system uses (2) 15/70 projectors each running 15/70 at 48 FPS (24x2)

You want to guess the resolution of 15/70 IMAX? I have no idea. Maybe this will help in your guesstimate:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg

I still consider 3-D to be a gimmick.

I have yet to see a perfectly seamless 3-D presentation, and that includes IMAX, stuff at Disney Theme Parks, etc.

I was in complete agreement with you. Until I watched Beowulf at the Arclight last night. Simply amazing. And no headaches like with the Imax 3D!

by the way, they were presenting it in letterbox at the Arclight. anybody know what's up with that? Why couldn't they just throw on another lens and open up the side mattes?

3D is most definitely cool, but I'm not sure how it would work in feature length films. Watching Nightmare before Xmas in 3D was a hoot, but if it went on for another 45min i'd probably get a headache. Most 3D technologies operate by tricking the brain/eye, and that is probably why we get these headaches.

Put it another way, if DLP's rainbow effect gives some people fits, could you only imagine what 3D would do to some? I don't think it would be mass-market friendly.

I had headache problems watching Aliens of the Deep in Imax 3D, as did some of my other friends, and that's only 45 minutes long. Beowulf is 2 hours long and we were all just fine for the duration. The Arclight is using "Dolby 3D" whatever that is, so I guess the technologies might be slightly different. They looked just like polarized lenses, so who knows.

does anyone know what the differences are between these 3D technologies?

I had headache problems watching Aliens of the Deep in Imax 3D, as did some of my other friends, and that's only 45 minutes long. Beowulf is 2 hours long and we were all just fine for the duration. The Arclight is using "Dolby 3D" whatever that is, so I guess the technologies might be slightly different. They looked just like polarized lenses, so who knows.

does anyone know what the differences are between these 3D technologies?

IMAX 3D I have described above.

Dolby 3D System:

http://www.news.com/2300-1026_3-6212076-1.html

Real 3D System:

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/784/784033p1.html

http://www.reald.com/

?

The "new" (READ: less expensive) 3D systems you quote use a single projector running at 2024x1080 with a refresh rate of 144 Fps (then split into 2 light beams at 72 FPS each)

The "old" IMAX 3D system uses (2) 15/70 projectors each running 15/70 at 48 FPS (24x2)

You want to guess the resolution of 15/70 IMAX? I have no idea. Maybe this will help in your guesstimate:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg


bit defensive?

I don't think he was trying to "talk sh*t" about Imax. I'm pretty sure he was using "old" as a relative term, compared to these newer emerging technologies. I'm not sure what resolution has to do with this

I was in complete agreement with you. Until I watched Beowulf at the Arclight last night. Simply amazing. And no headaches like with the Imax 3D!

by the way, they were presenting it in letterbox at the Arclight. anybody know what's up with that? Why couldn't they just throw on another lens and open up the side mattes?
I tried to convince my wife that Beowulf (IMAX 3-D) would be a great "date" movie for tonight. No go. :)


I will see if my nieces are interested in checking it out. I saw Harry Potter (IMAX 3-D) recently and it still started to annoy me. And that was only for 15-20 minutes.

I still consider 3-D to be a gimmick.

I have to agree...it's neat for certain portions of some movies, but I don't think I need to see WarGames in 3D. ;)

To the poster who saw Beowulf...what's the 3D like? Is the entire movie 3D-ish? Or is it just certain objects in a shot that jump out at you? If it's the latter, I still say it's too gimmicky and not something I would enjoy watching over and over again at home.

Chris

bit defensive?

Not really

I don't think he was trying to "talk sh*t" about Imax. I'm pretty sure he was using "old" as a relative term, compared to these newer emerging technologies. I'm not sure what resolution has to do with this

There are two items necessary for good 3D:

1. Very bright image - IMAX uses 25kw bulbs and most 3D theaters use a Silver Screen and not a White Screen to further enhance the contrast ratio.

2. Resolution - the higher the resolution the more detailed the image - less eye strain

Newer does not mean better. Just compare a 65/70mm movie to a 35/35mm movie and tell me which looks better. Newer today seems to mean less costly.

But - the Dolby 3D System has increased the frame rate to 72 FPS while IMAX 3D is still at 48 FPS. So this may be "better" But the resolution for D-Cinema is still at HD levels though in the future this will change to the new D-Cinema format; SHD D-Cinema - 4000x2000 with 12 bit color. (SHD = Super Hi Definition)

Then again there is no comparison between the size of an IMAX screen and a commerical theater screen so #1 from above is a must.

What these two new 3D systems are really doing is making use of existing and soon to be installed D-Cinema projectors.

NOTE:

For anyone in the Roseland, Ill area - the MUVICO there just installed the new Sony 8 Megapixel projectors. So when Beowulf 3D plays on one of these they may (totally unknown) "upscale" the 2 Megapixel data to 8 Megapixels. (Just a wild guess BTW)

Came across this (http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf). If I understand the article correctly, DLP sets can display a 3D image without increasing bandwidth. I know this seems counter inutitive, but there it is. Unfortunately you must wear special glasses that use shutters to create the steroscopic image but if the implementation is good (i.e. you get a stereo image that doesn't give you headache) this could be really big.

I believe Samsung and Mits already have 3D ready sets. Also, from what I understand it will require yet another player to get HDM in 3D as the player must send out the sync pulses via another connection to the TV. There also is work being done on 3D displays that do not require special glasses.

I beleive the above is accurate but if anyone knows better, please let us know. Thanks.

I have to agree...it's neat for certain portions of some movies, but I don't think I need to see WarGames in 3D. ;)

To the poster who saw Beowulf...what's the 3D like? Is the entire movie 3D-ish? Or is it just certain objects in a shot that jump out at you? If it's the latter, I still say it's too gimmicky and not something I would enjoy watching over and over again at home.

Chris

honestly, it didn't feel gimmicky. There were a lot of times when they would do one of those 3D "tricks" like throwing an axe towards the screen, or the David-Fincher's-Panic-Room-esque camera moves that pull back through a key-hole or something. But for the most part, the 3D just made everything "jump to life" so to speak.

I'm having a hard time finding the words to describe it, because it's honestly like no other movie experience I've ever had. You know how when you see a great HD image on a screen, it gives you the impression of "looking through a window"? Well, this was more like the window was open and the characters just walked through into the theater and performed the movie right there in front of me.

Am I hyperbolizing? Probably. But go watch this and tell me your eyes weren't tricked a few times into thinking that Anthony Hopkins was standing right in front of you. The 3D effect combined with the painstaking detail of the characters creates an experience I've never had before in a movie. And the digital projection holds the image so still, that you forget you're looking at a projected image. I can't even imagine what it would be like to see this as a kid (though it's really not for kids)

Seriously, everyone needs to see this in 3D

Came across this (http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf). If I understand the article correctly, DLP sets can display a 3D image without increasing bandwidth. I know this seems counter inutitive, but there it is. Unfortunately you must wear special glasses that use shutters to create the steroscopic image but if the implementation is good (i.e. you get a stereo image that doesn't give you headache) this could be really big.

I believe Samsung and Mits already have 3D ready sets. Also, from what I understand it will require yet another player to get HDM in 3D as the player must send out the sync pulses via another connection to the TV. There also is work being done on 3D displays that do not require special glasses.

I beleive the above is accurate but if anyone knows better, please let us know. Thanks.

Yes to all of the above. Again the link for the soon to be coming Mits BD player:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notag/mitsubishi-blu+ray-player-to-broadcast-2d-movies-in-3d-292940.php

These new DLP RPTV's have a refresh rate of 120 Fps so when a real 3D movie is released - with the shutter glasses - we will see each image at 60 Fps which is fast enough not to cause eye strain from flickering.

And again it converts 2D to 3D.

3D and the Laser Light Engine are the hopes for the DLP RPTV CEM's that will create a resurgance in their popularity. Unfortunately many CEM's have already announced they will no longer be making RPTV's.

snip............
but Beowolf in 3D = WOW!

the format that can get that 3D format in your home will win the format war. plain and simple. no more discussion needed.

all we need now is HD-DVd or bluray or any other format what can give me next year BEOWOLF in 3D in my home!

if not. then who cares! i want BEOWOLF i want indiana jones next year in 3D etc. all big blockbusters should be made for 3D. i dont care how long it takes or will take do it!!!

ok that was just my rant for today. now go all see it. it is the best thing ever :)

Ok, you sold me. I'll go check out Beowulf at a Theater using Real D projection and see what all the excitement is about.

http://www.reald.com/

Here's my question though. How would this impact the format war? Do you think there will be enough people with digital projectors willing to wear 3D glasses and buy special Real D screens for their home, that it will actually impact the format war? No matter how cool the technology, it won't make any difference in the format war if only a tiny handful of people will be using this at home.

http://www.reald-corporate.com/articles/Fantastic_Format.pdf

Real D's 3D system requires that exhibitors install a digital projector and a special silver colored screen......

According to Real D, glasses run less than a dollar a pair......

1080p on bluray and hd-dvd is dead. hell ordinary cinema is dead to me. how on earth can you watch ordinary cinema again when you have watched beowolf in 3D in IMAX?


Just like virtual reality was going to revolutionize the video game industry. we all know how that went.

For the guys that saw this movie, is it very graphic? Will it scare 5 year old kids

While its cool for short periods of time...I'm not interested in 3D feature length films much...I'll take blu-ray and HD-DVD HDM anyday over 3D. Sorry, just not for me.

Just returned from seeing this in RealD thrown from a Christie DLP. I never expected it to be so effective. The glasses caused no problems, no headaches, no vision issues at all. The animation was remarkable. My advice, do whatever you have to do to experience this.

And consider this an extreme PG-13 for violence and animated Jolie nekkidness.

Not really

that was a rhetorical question, dude

There are two items necessary for good 3D:

1. Very bright image - IMAX uses 25kw bulbs and most 3D theaters use a Silver Screen and not a White Screen to further enhance the contrast ratio.

2. Resolution - the higher the resolution the more detailed the image - less eye strain

Good info. Though my eyes felt quite strained while watching Aliens of the Deep for 45 minutes, whereas I had no problems with 2 hours of Beowulf.

Newer does not mean better.

Right. Newer means newer. Is this why you were reacting defensively? Did you think that when gorbag said "the old Imax 3D" he was really saying "the piece of crap Imax 3D"? I'm pretty sure he was just contrasting it with the "newer technologies" of Dolby 3D and Real D.

Just compare a 65/70mm movie to a 35/35mm movie and tell me which looks better. Newer today seems to mean less costly.

But - the Dolby 3D System has increased the frame rate to 72 FPS while IMAX 3D is still at 48 FPS. So this may be "better" But the resolution for D-Cinema is still at HD levels though in the future this will change to the new D-Cinema format; SHD D-Cinema - 4000x2000 with 12 bit color. (SHD = Super Hi Definition)

Then again there is no comparison between the size of an IMAX screen and a commerical theater screen so #1 from above is a must.

What these two new 3D systems are really doing is making use of existing and soon to be installed D-Cinema projectors.

Okey-dokey. Ultimately what it comes down to is that everyone is going to have a different personal experience watching movies using these different technologies. I (as well as several of my friends) get headaches when watching movies in Imax 3D. Beowulf with Dolby 3D was a much better experience. And digital projection beats film projection hands down as far as I'm concerned.

And maybe this is just me, but I've never been really wowed by an Imax screen. Yeah it's big, but you can get the same effect in a regular theater by moving closer to the screen. This is probably why I'm usually content to stay home and watch a movie on my home theater :D

NOTE:

For anyone in the Roseland, Ill area - the MUVICO there just installed the new Sony 8 Megapixel projectors. So when Beowulf 3D plays on one of these they may (totally unknown) "upscale" the 2 Megapixel data to 8 Megapixels. (Just a wild guess BTW)

Holy crap! I hadn't even heard of these! To the Google-Cave!

For the guys that saw this movie, is it very graphic? Will it scare 5 year old kids

yeah, it's violent. definitely not for a 5-year-old. Although my parents probably would have let me see it :D

but Grendel would definitely give me nightmares if I saw this as a kid. that first sequence when he attacks still makes my heart pound when I think about it.

way to go Crispin Glover on that ridiculously awesome performance!


- max

FUN FACT (fun for me): My brother's name is also Crispin! Weird name. My sister and I always called him "crispy" lol. Of course, my nickname was "maxipad" so it cuts both ways :) For any videogame nuts out there, Crispin is one of the reviewers at Electronic Gaming Monthly and 1up.com

SquirrelPhister
Holy Projectors Batman! I hadn't even heard of these! To the Google-Cave!

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/docs/brochures/sxrd_large-venue_high-resolution_brochure.pdf

Good info. Though my eyes felt quite strained while watching Aliens of the Deep for 45 minutes, whereas I had no problems with 2 hours of Beowulf.

You do realize you lose between 25% and 30% of film resolution when shooting underwater. This may have been the reason for the eye strain.

If Blu-ray and or HD-DVD want to be able to output in Dolby 3D, they would need to be able to output at 144 frames per second at 1080p24.. This would only be possible if top of the line CPU's/GPU's are involved. THe HDTV or projector would have to be capable of displaying 144 frames per second as well.. If the player uses two HDMI outputs, I'm assuming perhaps the televisions would have to be manufactured to be compatible to accept two HDMI inputs and also do the interpolating of frames correctly. Will a single HDMI cable be able to handle 1080p at 144 fps? All of these factors will be invloved in the process so Blu-ray and HD-DVD players would have to be updated with very high end parts and cost a fortune at first while even HDTV's need to be updated as well to know what to do with the signals.. A new player capable of doing this that remains in the niche market where they and only release 3D movies will be where this is going to start. At the moment, Blu-ray and HD-DVD have to surpass SD-DVD first before a shift inthe market occurs..

If Blu-ray and or HD-DVD want to be able to output in Dolby 3D, they would need to be able to output at 144 frames per second at 1080p24.. This would only be possible if top of the line CPU's/GPU's are involved. THe HDTV or projector would have to be capable of displaying 144 frames per second as well.. If the player uses two HDMI outputs, I'm assuming perhaps the televisions would have to be manufactured to be compatible to accept two HDMI inputs and also do the interpolating of frames correctly. Will a single HDMI cable be able to handle 1080p at 144 fps? All of these factors will be invloved in the process so Blu-ray and HD-DVD players would have to be updated with very high end parts and cost a fortune at first while even HDTV's need to be updated as well to know what to do with the signals.. A new player capable of doing this that remains in the niche market where they and only release 3D movies will be where this is going to start. At the moment, Blu-ray and HD-DVD have to surpass SD-DVD first before a shift inthe market occurs..

Hey Supe! Shoulder all healed now?

The Dolby 3D System is a commerical system - not for home use:D

The IBM 3D system can be used for home use on DLP FPTV's (LCD/LCOS - ?). It costs about $1000 to retro fit this. And the FPTV should go up to at least 120 Hz so it can be split into 2 60Hz images. 96 Hz would result in 2 48 Hz images - might have a flicker issue (?)

i experienced a little bit of flickering in a very view scenes.

most of the times it happened when there was fast side scrolling, or when the coins were thrown at your screen. other then that, is was perfect. i say 97% it was perfect.

razor sharp images and incredible detail.

i have to find the first person on this planet after watching beowulf in 3D that didnt found it an amazing experience.

and the best thing even is. the story and acting is top notch too. great story. great movie. ending awesome too.

man i cant stop raving about this movie. it is amazing!

go warner go paramount. go everybody who is busy with 3D. gives us more movies sooner!

break down the old cinemas and rebuild them with new 3D ones.

and not to forget make some new tvs and home equipment for us :)

i experienced a little bit of flickering in a very view scenes.

most of the times it happened when there was fast side scrolling, or when the coins were thrown at your screen. other then that, is was perfect. i say 97% it was perfect.

razor sharp images and incredible detail.

i have to find the first person on this planet after watching beowulf in 3D that didnt found it an amazing experience.

and the best thing even is. the story and acting is top notch too. great story. great movie. ending awesome too.

man i cant stop raving about this movie. it is amazing!

go warner go paramount. go everybody who is busy with 3D. gives us more movies sooner!

break down the old cinemas and rebuild them with new 3D ones.

and not to forget make some new tvs and home equipment for us :)

OK you found me. ;-)

I just came from the film a couple hours ago and was not blown away by the 3D nor the film itself... I saw the regular digital 3D version for reference (not the IMAX). I just felt the 3D seemed a bit gimicky and did not immerse me like I hoped it would. The detail of the picture was indeed impressive, however. I did like the ending to the film plenty, but I felt it was slow going getting there. On the whole I would say the film and experience were both above average, but I won't be raving to anyone to spend their $11-12 to see it. No offense to the OP intended, as many others (including many reviewers) have indeed loved it.

the heck with movies...

i want football in 3-d! :D

did any of you guys see monster house 3D, my friend raved how amazing it was, but I wasn't blown away with it. The movie looked kinda neat, but not as immersive as I thought it would be, like some of the 3D imax movies are, which I felt put me right in the scene. How does this movie Monster House compare to Beowulf?

People just go see this.....The movie was good. The 3D was amazing.
It's not as good as Jaws 3D.......but it's close ;-)

Real D and Dolby 3D are both showing 24fps content.

For both eyes that is 48 fps coming off the media server.
Both systems will, if the projector allows it, triple flash the images at 144hz.
That is, instead of showing L1, R1, L2, R2, L3, R3 it will show L1, R1, L1, R1, L1, R1, L2, R2, L2, R2, L2, R2, L3, R3, L3, R3, L3, R3.

If that system would be ported to to home cinema, the HD player only had to support 1080p48. It would be up to the screen and 3d system to trippleflash if needed.
No need to encode and transport duplicate frames and waste bandwidth....

So the only upgrade needed for this to happen is 1080p48 support in the player specs, and the ability for the player to drop every other frame so the title would still be 2D compatible.

the format that can get that 3D format in your home will win the format war. plain and simple. no more discussion needed.


There are plenty of people who don't care about 3D. Also, here is a little food for thought for the OP: As soon as people say things like "plain and simple" and "no more discussion needed" they sound like morons.

For the guys that saw this movie, is it very graphic? Will it scare 5 year old kids

Yes.
I watched a review on ABC7 and the guy didn't realize it was PG-13, He though the movie was Rated R all the way through.
So your kids being 5 would be a lot worse.

nickoakdl,

i can not understand why people would not care about a whole new movie experience. you want to get the same experience the rest of your life?

sorry to say so. but i dont. if it would be possible to fly to mars tomorrow i would be the first in line to go there.

what beowulf showed in IMAX. is something new and refreshing. a new experience in watching movies.

forget the old 3D you used to know. this is new and it is awesome.

just open your mind a little bit and think about the possibilities this new 3D can give. as already 1 poster said. watching football in 3D with this technology would be amazing.

what about watching star wars with this 3D technology or lord of the rings.

it would be an amazing experience. and hopefully i will still be alive when it happens.

for the first time in ages i felt my money was worth something to go to cinema for.

and that has been a long time since those ticket prices have gone up.

Real D is MUCH MUCH better than Dolby 3D or IMAX 3D. Polarized glasses are the best way to bring 3D to the masses without giving refresh headaches or messing with color space.

Next 3d Movie
http://www.flymetothemoonthemovie.com/ Release Date: 2007



3d Sports:
NBA Rolls Out 3-D Telecast for All-Star Games.

A select group of sports fans will watch the National Basketball Association All-Star game on Sunday in the first-ever live high-definition 3D sports telecast that NBA officials hope will create a buzz about profiting from the new technology. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdewk/is_200702/ai_n19421932

3d Concerts:

U2 3d
LIVE concerts and sporting events will soon be shown in 3D in cinemas, with the technology due to be demonstrated to the public for the first time next year.

Major musical acts like U2 and big sporting events such as the AFL Grand Final are contenders for live 3D broadcasts.

The world’s biggest provider of digital 3D technology, Real D, is negotiating with parties including Irish supergroup U2 and 3ality Digital Systems to broadcast the first ever live 3D concert.

“You will see it very shortly,” Real D president Joshua Greer told AdelaideNow.

“We’ll start Beta testing some of this technology early in 2008.”
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22762521-5006343,00.html

Though my eyes felt quite strained while watching Aliens of the Deep for 45 minutes, whereas I had no problems with 2 hours of Beowulf... I (as well as several of my friends) get headaches when watching movies in Imax 3D. Beowulf with Dolby 3D was a much better experience.

The 'problem' with Imax 3-D is that the format seems to have difficulty with 'convergence' (ie. the space within the frame in which the left-right images come together to create a 3-D illusion). If the convergence isn't set correctly, audiences can't fuse the two images together, resulting in eye-strain and headaches. Convergence in animated films (designed for Digital 3-D or Imax projection) can be controlled from the outset, which probably explains the lack of eyestrain people are experiencing with BEOWULF.

However, the test of these new 3-D formats will arrive with live-action films, where convergence is set during principal photography. Most errors can be corrected in post-production, to minimize eye-strain, but the primary Digital projection formats Real-D and Dolby 3-D both promise no eyestrain whatsoever, and that's a pretty tall order, given the complexities of stereoscopic acquisition, at least as far as live-action is concerned. Early reports on SCAR and U2 3-D look promising, and JOURNEY 3-D looks like being a blockbuster title for 2008, so we'll see what happens when those movies make it to our local multiplexes.

Hey, now your talking! Screw all those films made over the last 100 years! I was never about plot, direction, performances or cinematography anyway. If only Hollywood had ever tried this before our lives would have been soo-much richer for it!

I wonder if there is some way they can save crappy old films by making them 3-D, if they can colorize them, why not "dimensionalize" them too?

Hey, now your talking! Screw all those films made over the last 100 years! I was never about plot, direction, performances or cinematography anyway. If only Hollywood had ever tried this before our lives would have been soo-much richer for it!

I wonder if there is some way they can save crappy old films by making them 3-D, if they can colorize them, why not "dimensionalize" them too?

I wonder what your attitude would have been in 1953 after seeing The Robe in Cinemascope and 6 Track Stereo?;)

the heck with movies...

i want football in 3-d! :D

YEAH BABY!:D

I wonder what your attitude would have been in 1953 after seeing The Robe in Cinemascope and 6 Track Stereo?;)

THE ROBE is not a great film, so I hope I would have noted that too.

Hey, before the current wave of 3-D, you talking to someone who drove from Milwaukee to Cincinnati one day to see HOUSE OF WAX in 3-D.

As a matter of fact, I've gone to great lengths to see 3-D and genuine scope presentations wherever they may be for the last 25 years, but at the end of the day 3-D does not a good film make. In fact if most people are being honest, 3-D usually blows them away for the first 15 minutes, then kinda falls back and only occasionally makes it's presence felt throughout a film. The more you see of it, the less you notice it.

THE ROBE is not a great film, so I hope I would have noted that too.

Hey, before the current wave of 3-D, you talking to someone who drove from Milwaukee to Cincinnati one day to see HOUSE OF WAX in 3-D.

As a matter of fact, I've gone to great lengths to see 3-D and genuine scope presentations wherever they may be for the last 25 years, but at the end of the day 3-D does not a good film make. In fact if most people are being honest, 3-D usually blows them away for the first 15 minutes, then kinda falls back and only occasionally makes it's presence felt throughout a film. The more you see of it, the less you notice it.

IMO . . .

It's about time that the theater/studio industry has done SOMETHING to improve the presentation of movies.

The "golden years" of the 1960's saw movies presented at their very best with Super and Ultra Panavision - and it's been down hill ever since.

The last real improvement was Digital Sound - which killed the 70mm Blow ups.

So to foretell the future - look back to the past. All the improvements in movie technology in the 1950's came about because of the threat of TV.

54 years later - it is happening again with D-Cinema and 3D.

FINALLY!

IMO . . .

It's about time that the theater/studio industry has done SOMETHING to improve the presentation of movies.

The "golden years" of the 1960's saw movies presented at their very best with Super and Ultra Panavision - and it's been down hill ever since.

The last real improvement was Digital Sound - which killed the 70mm Blow ups.

So to foretell the future - look back to the past. All the improvements in movie technology in the 1950's came about because of the threat of TV.

54 years later - it is happening again with D-Cinema and 3D.

FINALLY!

IMO they ought to try better movies, for the third year running the Academy Awards is going to be a bigger laugh than usual as sift through the lesser of evils to give awards to.

Actually 3-D goes back to silent films, and it's been trotted out every decade like clockwork to see how many will salute it. It was obviously more crucial in the 50's when TV and anti-trust legislation was killing the studios. By the sixties just tossing a lot of sex and violence in films proved to be a far less costly gimmick to lure people back in.

I'll agree it's probably never been more technically feasible, but my guess is it's still going to have limited application.

I'm colorblind.....Do these new 3D systems work for me ?

I'm colorblind.....Do these new 3D systems work for me ?

Yes. It's not a red/green difference. Completely different technology.

I'm colorblind.....Do these new 3D systems work for me ?

Have you ever seen IMAX 3D or been to Disneyworld and seen any of the 3D presentations? . . . same thing. This is NOT the old Red/Green system

Sounds cool, but until it makes it into the home, it's useless to me. The nearest IMAX theatre is 2.5 hours away.

Sounds cool, but until it makes it into the home, it's useless to me. The nearest IMAX theatre is 2.5 hours away.


You do not have to see this film in IMAX 3D. Just do a search on the provided Dolby 3D and Real 3D website links in this thread to see which theater in your area is presenting it in D-Cinema 3D.

I just finished watching this in Real D and thought it was amazing. I have been to Disney and always liked the 3D features but always experienced some eye strain. I never experienced any eye strain while watching Beowolf. Imo definitely worth a viewing.

Ok, so my area only offers "IMAX 3D" and "Digital 3D". Which one should I see? Is the IMAX improved as to not cause headaches? I want to see this but want to pick the best presentation. Thanks!

nickoakdl,

i can not understand why people would not care about a whole new movie experience. you want to get the same experience the rest of your life?

sorry to say so. but i dont. if it would be possible to fly to mars tomorrow i would be the first in line to go there.

what beowulf showed in IMAX. is something new and refreshing. a new experience in watching movies.

forget the old 3D you used to know. this is new and it is awesome.

just open your mind a little bit and think about the possibilities this new 3D can give. as already 1 poster said. watching football in 3D with this technology would be amazing.

what about watching star wars with this 3D technology or lord of the rings.

it would be an amazing experience. and hopefully i will still be alive when it happens.

for the first time in ages i felt my money was worth something to go to cinema for.

and that has been a long time since those ticket prices have gone up.

:):):) I actually FLINCHED during the ending scene:eek::eek::eek:

just came home from the most amazing movie experience in my life.

i fully understand now why movie companies want to push 3D.

why James Cameron is working on Avatar in 3D.

1080p on bluray and hd-dvd is dead. hell ordinary cinema is dead to me. how on earth can you watch ordinary cinema again when you have watched beowolf in 3D in IMAX?

what you will see and experience is so far out of this world. there is nothing like it. after i went home i put in the Patriot in my bluray player and yes it looks nice but who cares. the experience is the same, will always be the same as i have watched it in ordinary cinema or dvd or now bluray.

but Beowolf in 3D = WOW!

the format that can get that 3D format in your home will win the format war. plain and simple. no more discussion needed.

all we need now is HD-DVd or bluray or any other format what can give me next year BEOWOLF in 3D in my home!

if not. then who cares! i want BEOWOLF i want indiana jones next year in 3D etc. all big blockbusters should be made for 3D. i dont care how long it takes or will take do it!!!

ok that was just my rant for today. now go all see it. it is the best thing ever :)

That's how it works - as soon as home viewing starts to catch up to the cinema and the cinema is threatened, it adapts to provide a unique experience that home viewing can't. If you want to see 3D, then you have to go to the cinema to see it (and you can be sure that it will eventually happen that all the big new films get made in 3D).

Beowulf slays competition

NOV. 19 | VARIETY BOX OFFICE REPORT: Paramount and Shangri-La Entertainment's violent epic Beowulf howled at the domestic box office, wolfing down the weekend competition and proving the potency of digital 3-D. Film, the widest release to date for the technology, grabbed roughly 40% of its estimated $28.1 million haul from digital 3D screens.
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6504039.html?desc=topstory

Beowulf slays competition


http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6504039.html?desc=topstory

My wife and I are going to be seeing it for free later today.

THE ROBE is not a great film, so I hope I would have noted that too.

Hey, before the current wave of 3-D, you talking to someone who drove from Milwaukee to Cincinnati one day to see HOUSE OF WAX in 3-D.

As a matter of fact, I've gone to great lengths to see 3-D and genuine scope presentations wherever they may be for the last 25 years, but at the end of the day 3-D does not a good film make. In fact if most people are being honest, 3-D usually blows them away for the first 15 minutes, then kinda falls back and only occasionally makes it's presence felt throughout a film. The more you see of it, the less you notice it.



Well the same could be said about HD.

HD doesn't make a movie/tv any better or worse but it definitely makes it prettier.....same deal with Beowulf....it's not just gimmicky "it's coming right at me!" stuff. The 3d (i saw it in imax 3d) gives every thing an amazing level of depth. It's often at it's best during the dialog scenes.

It was like the difference between watching the NFL in SD and HD

Ok, so my area only offers "IMAX 3D" and "Digital 3D". Which one should I see? Is the IMAX improved as to not cause headaches? I want to see this but want to pick the best presentation. Thanks!


I saw it in IMAX 3D at Bridgeport Village. Can't say how it compares to the Digital 3D version but I can say the IMAX version was amazing. Screen was huge, 3D depth was awesome and no issues at all with headaches or lack of focus.

"Real D"

That's the one I saw it at and while it won't diminish from my enjoyment of HD/BD I felt almost as strongly as the OP that this might one day be looked back on as a watershed mark in film history. The 3D experience was that much better than any of the previous 3D films I've seen. I had to go home and do a little research since the theater didn't identify anything about the technology used or if they did I missed it.

I'm curious now if the other 2 3D techs are equally effective but the Real D theater was very, very good. I noticed that as stated in an article above you can freely move your head w/o affecting the 3D image and of course the big difference is that that 3D effect is persistent throught the film rather than only in a few crafted scenes as most previous movies.

Of course 3D won't make a good movie anymore than HD but it sure does make a good movie experience even better.

Well the same could be said about HD.

HD doesn't make a movie/tv any better or worse but it definitely makes it prettier.....same deal with Beowulf....it's not just gimmicky "it's coming right at me!" stuff. The 3d (i saw it in imax 3d) gives every thing an amazing level of depth. It's often at it's best during the dialog scenes.

It was like the difference between watching the NFL in SD and HD

Sure, but HD (if done right) gets you closer to how preexisting films can and should look, I just grow very leery when people make statements which suggest such a technical advance is the destiny of all films, as if we're to turn our back on nearly a century of incredible achievements in the art of cinema, some technical, but most purely artistic.

When I saw Beowulf in 3D IMAX, the audience was juiced going in - people were excited in the line up, and some people cheered during IMAX's little pre-movie laser-show. But by the end of the movie, most people quietly got up the moment the credits started and soberly shuffled out of the theater. It did not live up to the hype, and in retrospect, I know that I personally would have enjoyed seeing a good movie presented in 2D more than seeing Beowulf in IMAX 3D.

Perhaps I should change my signature from "A turd in HD is still a turd" to "A turd in 3D is still a turd"!

For the guys that saw this movie, is it very graphic? Will it scare 5 year old kidsIt's PG-13, and probably not an R because the bizarro MPAA likes violence. I bet it would have received an R rating if they didn't think it was a cartoon. :rolleyes: I, personally, would not send a small child to see such violence. But I see parents do it all the times... Have fun.

I saw it in IMAX 3D at Bridgeport Village. Can't say how it compares to the Digital 3D version but I can say the IMAX version was amazing. Screen was huge, 3D depth was awesome and no issues at all with headaches or lack of focus.

Nice, thanks! I'm going to that one tomorrow, I think. Nice theater, just hate how many idiots go there.

nickoakdl,

i can not understand why people would not care about a whole new movie experience. you want to get the same experience the rest of your life?

sorry to say so. but i dont. if it would be possible to fly to mars tomorrow i would be the first in line to go there.

what beowulf showed in IMAX. is something new and refreshing. a new experience in watching movies.

forget the old 3D you used to know. this is new and it is awesome.

just open your mind a little bit and think about the possibilities this new 3D can give. as already 1 poster said. watching football in 3D with this technology would be amazing.

what about watching star wars with this 3D technology or lord of the rings.

it would be an amazing experience. and hopefully i will still be alive when it happens.

for the first time in ages i felt my money was worth something to go to cinema for.

and that has been a long time since those ticket prices have gone up.

I am all about seeing this movie in 3D. I attempted to see it at the IMAX the first night it came out but the line was wayyy too long and I didn't want to be stuck in the first row at the IMAX. With that said, there are plenty of people who could care less about 3D. I could get my dad to go to a movie and put on the glasses if his life depeneded on it. Non-action movies (which represent the majority of films) will not benefit from this at all. And as far as the "plain and simple" and "no more discussion needed," along with "sure fire way to win the format war" have drove me nuts. They just sound arrogant.

There have beem many "improvements" to theater presentation. From sound, to color to widescreen, to multichannel stereo, to large format, to 3D, to Digital Sound, to D-Cinema and now we revisit 3D again.

Why? Because each time, 3D gets a little better. But just like "scope" it is not to be used for all movies, like all movies are not scope. Approx 50% are scope and 50% are flat. It may work out where 40% are scope, 40% are flat and 20% are 3D. But whatever increases the box office take - that is going to be used.

TRIVIA: a 45 minute IMAX 3D film costs $20,000 per print x 2 = $40,000! So what will a 110 IMAX 3D movie cost (print wise)? Approx $100,000. A 35mm print (120 minutes) costs about $1200

PS: I wonder if Kodak's stock went up after the reviews?:D

PPS: I have reserved tickets for 12/16 for the familty to see it in IMAX 3D. The Ft. Laud. IMAX theater is SOLD OUT until 12/3!

by the way, they were presenting it in letterbox at the Arclight. anybody know what's up with that? Why couldn't they just throw on another lens and open up the side mattes?

Aww man, no way am I going to pay for a letterboxed feature, even if it's in digital 3D.

I wonder what your attitude would have been in 1953 after seeing The Robe in Cinemascope and 6 Track Stereo?;)

I thought it was cool, but nothing near as wonderful as it was touted to be.

(I mean The Robe and CinemaScope, but now that I think about it, I mean Beowulf, too.)

That free showing: there were about ten other folks there last night for the 5 PM.

We're a college town, too, and they had the Beonce concert at a digital theater downtown--while all the students are on Thanksgiving break!

Beowulf slays competition


http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6504039.html?desc=topstory

Weekend box-office was down 30% from the same pre-Thanksgiving weekend last year.:o

Weekend box-office was down 30% from the same pre-Thanksgiving weekend last year.:o

The economic hardships are starting to kick in IMO.:(

Hmmm, my local theater says it's in Digital 3D. Is that technology the same as Real 3D, or Dolby 3D?

EDIT - Nevermind, I got my answer at wikipedia. Looks like Digital 3D is the same as Real D, and uses Dolby technology. It's seems like the technology is near if not the same for all 3.

Interesting how it uses circular polarized lenses instead. Says that is what reduces the "3D headache".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Digital_3-D

1080p on bluray and hd-dvd is dead. hell ordinary cinema is dead to me. how on earth can you watch ordinary cinema again when you have watched beowolf in 3D in IMAX?

. . . . i put in the Patriot in my bluray player and yes it looks nice but who cares. the experience is the same, will always be the same as i have watched it in ordinary cinema or dvd or now bluray.

but Beowolf in 3D = WOW!

the format that can get that 3D format in your home will win the format war. plain and simple. no more discussion needed. . . . . if not. then who cares! i want BEOWOLF i want indiana jones next year in 3D etc. all big blockbusters should be made for 3D.

i dont care how long it takes or will take do it!!!

ok that was just my rant for today. now go all see it. it is the best thing ever :)

Yes, it was a rant; quite a rant . . . . . get a grip.

Yes, I too saw BEOWULF in IMAX 3D and then again in DIGITAL 3D and it was good fun but certainly not the Second Coming . . . .

I agree with the prevailing critical take that nothing in BEOWULF was as wonderful -- or ground breaking -- as Golum in LOTR.

My take on Zemeckis' 3D was that it felt like 3D HOUSE OF PANCAKES and/or 3D HOUSE OF STEWARDESSES
with John Candy pushing a plate at the viewer and intoning "have some more pancakes."

Again, I didn't hate BEOWULF . . . . but 3D sure better get better and
less gimicky . . and soon.

I would guess that Cameron's take on 3D will be much more interesting
as will that of Jackson and Spielberg . . .

but until those films come out I'd hold off hanging crepe for "regular"
2D films.

-30-

i watched in real d this weekend. movie was just 'ok' i walked out wishing i had rented it. however some goood things. i usually have bad headaches and sore yes after a 3d flick. i did not have this problem with the movie and i do hope we can get this technology home. i would love this technology with a quality movie along with a set of d-box chairs would be very fun!

... but 3D sure better get better and less gimicky . . and soon.
... I'd hold off hanging crepe for "regular" 2D films.
Without benefit of seeing Beowulf yet, I'm of the opinion that 3D is VERY susceptible to being a gimmick. I saw "Monster House" last year using Real D's system, and thought the 3D effect was quite well done. I might have to check out Beowulf in a theater with Dolby's 3D system.

For me, the major benefit of the digital 3D frenzy is that more digital projectors will be installed in the near future.

There have beem many "improvements" to theater presentation. From sound, to color to widescreen, to multichannel stereo, to large format, to 3D, to Digital Sound, to D-Cinema and now we revisit 3D again.

Why? Because each time, 3D gets a little better. But just like "scope" it is not to be used for all movies, like all movies are not scope. Approx 50% are scope and 50% are flat. It may work out where 40% are scope, 40% are flat and 20% are 3D. But whatever increases the box office take - that is going to be used.

TRIVIA: a 45 minute IMAX 3D film costs $20,000 per print x 2 = $40,000! So what will a 110 IMAX 3D movie cost (print wise)? Approx $100,000. A 35mm print (120 minutes) costs about $1200

PS: I wonder if Kodak's stock went up after the reviews?:D

PPS: I have reserved tickets for 12/16 for the familty to see it in IMAX 3D. The Ft. Laud. IMAX theater is SOLD OUT until 12/3!

I was reading something about $40,000 prints. I would link it but I thought it was absurd at the time and carried on. I'm shocked that you are coming up with a number that is actually higher.

I just got back from it and I am in awe. Imax is really the only thing left that carries wonder for me and to literally add another dimension to such a presentation was simply incredible. I highly recommend the experience.

As for the question about kids:
I swear like a sailer, I don't blink at violence and think the MPAA thing is overbearing. BUT DO NOT TAKE A CHILD TO THIS MOVIE. The animations are very lifelike and there are a number of beheadings, a multitude of dismemberments and many scenes that fade out by use of the blood simply filling the screen. I am appalled that this isn't R.

Weekend box-office was down 30% from the same pre-Thanksgiving weekend last year.:o

Last year saw Bond AND Happy Feet open the same weekend. MONSTER weekend. This year there is no movie to match up against either of those titles.

Ok, so my area only offers "IMAX 3D" and "Digital 3D". Which one should I see? Is the IMAX improved as to not cause headaches? I want to see this but want to pick the best presentation. Thanks!

IMAX. By a lot. IMAX film is substantially bigger (7X bigger on a 2.35AR) and you get a bigger and clearer picture.The complaints about it "not immersing" simply cannot be said about IMAX (unless there are some garbage IMAX's out there). I did have some eye strain after a good hour+ but would just close my eyes for a second when necessary.

Got to see it today on the IMAX screen. Pretty good movie, was really impressed with the 3D. My friend and I had a lot of "ohhhh's" and "ahhhh's" and even laughed a few times and how stuff was just coming at us. lol. You know you're in for a pretty good time when even the credits are cool. Like the were just floating right in front of your face. Good times, I recommend it.

how does it beowulf 3d compare to the nightmare before christmas 3d? unfortunately tnbc is the only 3d movie i've seen and there is no imax here. tnbc was interesting but nothing i'd ever see again, i could see the depth in the movie but only where i was focusing my eyes on. ex. if i watch the center it has depth and looks nice but on the peripherals of my vision it's blurry and irritating. by the end of the movie i was squinting and didn't enjoy it at all.

For those of you who saw it...

Is theater seating still relevant in 3D as in regular features? (Other than sound of course...)

The economic hardships are starting to kick in IMO.:(

More likely the lack of good films out there.

how does it beowulf 3d compare to the nightmare before christmas 3d? unfortunately tnbc is the only 3d movie i've seen and there is no imax here. tnbc was interesting but nothing i'd ever see again, i could see the depth in the movie but only where i was focusing my eyes on. ex. if i watch the center it has depth and looks nice but on the peripherals of my vision it's blurry and irritating. by the end of the movie i was squinting and didn't enjoy it at all.

Since Nightmare Before Christmas was turned into 3D after the fact, I'd say that the newer (and 3D from the get go) Beowulf is a lot more vivid and enveloping. Of course, it's not as good a movie as TNBC!

Well one good fact that has come out:

About 20% (rough estimate) of the theaters are showing this movie in 3D yet 40% of the box office take has come from the theaters showing it in 3D

For those of you who saw it...

Is theater seating still relevant in 3D as in regular features? (Other than sound of course...)

I sat in the very last row of a medium-small theatre, literally right under the projector and the 3D effect was excellent. Not sure how it looks from the front row.

NEVER sit in the front for a 3-D movie, and avoid the extreme sides also.

Best place is as close to the center as possible and in the back.

At both World 3-D Expos (2003 and 2006) the rear seats were always the first to be taken. Luckily I had a festival pass so I got premium seats every time.

NEVER sit in the front for a 3-D movie, and avoid the extreme sides also.

Best place is as close to the center as possible and in the back.

At both World 3-D Expos (2003 and 2006) the rear seats were always the first to be taken. Luckily I had a festival pass so I got premium seats every time.

When we visit the Loew's Imax in NYC, my wife and I hustle to get seats just about equidistant from the top and bottom and both sides. Actually, just up a bit from dead center is perfect.

Not really



There are two items necessary for good 3D:

1. Very bright image - IMAX uses 25kw bulbs and most 3D theaters use a Silver Screen and not a White Screen to further enhance the contrast ratio.

2. Resolution - the higher the resolution the more detailed the image - less eye strain

Newer does not mean better. Just compare a 65/70mm movie to a 35/35mm movie and tell me which looks better. Newer today seems to mean less costly.

But - the Dolby 3D System has increased the frame rate to 72 FPS while IMAX 3D is still at 48 FPS. So this may be "better" But the resolution for D-Cinema is still at HD levels though in the future this will change to the new D-Cinema format; SHD D-Cinema - 4000x2000 with 12 bit color. (SHD = Super Hi Definition)

Then again there is no comparison between the size of an IMAX screen and a commerical theater screen so #1 from above is a must.

What these two new 3D systems are really doing is making use of existing and soon to be installed D-Cinema projectors.

NOTE:

For anyone in the Roseland, Ill area - the MUVICO there just installed the new Sony 8 Megapixel projectors. So when Beowulf 3D plays on one of these they may (totally unknown) "upscale" the 2 Megapixel data to 8 Megapixels. (Just a wild guess BTW)

Just know that those Sony machines aren't yet capable of support single-projector 3D images via a RealD or Dolby3D setup. Also the silver screen is only necessary for the passive RealD system, the Dolby3D system uses a standard white screen. And lastly, it will be awhile before 4K cinema becomes mainstay, mainly because the average visual acuity can't differentiate between 2K and 4K and normal seating distances and the increased operational cost of managing those types of films.

the heck with movies...

i want football in 3-d! :D

I've seen this already. RealD showed some football test material a year or two ago between the Seahawks and Chargers, it was unreal.

Real D is MUCH MUCH better than Dolby 3D or IMAX 3D. Polarized glasses are the best way to bring 3D to the masses without giving refresh headaches or messing with color space.

This isn't entirely accurate. Both the RealD and the Dolby3D systems are superior to the old two-projector setups that Imax utilizes, but the Dolby3D is every bit as good as the RealD and in fact has certain benefits to exhibitors that the RealD doesn't offer.

It's PG-13, and probably not an R because the bizarro MPAA likes violence. I bet it would have received an R rating if they didn't think it was a cartoon. :rolleyes: I, personally, would not send a small child to see such violence. But I see parents do it all the times... Have fun.

Just so you all know this film was originally NC-17 at first cut then drastically edited to PG-13 given the investment in the feature.

This isn't entirely accurate. Both the RealD and the Dolby3D systems are superior to the old two-projector setups that Imax utilizes, but the Dolby3D is every bit as good as the RealD and in fact has certain benefits to exhibitors that the RealD doesn't offer.

?

In what way are the Digital 3D systems better than the IMAX 3D system?

?

In what way are the Digital 3D systems better than the IMAX 3D system?

Brightness, contrast ratio, convergence, still celluloid, cost (this doesn't matter to the consumer though).

The IMAX3D system still relies on two side-by-side projectors perfectly aligned to achieve their 3D, a system that is more susceptible to error and inaccurate setup. Not to mention a film-based system is still susceptible to eventual film grain, pops, tears, etc although hopefully that should be a minimal issue since most IMAX theaters are cared for well.

The Dolby3D/RealD systems utilize the digital cinema platform, which was originally designed to provide answer print quality on every presentation. Similarly it achieves 14ft-L at the screen whereas most film-based presentations are 7 to 9ft-L usually.

I should rephrase and say that all 3D system can provide a brilliant 3D image, but RealD/Dolby3D can do it more consistently and economically.

Brightness, contrast ratio, convergence, still celluloid, cost (this doesn't matter to the consumer though).

The IMAX3D system still relies on two side-by-side projectors perfectly aligned to achieve their 3D, a system that is more susceptible to error and inaccurate setup. Not to mention a film-based system is still susceptible to eventual film grain, pops, tears, etc although hopefully that should be a minimal issue since most IMAX theaters are cared for well.

The Dolby3D/RealD systems utilize the digital cinema platform, which was originally designed to provide answer print quality on every presentation. Similarly it achieves 14ft-L at the screen whereas most film-based presentations are 7 to 9ft-L usually.

I should rephrase and say that all 3D system can provide a brilliant 3D image, but RealD/Dolby3D can do it more consistently and economically.

http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/imaxExperience.do?param_section=whatImax&param_subMenuSelect=whatImaxSelect

IMAX uses 15-perforation, 70mm film to create images of incredible sharpness. The 15/70 frame is 10 times larger than the 35mm used in regular theatres. This makes it the largest commercial film ever invented. Would you believe, IMAX large format film is so strong it could be used to tow your car?

IMAX, IMAX 3D and IMAX Dome projectors are the most advanced, precise and powerful projectors ever built. The proprietary IMAX Rolling Loop technology ensures far superior picture and focus steadiness to deliver the largest, sharpest and brightest images imaginable. Light from the 15,000-watt lamp of some IMAX projectors is so bright that, if one were operated on the moon, people on Earth could see it with the naked eye.

IMAX 3D screens are painted silver to maximize the amount of light reflected back to the audience.

The six-channel, multi-way digital IMAX speaker system with sub-bass utilizes 44 speakers grouped into six clusters behind the screen and at the rear of the theatre to deliver uncompressed sound that is simply unsurpassed in depth and clarity. 16 amplifiers generate more than 12,000 watts of power, not volume, to provide the audience with life-like sound. IMAX’s proprietary loudspeaker system delivers exacting volume and quality at every seat throughout the theatre. From a small drop of rain to an enormous clap of thunder, you'll hear every shade and subtlety, regardless of where you are sitting.

http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/imaxExperience.do?param_section=whatImax&param_subMenuSelect=whatImaxSelect

IMAX uses 15-perforation, 70mm film to create images of incredible sharpness. The 15/70 frame is 10 times larger than the 35mm used in regular theatres. This makes it the largest commercial film ever invented. Would you believe, IMAX large format film is so strong it could be used to tow your car?

IMAX, IMAX 3D and IMAX Dome projectors are the most advanced, precise and powerful projectors ever built. The proprietary IMAX Rolling Loop technology ensures far superior picture and focus steadiness to deliver the largest, sharpest and brightest images imaginable. Light from the 15,000-watt lamp of some IMAX projectors is so bright that, if one were operated on the moon, people on Earth could see it with the naked eye.

IMAX 3D screens are painted silver to maximize the amount of light reflected back to the audience.

The six-channel, multi-way digital IMAX speaker system with sub-bass utilizes 44 speakers grouped into six clusters behind the screen and at the rear of the theatre to deliver uncompressed sound that is simply unsurpassed in depth and clarity. 16 amplifiers generate more than 12,000 watts of power, not volume, to provide the audience with life-like sound. IMAX’s proprietary loudspeaker system delivers exacting volume and quality at every seat throughout the theatre. From a small drop of rain to an enormous clap of thunder, you'll hear every shade and subtlety, regardless of where you are sitting.

You essentially just quoted a press release from IMAX saying how great their product is. I don't disagree, but say they have a 15kW bulb to illuminate a drastically larger screen doesn't impress me. Perhaps they may be at the 14 ft-L digital cinema standard, perhaps not. If the 15kW bulb really was such a monster there would be no need for the silver screen (like the Dolby3D system).

As I said I should've rephrased my first post by saying that all systems provide a great 3D image, but digital does it more reliably over time at lower economics.

You essentially just quoted a press release from IMAX saying how great their product is. I don't disagree, but say they have a 15kW bulb to illuminate a drastically larger screen doesn't impress me. Perhaps they may be at the 14 ft-L digital cinema standard, perhaps not. If the 15kW bulb really was such a monster there would be no need for the silver screen (like the Dolby3D system).

IMAX theaters are held to a higher standard than regular theaters - always have been - company is built on this premise.

The silver screen does two things (I know - I had a 144" Stewart Silver 300 for years)

1. Increases Contrast
2. Bounces back more light to the audience

As I said I should've rephrased my first post by saying that all systems provide a great 3D image, but digital does it more reliably over time at lower economics.

1. Realibility - not an issue with IMAX films like it is with standard 35mm.

2. Lower Economics - 100% correct and I agree 100%

IMAX = Image MAXimum - the apex of film viewing.:cool:

Brightness, contrast ratio, convergence, still celluloid, cost (this doesn't matter to the consumer though).

I should rephrase and say that all 3D system can provide a brilliant 3D image, but RealD/Dolby3D can do it more consistently and economically.


I don't happen to disagree with any part of this. I would however disagree with your assessment that the RealD is "better" than IMAX 3D. I much preferred the enveloping Imax experience (though I would admit to some flickering, brightness issues, and eyestrain). The sheer size of the picture that is popping out at you carries far more weight with me than a smaller but more exact viewing experience.

The cost of such a production on IMAX (the prints alone cost anywhere from 40k-100k) is more of an issue than the tech issues it faces (IMO). My Imax is replacing it with I am Legend on Dec 14th. That is less than a month to recoup a pretty big up front cost. I'm sure the print will go elsewhere and garner revenues at that destination as well but its an awfully large cost.

Just so you all know this film was originally NC-17 at first cut then drastically edited to PG-13 given the investment in the feature.

There clearly wasn't nearly enough cut out of it for that kind of drop. I wonder if we will ever get to see that cut. Might be interesting.

I saw Matrix Revolutions at the IMAX in Pittsburgh and it had to be one of the worst presentations I have ever seen. The Pittsburgh screen is a semi-dome shape and the close-ups were extremely distorted. Not all IMAX theaters are equals; ymmv.

Back to Beowulf..

Its playing in real 3d an hour away.

My wife and I both have the weekend off.

Is it worth the drive?

Here's my 2 cents. I just saw it a few hours ago in Toronto (IMAX 3D). I thought the 3D effect was very impressive, but and its a big "but" - this movie was basically a 100% CGI movie. Even the actors looked CGI! I want to see "real" actors and real sets in 3D before I make up my mind whether this enhances the movie experience or distracts from it. I have to admit that AJ naked in 3D sure looks good! :D

Cheers,

Grant

I saw Beowulf 3D in RealD last Saturday. I thought it looked very good. They also showed a preview for "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D" and if anything it looked even more impressive than Beowulf because it was live action istead of pure CGI.

The one weakness I saw in the 3D for Beowulf is that the image in the lower left hand corner of the screen wasn't always as solid as the rest of the 3D image.

I saw Beowulf 3D in RealD last Saturday. I thought it looked very good. They also showed a preview for "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D" and if anything it looked even more impressive than Beowulf because it was live action istead of pure CGI.

The one weakness I saw in the 3D for Beowulf is that the image in the lower left hand corner of the screen wasn't always as solid as the rest of the 3D image.

Did you ask which 3D system the theater was using?

It was advertised as RealD, and the glasses also said RealD.

Did you ask which 3D system the theater was using?

Lee, I saw Beowulf in RealD in the Muvico Palace 20 in Boca. I think you were trying to see it in IMAX3D in FLL which was sold out. While not as big as the IMAX screen in FLL, the screen in the Boca Muvico using RealD is much bigger than the conventional screens in most multiplexes. It is also one of the best sound systems in SoFlo.

Check it out, if you haven't already. The movie was great in RealD.

P.S. Off topic: Muvico Parisian IMAX in City Place in West Palm Beach is a real rip-off and fraud, if ever there was one. That freaking theater's screen is smaller than the some regular screens in Muvico Palace 20. I saw HP:OoTP in IMAX 3D there, and it was nothing like an IMAX3D movie in Universal Orlando or Kennedy Space Center.

Dolby3D is every bit as good as the RealD and in fact has certain benefits to exhibitors that the RealD doesn't offer.

What benefits? My understanding is that Dolby3D messes with colors, while RealD doesn't touch the original image, thanks to the polarized glasses.

IMAX theaters are held to a higher standard than regular theaters - always have been - company is built on this premise.

The silver screen does two things (I know - I had a 144" Stewart Silver 300 for years)

1. Increases Contrast
2. Bounces back more light to the audience



1. Realibility - not an issue with IMAX films like it is with standard 35mm.

2. Lower Economics - 100% correct and I agree 100%

IMAX = Image MAXimum - the apex of film viewing.:cool:
And if I remember correctly the silver screen retains the polarization of light which is essential in passive 3D installations (polarized glasses based), whereas normal white screen does not.

I saw this last weekend, and I did start to feel a slight headache in the Grendel scene with all the fast pans. The image also blurred a bit during the fast pans. I thought the 3d was great, but there were definitely some gimmicky moments. There were some scenes though that were incredibly immersive.

I think with a little more discression on how the 3d is used, i could really enjoy it. I definitely would not want every movie to be like this though.

Regarding the rating, I dont know how the MPAA did not give this an R Rating, It was very graphic. After the Grendel scene, I heard some children in the theater crying. I was thinking, "Who would bring young children to this movie?"

how on earth can you watch ordinary cinema again when you have watched beowolf in 3D in IMAX?


IMAX 3d? You missed out by not seeing it in DLP 3d (Real D 3d). That is commercial DLP, which is HD cinema (2040 x 1080), the Real D 3D experience (different technology than that used in imax 3d), and let's not forget that Commercial DLP features UNCOMPRESSED PCM sound.

Commercial DLP >>>>>>>> Imax

and

Commercial DLP 3D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imax 3d

I am always shocked at how little respect commercial DLP is given on avsforum.

Lee, I saw Beowulf in RealD in the Muvico Palace 20 in Boca. I think you were trying to see it in IMAX3D in FLL which was sold out. While not as big as the IMAX screen in FLL, the screen in the Boca Muvico using RealD is much bigger than the conventional screens in most multiplexes. It is also one of the best sound systems in SoFlo.

Check it out, if you haven't already. The movie was great in RealD.

P.S. Off topic: Muvico Parisian IMAX in City Place in West Palm Beach is a real rip-off and fraud, if ever there was one. That freaking theater's screen is smaller than the some regular screens in Muvico Palace 20. I saw HP:OoTP in IMAX 3D there, and it was nothing like an IMAX3D movie in Universal Orlando or Kennedy Space Center.

You were better off seeing it digital 3d aka commerical DLP. First off, you saw it in HD (2040 x 1080), IMAX suckers saw it analog.

You saw it with uncompressed PCM sound, IMAX suckers had theirs compressed. (Commercial DLP is the only place to get lossless audio in a movie theater)

And finally Real D 3d >>>>>>>>>>>>> any Imax 3d tech.

Consider yourself lucky and those who saw it imax 3d lame if they had a chance to see it in commercial DLP with real D 3d and dropped the ball.

Lee, I saw Beowulf in RealD in the Muvico Palace 20 in Boca. I think you were trying to see it in IMAX3D in FLL which was sold out. While not as big as the IMAX screen in FLL, the screen in the Boca Muvico using RealD is much bigger than the conventional screens in most multiplexes. It is also one of the best sound systems in SoFlo.

Check it out, if you haven't already. The movie was great in RealD.

P.S. Off topic: Muvico Parisian IMAX in City Place in West Palm Beach is a real rip-off and fraud, if ever there was one. That freaking theater's screen is smaller than the some regular screens in Muvico Palace 20. I saw HP:OoTP in IMAX 3D there, and it was nothing like an IMAX3D movie in Universal Orlando or Kennedy Space Center.

I have tickets for 12/16 to see it at IMAX Ft. Laud.

The reason who I was asking - it is possible (I don't know) that the two systems are not the same because RealD uses a special screen? And the light fell off in that corner?

You were better off seeing it digital 3d aka commerical DLP. First off, you saw it in HD (2040 x 1080), IMAX suckers saw it analog.

You saw it with uncompressed PCM sound, IMAX suckers had theirs compressed.

And finally Real D 3d >>>>>>>>>>>>> any Imax 3d tech.

Consider yourself lucky and those who saw it imax 3d lame if they had a chance to see it in commercial DLP with real D 3d and dropped the ball.

All I see is a bunch of arrow heads. You haven't explained why you think that 3D-Cinema is better than IMAX 3D. Care to explain?

All I see is a bunch of arrow heads. You haven't explained why you think that 3D-Cinema is better than IMAX 3D. Care to explain?
http://www.reald.com/ has some info, but to clarify, I never said 3d cinema was better than IMAX 3d, I said Real D 3d with commercial DLP is better than IMAX 3d. There is a huge difference.

The main point is for avsforum HD buffs, commercial DLP is the way to go. It's true HD cinema with lossless audio.

Can you say the same about imax with its analog prints and compressed audio?

No.

Add to that that commercial DLP is the way anything shot digitally or CGI animation is meant to be seen. It provides the most accurate representation of digitially produced material, since as I like to say (it's not exactly true though), "it's digital from their computer all the way to your eye." (Actually all way to the DLP chip). Commercial DLP is also the way it was intended to be seen, as it seen just as the director intended when he finished post-production of the movie on a computer (hence why I say commercial DLP especially for any movie shot digitally or animation).

IMAX is just big, but most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why would people here, HD buffs, chooose imax over commercial DLP (if given the choice)?

http://www.reald.com/ has some info.

The main point is for avsforum HD buffs, commercial DLP is the way to go. It's true HD cinema with lossless audio.

Can you say the same about imax with its analog prints and compressed audio?

No.

Add to that that commercial DLP is the way anything shot digitally or CGI animation is meant to be seen. It provides the most accurate representation of digitially produced material, since as I like to say (it's not exactly true though), "it's digital from their computer all the way to your eye." (Actually all way to the DLP chip). Commercial DLP is also the way it was intended to be seen, as it seen just as the director intended when he finished post-production of the movie on a computer (hence why I say commercial DLP especially for any movie shot digitally or animation).

IMAX is just big, but most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why would people here, HD buffs, chooose imax over commercial DLP (if given the choice)?

Huh?

Every IMAX theater has 12,000 watts of power. Does your D-Cinema theater have ANYWHERE's near that?

You keep boasting about the resolution of DLP but all it is is HD resolution. Care to take a guess at the resolution of IMAX? Maybe this will help:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg

Huh?

Every IMAX theater has 12,000 watts of power. Does your D-Cinema theater have ANYWHERE's near that?

You keep boasting about the resolution of DLP but all it is is HD resolution. Care to take a guess at the resolution of IMAX? Maybe this will help:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg

12,00 watts of power and your attempts to show IMAX resolution mean nothing, because that compares IMAX to regular analog print, NOT commercial DLP which doesn't even use film, it's all digital. Sure IMAX is bigger, but nobody here would want an old big SDTV over an HDTV, so why IMAX over commercial DLP. I suspect you are ignorant about commercial DLP, which again surprises me because it is HD cinema with lossless audio (wouldn't surprise me if you don't live near a commercial DLP theater though).

For Beowulf, for example, it is a movie "filmed" on computer. What is more pure? Keeping it all digital to the projector, a Christie $100k + commercial DLP HD projector with a better rez (2040 x 1080 at least) than anything we have at our homes, or converting something digital to analog and blowing it up on a huge screen? You tell me.

And commercial DLP uses lossless uncompressed PCM, do any IMAX theaters do that? No because the IMAX prints don't get that sound. The movies on commercial DLP come on an encrypted hard drive that has the movie + sound.

Again, most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why defend IMAX so much?

It's not like we have a commercial DLP IMAX projector...yet...

From www.dlp.com:

What are the advantages of DLP Cinema®?

DLP Cinema® technology delivers a true digital picture with incredible clarity and vibrant colors every show. With DLP Cinema® technology, there is no more color fading, jump and weave, scratching and dirt accumulation which are common problems that plague film. DLP Cinema® offers a consistent image with no degradation over time. Movie-goers can see a movie in its original pristine condition, exactly the way the director intended it, whether they see it during the first or fifth week of the run.
What are the benefits of digital cinema?

* For moviemakers, their movies are seen exactly the way they are intended to be seen, with light, shade and texture captured with digital accuracy.
* For movie distributors, it provides a better quality viewing experience of their movies and allows tremendous cost savings in film print reproduction and distribution.
* For movie exhibitors, they are able to offer a consistently better visual experience to the customer while having greater flexibility in movie and theatre usage.
* For the moviegoer, the advantage is a more compelling, more captivating experience without the distractions that the degradation of film brings.

What is the role of Texas Instruments in digital cinema?

Texas Instruments has developed the digital projection technology, DLP Cinema® that is making the transition to digital cinema both possible and practical.

DLP Cinema® technology has its roots in a development initiative that Texas Instruments launched in the early 1980s. Since the first demonstration of DLP® technology in 1994, Texas Instruments has collaborated with studios and filmmakers to develop and improve DLP Cinema® projection. When judged by critical cinematographers today, images projected by DLP Cinema® technology are on par with the best studio answer prints.
Does Texas Instruments build projectors?

No. Texas Instruments provides DLP Cinema® technology to cinema projector customers BARCO, Christie Digital, NEC, Digital Projection and others. TI works closely with these companies to verify that quality standards are being met in order for these projectors to bear the DLP Cinema® designation.
Besides the digital projector, what else is needed to make digital cinema possible?

The digital projector is only the final element in the delivery of digital cinema. In the projection booth, a digital storage system, or server, is required to store the digital movie data until it is projected. (The server is loosely analogous to the platter in current 35MM systems.) Several companies have introduced server products specifically for digital cinema applications. Texas Instruments works closely with these companies to ensure compatibility and interoperability with DLP Cinema® equipped projectors.
How are DLP Cinema® projectors different from the DLP® projectors used in the home and office?

Texas Instruments uses a similar light modulation technique for smaller home and business projectors, and for large venue projectors. These projectors feature DLP® technology, as opposed to DLP Cinema® technology. DLP Cinema® technology is optimized specifically to meet the needs of the Hollywood creative community and light up the world's largest screens. DLP Cinema® features the highest resolution of any DLP® technology - up to 2.1 million pixels and specific feature sets for special management of color, security, black levels and image manipulation needed for screening movie content.
What are the differences between large venue projectors and DLP Cinema® projectors?

DLP Cinema® projectors are based on DLP® technology that is specifically adapted for showing movie content and meets the needs and requirements of the motion picture industry. TI has been working with Hollywood since the mid-1990s to ensure that DLP Cinema® offers the unique solution that meets the needs of the creative community.

Large venue projectors are based on DLP® technology specifically designed for showing video and graphics content in demanding environments. Large venue projectors are highly versatile and can be used for staging and rental; large screen projection in conference centers and other public venues, such as houses of worships; and large screen, high-brightness projection in control rooms and similar locations.
What are the latest developments in digital cinema and DLP Cinema® technology?

DLP Cinema® continues to be the only commercially available digital cinema projection technology, and is now in nearly 4,000 theatres worldwide and growing rapidly. All of the seven major studios have released movies for DLP Cinema®. TI announced a 2K resolution DLP Cinema® chip in early 2003, which is now commercially available from all major cinema projector manufacturer customers, with installations in over 25 countries worldwide.
What are the latest developments in digital cinema standards?

Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) was formed a few years ago by the seven major Hollywood studios to tackle standards for digital cinema, and Texas Instruments has worked closely with DCI to assist in educating on digital cinema. They released the third version of their Digital Cinema System Specification standards in December 2003, and all DLP Cinema®- based projectors support their system requirements.

Yo are missing the point.

DLP Cinema does not have the resolution of IMAX. You have to remember how small the frame is on the projector and how large is has to be blown up in relation to the screen.

The beauty of DLP is that the first showing and the 100th showing are exactly the same - when compared to 35mm. IMAX is totally different - not the same film stock. Much more durable plus the rolling loop technology makes sure each frame is 100% flat against the apeture plate.

And this lossless lossy argument. What about the speaker arrays? Think a multiplex is going to spend the kind of money that IMAX has on it's speaker arrays? They are close to 8 feet on each side and there are 6 of them..

You are comparing a high end stereo system to a boom box and lossless won't sound better in that case.

From IMAX:

The six-channel, multi-way digital IMAX speaker system with sub-bass utilizes 44 speakers grouped into six clusters behind the screen and at the rear of the theatre to deliver uncompressed soundthat is simply unsurpassed in depth and clarity. 16 amplifiers generate more than 12,000 watts of power, not volume, to provide the audience with life-like sound. IMAX’s proprietary loudspeaker system delivers exacting volume and quality at every seat throughout the theatre. From a small drop of rain to an enormous clap of thunder, you'll hear every shade and subtlety, regardless of where you are sitting.

Yo are missing the point.

DLP Cinema does not have the resolution of IMAX. You have to remember how small the frame is on the projector and how large is has to be blown up in relation to the screen.

The beauty of DLP is that the first showing and the 100th showing are exactly the same - when compared to 35mm. IMAX is totally different - not the same film stock. Much more durable plus the rolling loop technology makes sure each fram is 100% flat against the apeture plate.
And this lossless lossy argument. What about the speaker array? Think a multiplex is going to spend the kind of money that IMAX has on it's speaker arrays? They are close to 8 feet square.

You are comparing a high end stereo system to a boom box and lossless won't sound better in that case.

You are missing the point entirely. When a movie is made digitally, either with digital cameras or pure CGI, it is not intended to be converted to film. With commercial DLP, it is not converted to film. It's digital until converted to light by the projector.

With IMAX they have to convert the movie not intended to be on film into film stock and then shown analog. It cannot look as good as it did on the director's computer, but commercial DLP comes the closest to that in a movie theater. The beauty of DLP is not just that the first day is the same as the last day in the theater.

DLP Cinema does not have the resolution of IMAX.

Again, you are missing the point. Commercial DLP is digital HD, IMAX is analog. Who cares if IMAX technically has a larger resolution? Commercial DLP is HD (2040 x 1080 AT LEAST), while IMAX is big analog. Do you honestly think typical IMAX PQ is better than commercial DLP? Do you honestly think Beowulf looks better on IMAX than commercial DLP, the way it was meant to be seen? There was someone in this thread who saw it in both formats, perhaps that person could shed some light on this.

I ask for the umpteenth time, most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why IMAX over DLP ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MOVIES SHOT DIGITALLY OR ANIMATION? Have you seen any movies in commercial DLP? Have you seen movies either shot digitally or animated in commercial DLP? Something tells me you haven't.

You are missing the point entirely. When a movie is made digitally, either with digital cameras or pure CGI, it is not intended to be converted to film. With commercial DLP, it is not converted to film. It's digital until converted to light by the projector.

With IMAX they have to convert the movie not intended to be on film into film stock and then shown analog.

The beauty of DLP is not just that the first day is the same as the last day in the theater.

Again, you are missing the point. Commercial DLP is digital HD, IMAX is analog. Who cares if IMAX technically has a larger resolution? Commercial DLP is HD (2040 x 1080 AT LEAST), while IMAX is big analog. Do you honestly think typical IMAX PQ is better than commercial DLP? Do you honestly think Beowulf looks better on IMAX than commercial DLP, the way it was meant to be seen? There was someone in this thread who saw it in both formats, perhaps that person could shed some light on this.

I ask for the umpteenth time, most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why IMAX over DLP? Have you seen any movies in commercial DLP? Have you seen movies either shot digitally or animated in commercial DLP? Something tells me you haven't.

I have seen 5 moives in DLP. I saw the very first one ever show - Star Wars #1. So I know what DLP looks like. My last one was Transformers.

Current DLP D-Cinema is limited by the resolution and color depth (10 bit) of the system they are using. And the video is compressed using JPEG2000.

I will report back to this thread after I have seen it on the 16th. I have spent my life looking (hobby) at different movie style presentations and have seen all of them with the exceptions of 3 Panel Cinerama (too young) and IMAX HD (only one theater in Europe)

When they go to SHD - 4000x2000 with 12 Bit color - then I will probably be impressed. So far - looks a bit better then a 35mm presentation.

PS - See EDIT - IMAX sound is uncompressed - they have never put the sound on the film

...most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why IMAX over DLP ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MOVIES SHOT DIGITALLY OR ANIMATION? [/B]

Shouldn't you compare a 50" Digital HDTV to a 100" screen/film projector?

For example, Star Trek was a film to digital transfer that looks as good as any digitally shot film. You can also go the other way too. You could transfer a 4320p digital movie (if there is such a thing) to film and have it look just as good (if you had a 4320p display:D).

This "digital vs analog" debate is getting tiresome. For me, I would take a pristine analog copy over digital anyday. Gimme my LP over MP3, or a film SLR over a 10MP DSLR anyday.

FWIW, from
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=939634&page=5


I have experimented with 3D imaging and video in the home since the early 80's.

The Atari ST computer had the LCD shutter glasses around 1987 or so. They worked with the legendary CAD3D software, showing 3D motion images of animated CAD models. The controller for the glasses plugged into the cartridge port on the ST. I still own several ST's.

Before that, the Vectrex vector graphics videogame system of 1982-83 had the mechanical rotating disc shutter goggles for 3D. I still own two Vextrex units, but don't have the 3D goggles any longer.

http://www.stereo3d.com/vectrex2.jpg

Before that, TV stations in the SE Michigan area showed scary movies at Halloween (late 70's or so) which required the red/blue analgyphic glasses- not much 3D effect, but fun for a kid ;).

Several games for the Amiga and Atari ST were released around 1987 or so with red/blue analgyphic glasses, mostly vector graphics games, which were a good application for them. Very effective 3D images- they simply drew one set of red vectors, and one set of blue at the same time.

I still own a pair of LCD shutter glasses that were made for the Sega Master System in 1986-87 or so. They can be easily hacked to work with PC's.

http://www.tkk.fi/Misc/Electronics/circuits/sega3d.html
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/pc/3dglass.html
http://www.severedbbs.u-net.com/fletcher/3D.html


In the mid 90's, a company tried to popularize LCD shutter glasses for 3D gaming on the PC- don't recall the company name, but they were common at local weekend computer swap meets around 1997-98.

Also around 1995, the Nintendo Virtual Boy was the first video game system designed from the ground up for 3D imaging. I still own this system and all the software made for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Virtual_Boy

Video software was released in the mid 90's (VHS and/or LD, can't recall) that worked with LCD shutter glasses for 3D, with the LCD shutter sync signal carried on the composite video line, probably keyed to or embedded in the VBI signal. Even field of the 480i video was for one eye, the odd field for the other eye. Quite simple and effective.

Comprehensive table of shutter glasses for 3D imaging
http://www.stereo3d.com/shutter.htm

I work with people who use commercial grade shutter glasses and 3D modeling and visualization for virtual prototyping of large, complex products and manufacturing systems.

I think most of the issues with 3D video are well known and understood. Mass adoption is highly unlikely- perhaps a niche market is sustainable, assuming well produced 3D video material. The biggest problem is that people don't like wearing goggles for a long period, and the vertigo issue, which affects far more people than you think...

I ask for the umpteenth time, most here would rather have a 50" HDTV than a 100" SDTV, so why IMAX over DLP ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MOVIES SHOT DIGITALLY OR ANIMATION? Have you seen any movies in commercial DLP? Have you seen movies either shot digitally or animated in commercial DLP? Something tells me you haven't.

It is downright irresponsible to compare IMAX to SD. Imax film is 7X the size of 35MM film and displays obscene resolution; it also has the best sound of anything even remotely associated with the movie industry. Maybe the DLP theater I have been to is an aberration but I MUCH prefer IMAX.

It is downright irresponsible to compare IMAX to SD. Imax film is 7X the size of 35MM film and displays obscene resolution; it also has the best sound of anything even remotely associated with the movie industry. Maybe the DLP theater I have been to is an aberration but I MUCH prefer IMAX.

++++

I saw Bridge to Terabithia in DLP and the problem I had with it was not so much detail, but the overall flat appearance of the picture. I thought the black levels and shadow detail were lacking, not an immersive experience. Just my opinion on this single film, though.

ok i juse seen Beowolf in real 3D

the movie was ok, better then the 300 and it will be a buy if it ever comes to Blu-ray disk.

Now the 3D was very good, i did not get any eye strain and it was a long movie for 3D. but i will have to get better glasses the frames were in my way too much, i do not ware eye glasses so i am not used to a small field of view.

even when i ware sun glasses its those frame less wrap around kind that covers your whole view.

now for the DLP part, i do not know how much res they use for the previews ect but i could see scan lines. that and the black level was not great, real 3D needed to kick the projection level up a bit and go with a darker silver screen.

in the movie i did not see the scan lines as much because the 3D was over powering it.

I think if HDM is going to really take off they will need 3D and wide color added, just the resolution increase is not enough to get people to leave DVD.

I thought some of the scenes were simply amazing and the end scene with the dragon and the castle....wow.

I'm late to this discussion, but Lee Stewart is right about IMAX 3D vs. Real-D. They both have their advantages, but IMAX is really the better presentation for most people. I saw both and Real-D was disappointing.

IMAX advantages:

1) Brightness: IMAX uses dual projectors while Real-D uses a single projector that filters out half the light for each frame. That's why the colors in a Real-D presentation look much better when you take the glasses off.

2) Screen Size: IMAX fills your field of view so the movie is immersive instead of like looking through a window. The brightness problem of Real-D also limits screen size. You can't just move closer to the screen for Real-D unless you want to tilt your head up the whole time.

3) Resolution: IMAX print is much higher than 2k

4) Sound System: IMAX theaters usually have better sound systems than the small theaters Real-D is limited to

5) Projection Quality (usually): regular theaters are more likely to mess this up

6) Glasses: this is a personal preference, but I like the big IMAX glasses because you can't see the frames while wearing them.


Real-D Advantages

1) Synchronization: IMAX is analog, so the two images won't be perfectly synchronized. If you are prone to eye-strain or headaches, Real-D may be the better choice for you.

2) Circular Polarization: Real-D uses circular polarization while IMAX uses linear, so you will not see ghosting in Real-D if you tilt you head.

i get very bad headaches at IMAX showings, so bad i had to walk out of a movie once. so does my dad, after taking him to a IMAX 3D show he will not go see any 3D ever again.

My sister has no problems with IMAX 3D, but both her kids got eye strain.

IMAX has many things going for it but its 3D is not going to be main stream, plus IMAX theaters are not going to replace regular theaters.

The other 3D technologies do need to be improved, but because it can be retrofitted into a standard multiplex it will be the mainstream 3D.

Ok, so my area only offers "IMAX 3D" and "Digital 3D". Which one should I see? Is the IMAX improved as to not cause headaches? I want to see this but want to pick the best presentation. Thanks!

go digital. It holds the picture steadier, so convergence is never a problem like it is with film 3-D systems. From what everyone seems to be saying collectively on this thread (as well as my own experiences and those of my friends) the Imax 3-D still has some problems with eye strain. I can attest that the Dolby 3-D does not have this problem. It sounds like Real D is probably just as good.

One problem I had with the presentation I saw (Arclight Hollywood box theater) was that it was presented on a 1.85 matted screen with letterboxing! (the film's original aspect ratio is 2.35) It's really stupid because the screen had side mattes that could open up to the full 2.35 ratio. Why they couldn't do that and put a different lens on the projector is beyond me. Especially since this was at the friggin Arclight!

The only other problem I had was the glasses I got were a bit smeared and I couldn't clean them no matter how hard I tried. So I think I'd prefer the Real D system that has disposable glasses, and just get a new pair every time. Or even better, just buy a set of my own to keep.

I already saw this weeks ago at the IMAX 3D and it was incredible. No eye strain at all, and the glasses worked perfectly. I have no reservations recommending the IMAX 3D system.

The resolution of IMAX is estimated to be around 10000x7000 pixels. Here is some info from IMAX Tech Support regarding image resolution:

"The smallest resolve power of neg film is about 6 microns. As a result, the limiting resolution on a 35mm negative frame is around 3700×2700 pixels. This means a maximum of 2000 lines of vertical resolution for an image with a 1.85 aspect ratio and even less for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (1570 lines).

The resolution on a 35mm release print is much lower due to MTF generation loss in the film process. A recent paper from SMPTE journal reported that the real resolution that audience can discern in a high-quality 35mm cinema is about 1600 horizontal pixels, which translates to about 850 lines for 1:85 and less than 700 lines for 2.35. Most 35mm cinemas fair even worse than those numbers.

Similarly, an IMAX 15/70 frame has a limiting resolution of close to 12,000 horizontal pixels. For an aspect ratio of 1.36:1, there are about 8700 lines of vertical resolution on each 15/70 negative frame. Because the release print for a typical IMAX documentary is printed directly from the negative, the generation MTF loss will be reduced. It is estimated that audience can discern no less than 4500 lines of vertical resolution from a good IMAX release print. So as you can see there exists quite a difference between the image quality of an IMAX image vs that of a 35mm image."

I'm late to this discussion, but Lee Stewart is right about IMAX 3D vs. Real-D. They both have their advantages, but IMAX is really the better presentation for most people. I saw both and Real-D was disappointing.

IMAX advantages:

1) Brightness: IMAX uses dual projectors while Real-D uses a single projector that filters out half the light for each frame. That's why the colors in a Real-D presentation look much better when you take the glasses off.

2) Screen Size: IMAX fills your field of view so the movie is immersive instead of like looking through a window. The brightness problem of Real-D also limits screen size. You can't just move closer to the screen for Real-D unless you want to tilt your head up the whole time.

3) Resolution: IMAX print is much higher than 2k

4) Sound System: IMAX theaters usually have better sound systems than the small theaters Real-D is limited to

5) Projection Quality (usually): regular theaters are more likely to mess this up

6) Glasses: this is a personal preference, but I like the big IMAX glasses because you can't see the frames while wearing them.


Real-D Advantages

1) Synchronization: IMAX is analog, so the two images won't be perfectly synchronized. If you are prone to eye-strain or headaches, Real-D may be the better choice for you.

2) Circular Polarization: Real-D uses circular polarization while IMAX uses linear, so you will not see ghosting in Real-D if you tilt you head.

1) Brightness: This isn't really the case if you measure light output at the screen. Certainly the IMAX lamps have greater power, but the at the screen brightness for each technology is comparable. More importantly, many IMAX operators ratchet down the power of the lamps to lower their operational cost and need for replacement whereas the digital equivalent are held to DCI specification.

3) Resolution: Partly true. First it is somewhat inaccurate to relate resolution to any analog medium, but I think we all understand your point. The question isn't the "resolution" of the medium, it is the perceived resolution to the viewer. A 2K image on a 10ft screen will yield a tighter ppi (pixels per inch) then a 4K image on a 100ft screen. However, you are accurate that the amount of crystals in the IMAX prints typically would render >2K "resolution" even though your eyes probably won't be good enough to see them.

4) Sound System: This isn't really an advantage of IMAX. I saw my Dolby 3D presentation at Paramount's screening and I certainly wouldn't consider their screen to be either small or their sound system inadequate (they also opted to do a dual-digital-projector setup at this screening to make it that much more incredible). Several of the RealD/Dolby3D systems are in top-tier auditoriums.

Agree completely on all other points. The other big advantage of digital 3D is the consistency of the image for multiple playbacks. Go see the IMAX3D presentation three weeks after opening and you'll DEFINITELY notice a degradation in the quality of the film stock. Also let us not forget the last benefit of digital 3D: the reduced cost to the exhibitor and studio participants ;).

I have seen 5 moives in DLP. I saw the very first one ever show - Star Wars #1. So I know what DLP looks like. My last one was Transformers.

Current DLP D-Cinema is limited by the resolution and color depth (10 bit) of the system they are using. And the video is compressed using JPEG2000.

I will report back to this thread after I have seen it on the 16th. I have spent my life looking (hobby) at different movie style presentations and have seen all of them with the exceptions of 3 Panel Cinerama (too young) and IMAX HD (only one theater in Europe)

When they go to SHD - 4000x2000 with 12 Bit color - then I will probably be impressed. So far - looks a bit better then a 35mm presentation.

PS - See EDIT - IMAX sound is uncompressed - they have never put the sound on the film

Correct, digital cinema presentations are JPEG2000 compressed, but they are not limited to 10-bit color depth. They are 12-bit 4:4:4 all the way through playback.

Correct, digital cinema presentations are JPEG2000 compressed, but they are not limited to 10-bit color depth. They are 12-bit 4:4:4 all the way through playback.

Panavision Genesis Digital HD Camera:

10 bit log per color output

http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=36&id=375&node=c0,c134,c135

Oh - IMAX film is nothing like 35mm film - they do not experience the same problem of print wear down.

ok i juse seen Beowolf in real 3D

the movie was ok, better then the 300 and it will be a buy if it ever comes to Blu-ray disk.

Now the 3D was very good, i did not get any eye strain and it was a long movie for 3D. but i will have to get better glasses the frames were in my way too much, i do not ware eye glasses so i am not used to a small field of view.

even when i ware sun glasses its those frame less wrap around kind that covers your whole view.

now for the DLP part, i do not know how much res they use for the previews ect but i could see scan lines. that and the black level was not great, real 3D needed to kick the projection level up a bit and go with a darker silver screen.

in the movie i did not see the scan lines as much because the 3D was over powering it.

I think if HDM is going to really take off they will need 3D and wide color added, just the resolution increase is not enough to get people to leave DVD.

scan lines are CRT phenomena and not DLP.

scan lines are CRT phenomena and not DLP.

ok but i seen lines, call it resolution lines or what ever. it could be this cheap theater is using a cheaper DLP system? It also hurt that the family wanted to sit to close and i had to look up at the screen.

ok but i seen lines, call it resolution lines or what ever. it could be this cheap theater is using a cheaper DLP system? It also hurt that the family wanted to sit to close and i had to look up at the screen.

Different DLP theaters have different resolutions. But generally if you can see the pixel structure you are sitting too close (or in the wrong theater).

- Tom

Different DLP theaters have different resolutions. But generally if you can see the pixel structure you are sitting too close (or in the wrong theater).

- Tom

Yep (D-Cinema Resolutions):

2048x1080

4000x2000

Only now I have a question - do they upscale the 2048x1080 (which is the res of the camera) to 4000x2000?

If so - what does that do to the image?

Panavision Genesis Digital HD Camera:



http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=36&id=375&node=c0,c134,c135

Oh - IMAX film is nothing like 35mm film - they do not experience the same problem of print wear down.

That's fine for that camera, but most films shown digital (at least right now) are through a digital intermediates process that can do either 10/12-bit log or 12-bit linear. Linear vs. log encoding is probably outside the scope of this discussion.

Yep (D-Cinema Resolutions):

2048x1080

4000x2000

Only now I have a question - do they upscale the 2048x1080 (which is the res of the camera) to 4000x2000?

If so - what does that do to the image?

Depends on the film...Spider-man 3 for example was offered in native 4K (except all the effects were in 2K, but whatever). Most 4K machines playing back 2K content will basically scale just like any other display technology...doesn't look particular great in all my viewings.

Don't get caught in the hype of resolution. Not long ago there was a direct 2K vs. 4K shootout here in LA for the industry. The Sony SXRD 4K vs. a Christie DLP 2K showing clips/stills of Cars natively rendered for each resolution (IE the 2K machine was showing a native 2K image, the 4K machine got a native 4K image). The Christie crushed Sony in every metric: contrast, brightness, color uniformity, color accuracy, etc.

And just for clarification the 2K digital cinema resolution isn't 2048x1080...that is the possible max of the projectors, but most features are either 2048x858 (scope) or 1998x1080 (flat).

also if you do 3D with one DLP you only get half the resolution per eye, when i closed one eye i could see the resolution lines very clearly. why would i be doing that ? well 3D is my hobby and i was as interested in the technology being used as i was the movie.

I think they need much higher resolution for a single DLP 3D setup, or use two projectors.

Beowolf looked great in 3-D.............as long as you were looking directly at the screen. I saw it at an IMAX and if you looked to either side of the screen, the double image was very apparent and distracting.

Beowolf looked great in 3-D.............as long as you were looking directly at the screen. I saw it at an IMAX and if you looked to either side of the screen, the double image was very apparent and distracting.

That is one of the disadvantages of IMAX-3D vs. Digital-3D. There is no ghosting or image doubling when using a RealD or Dolby3D system.

also if you do 3D with one DLP you only get half the resolution per eye, when i closed one eye i could see the resolution lines very clearly. why would i be doing that ? well 3D is my hobby and i was as interested in the technology being used as i was the movie.

I think they need much higher resolution for a single DLP 3D setup, or use two projectors.

What do you mean by "I could see the resolution lines very clearly"? With a single projector 3D setup you don't get half the resolution at all. In the case of RealD you have a polarization "shutter" in front of the projector's light path that operates at 144fps (triple-flash) so each left and right eye images are shown full resolution. Maybe I'm understanding incorrectly.

??????????;)

Quite a few people can't see the 3D images because of Stigma's.

Well I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D last night and I was VERY impressed! Sat in the last row in the back of the theater.

1. They "lifted" the image to the top of the screen so only the bottom of the screen was not used to fit the 1.85 AR on the screen.

2. The 3D was astounding! IMO it would not be as good if the movie used real people or real settings. The decrease in resolution - using CGI helped immensley. I remember seeing the IMAX 3D live action film about the mail carrier who flew over the Andies Mountains and didn't make it. The 3D was not as good as Beowulf.

3. Yes - you need to look straight ahead to keep the 3D remaining "stable" but that was not an issue because the entire frame was in our field of view,

4. The sound was fantastic - clear and VERY strong. Just like at a regular theater only more powerful.

5. There are still some issues with CGI itself - some motion looks "wooden" - not as it would look in real life.

6. Looking forward to the next 3D movie.

7. The U2 concert was shown as a 2 minute trailer - I may have to go see that.