AVATAR ? Xpand 3d, Dolby 3d, Reald 3d which one? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 103 Old 01-24-2010, 08:54 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

All I can say is that those who have seen it more than once have a very strong stomach. I hated this movie so much I was cheering when the tree came down.

Per Darin's recommendation, I made the trek to see it in a digital Imax. Brightness was pretty good, although part of the screen was washed out from light in the lobby. One of my biggest complaints was the background and foreground shots being extremely blurred. The best thing I can say about the 3d is that during parts of the film I didn't really notice it. I think this is probably as big a step as Jurrasic Park was to digital animation, but there is still a ways to go.

Right, I would love to see 3d with everything in focus. I think that would be pretty amazing.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 103 Old 01-29-2010, 11:57 PM
Senior Member
 
gridbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Haven't seen 3D on the big screen in years, if not decades. Took the Avatar plunge last week to see what all the fuss was about. The Arclight is the least annoying of options as far as local cinema goes, so I went online and reserved two seats in the middle of the theatre, floor level. The dome has been recently outfitted with the XpanD system, which I'd never heard of until we got there. The glasses were big (almost but not quite unwieldly) to the point that they wouldn't rest properly on my wife's face and she had to hold them with one hand for the entire running time. To be fair, she alternated hands, but still... Picture quality was good but not the stunning experience I'd hoped for. The dark green lenses in the glasses rendered the screen a bit darker than I'd expected, and while for the most part the 3D was good, it got dodgy at parts. I periodically lifted the glasses so I could compare color/brightness and it "popped" better without the glasses, but was too double-imaged to watch without them. Another complication: the curved nature of the dome screen rendered the edges of the frame blurry in parts, especially when Jake Sully was recording his video log; the heads up display was blurred at the far edges and the bottom of the hologram was curved rather than straight across. The overall Avatar 3D effect and experience was good, and I did enjoy the spectacle despite the pedestrian "white guy goes native" storyline, but wished that I would have been wowed a bit more by the technology. Still, definitely looking forward to the Blu-ray release.

gridbug is offline  
post #93 of 103 Old 02-01-2010, 01:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gridbug View Post

Haven't seen 3D on the big screen in years, if not decades. Took the Avatar plunge last week to see what all the fuss was about. The Arclight is the least annoying of options as far as local cinema goes, so I went online and reserved two seats in the middle of the theatre, floor level. The dome has been recently outfitted with the XpanD system, which I'd never heard of until we got there. The glasses were big (almost but not quite unwieldly) to the point that they wouldn't rest properly on my wife's face and she had to hold them with one hand for the entire running time. To be fair, she alternated hands, but still... Picture quality was good but not the stunning experience I'd hoped for. The dark green lenses in the glasses rendered the screen a bit darker than I'd expected, and while for the most part the 3D was good, it got dodgy at parts. I periodically lifted the glasses so I could compare color/brightness and it "popped" better without the glasses, but was too double-imaged to watch without them. Another complication: the curved nature of the dome screen rendered the edges of the frame blurry in parts, especially when Jake Sully was recording his video log; the heads up display was blurred at the far edges and the bottom of the hologram was curved rather than straight across. The overall Avatar 3D effect and experience was good, and I did enjoy the spectacle despite the pedestrian "white guy goes native" storyline, but wished that I would have been wowed a bit more by the technology. Still, definitely looking forward to the Blu-ray release.


I saw it twice in the LA area and both were good. It sounds like the dome is NOT the place to see it. If the edges were noticeably out of focus, that would have ruined the experience for me. Also, I find the dome screen too curved and it adds distortion to even regular films. I really enjoyed watching it at the IMAX at Universal City Walk. The screen is huge and the picture was clear and it appeared that they were running a film print. There is some dimming of the picture with the glasses on, but it was still very watchable. The other theater I went to was the IMAX in Simi Valley, and I'm pretty sure it was a digital IMAX presentation. The screen is smaller than the Universal IMAX, but the picture was very clear and extremely bright. Even with the glasses on, the picture appeared brighter than most standard 35mm theaters showing standard films. The extra brightness and high resolution made it really pop, and I would recommend for anyone close to Simi Valley to go see that version.
fire407 is offline  
post #94 of 103 Old 02-04-2010, 07:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,738
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked: 78
I saw it Matinee today for the second time, the higher ansi contrast from not having a crowd of people in the theater made for a nicer contrast image.


Rather than sporty goggles, these glasses where of the kind worn in Disney World fuscia colored thin hard plastic and flimsy lenses, yet the image was best with these thinner glasses. NO Ghosting today.

Pixel resolvability was only noticeable on white flashes from the 3rd row on the up ramp stadium seating.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #95 of 103 Old 02-06-2010, 12:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Right, I would love to see 3d with everything in focus. I think that would be pretty amazing.

Not gonna happen. Unless it's a 3d rendered movie where the director made the decision of not using depth of field at all. (everything would be in focus at all times, very much like a video game)

I actually like James Cameron's approach to somewhat solve this. He converged the two images exactly where he wants you to focus the whole movie, so if it's blurry, that's not where he wants you to focus at.
Of course this also means pop out effects will never be in focus, but this way it's pretty seamless. (other 3d movies sometimes want you to focus either closer or further from the convergence)
As far as i know this is the only movie to do this at this point (and in my opinion this would be the way to go about 3d stereo in more "serious" movies, like dramas, etc.)

What you're asking for is impossible for a live action movie. But, to be honest i don't see what the big deal is. When you're watching a 2d movie you have exactly the same problem: If you look elsewhere to where the camera is focused at... it looks blurry.
I don't see anyone complaining about that in 2d movies. O_o

It's funny though, 3d games (i mean 3d rendered, not just 3d stereo), for the longest time didn't have depth of field. And now that they can add depth of field due to more powerful graphics chips, they rarely use it outside of cinematics so the player isn't forced to be focus one particular thing. (there's plenty of games where they do use field of view for stuff like sniper scopes, etc.)
I think this is a far bigger deal in games, since in a lot of games there really isn't something you should always be staring at specifically (regardless if it's 3d stereo or not) So, it's a good thing this has never been an issue in games due to depth of field being something entirely optional. (funny how video games always add camera "mistakes" to make it look more real, such as HDR, Lens flare, etc.)

The only way to do something like what you're asking for, would be real time field of view for 3d rendered movies (or some kind of blurring for live action ones) where there's a sensor scanning your eye to adjust blur/focus where you're directly staring at. This would also only work for one person per screen though.
This may happen in video games one day, but i wouldn't hold my breath. Specially since it really isn't a big deal.
Kamus is offline  
post #96 of 103 Old 02-08-2010, 09:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
Sisyphus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post

Not gonna happen. Unless it's a 3d rendered movie where the director made the decision of not using depth of field at all. (everything would be in focus at all times, very much like a video game)

The entire image, for the most part, can be in focus. Shoot a foreground in focus; then, separately shoot a background in focus. Green screen the two. Repeat for as many layers as needed. In 2D having a fixed focal point doesn't seem to bother us really, but in 3D it seems our visual system wants to be able to focus.
Sisyphus is offline  
post #97 of 103 Old 02-08-2010, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post


The only way to do something like what you're asking for, would be real time field of view for 3d rendered movies (or some kind of blurring for live action ones) where there's a sensor scanning your eye to adjust blur/focus where you're directly staring at. This would also only work for one person per screen though.
This may happen in video games one day, but i wouldn't hold my breath. Specially since it really isn't a big deal.

Actually your natural eye works like that. There is a scene in Avatar where there is a display near the camera and a little further back is Jake Sully and Dr. Augustine staring at the display, and in the distance behind them are a few other actors. Everything in the frame is in focus, but you can only focus on one thing at a time. I've seen the movie 3 times and each time I roll the focus in my eyes to the different planes during that shot. When you focus on the display, everything else appears out of focus, and when you focus on the main characters, the display appears out of focus---the point is that you get to choose where to focus during that shot, just like you would in real life. I wish that the entire 3D movie was shot using a medium lens at a high enough f stop to keep everything in focus. Of course that would dramatically change the way movies have been made since motion pictures were invented, and it would severely limit the director's and DP's creative choices, but it would make for some fantastic 3D.
fire407 is offline  
post #98 of 103 Old 02-09-2010, 04:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire407 View Post

Everything in the frame is in focus, but you can only focus on one thing at a time..

I think what you're referring to is eye convergence, this is different from focus.
Seeing double objects means your eyes are converged on a specific object. (you are basically doing cross eyes to converge the two different images)

On the other hand, focus can be done with one or both eyes if you want to.
Try it: Hold your hand close to your eye (either one eye open or both), and focus on something far away and it will become blurry, focus on your hand and far away objects will blur.
Eye convergence works in 3d movies because you are seeing two different images of slightly different perspective, just like you do in real objects.
But focus doesn't work, because the two images are superimposed in the exact same physical space. (so you're only really focusing the screen, so focus simply doesn't really change)
So, eye convergence = crossed eyes.
This is how 3d stereo is done.
The part of the image that is converged will seem to be at where the screen is, and crosseyed stuff will appear to be in front of the screen.
This means that stuff that "pops out" is inverted:
The left image will be closer to your right eye, and the right image will be closer to your left eye, that's how "pop out" effects are done.
The part where the two images overlap eachother will appear to be right where the screen is, and anything further back will be "normal", in the sense that the left image is closer to the left eye, and the right image is closer to the right eye, but they're still different points of views so they'll appear to have depth.

What James Cameron did on Avatar, is that unlike other movies, he always has the convergence where he wants the audience to be staring at, this is why "pop out" effects in Avatar are very rare, and will always be out of focus.

Other directors may want you to stare at the "pop out effect" instead, and simply not put the convergence at where you're supposed to be staring.

I personally think that both ways have their justified use.
The Avatar approach can even work on a serious drama with out making it seem "gimmicky" by focusing mainly on the story. And some action movies and just about every videogame can use the more traditional "gimmicky" approach for extra impact.

The best example i can think off of using every 3d trick in the book for added impact may be a Christmas Carol, and they used it very successfully IMO, you really feel taken on a ride on that one.
Kamus is offline  
post #99 of 103 Old 02-28-2010, 05:12 PM
Newbie
 
Arksun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Those that prefer Imax and RealD need to catch up on VIDEOPHILIA for dummies handbook page 101," NEVER USE A PERFORATED SILVER SCREEN."

WTF is wrong with you guys?

Sorry, but you clearly haven't been to see a RealD screening recently and are deluded if you think the shutter based techniques are better.

Now I watched a movie on a digital projector couple years back (Slumdog Millionare), in 2D of course, found the image to be grainy and contrast was poor.

So I'll be honest, I was dubious as to what Avatar would be like but, I finally went to see it at my local cinema.

There they have upgraded to the Sony 4K Projectors, so its RealD XLS (where both L/R images are displayed simultaneusly instead of switching 144 times a second).

The screen was of course silver.

I was absolutely blown away by the picture quality. Incredibly sharp, focused, 3D soo good it had this insane tangible physical feel to it. The colours were amazing, brightness spot on and absolutely NO grainyness of any kind whatsoever.

Before the film started there was the disney blah blah ad. Pure white background, perfectly uniform.

The only slight ghosting I experienced was in some of the very close objects on side track movements but, this is no different to the blur I've seen on 2D films with such movement (thanks to the 24 frames per second that its shot at).

Why oh why we've stuck to these low frame rates I'll never know. I would very much look very much forward to future films in both 3D and 48 FPS.

But yeah, save the theory on why silver screens might be bad, in reality, based on the viewing I experienced today, i am totally sold on 3D, in particular the RealD XLS. I love it, no electronics in the glasses to go wrong and they're soo light you dont really notice wearing them.

My vote goes for RealD XLS all the way
Arksun is offline  
post #100 of 103 Old 03-13-2010, 01:51 PM
Member
 
kevinsert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Turkey
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Making subtitles for 3D Movies (xpand) is really expensive?
In my country i only saw avatar got released with subs rest of the imax and reald movies were dubbed.
kevinsert is offline  
post #101 of 103 Old 03-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Member
 
kevinsert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Turkey
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsert View Post

Making subtitles for 3D Movies (xpand) is really expensive?
In my country i only saw avatar got released with subs rest of the imax and reald movies were dubbed.

no answer ?
kevinsert is offline  
post #102 of 103 Old 03-14-2010, 10:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,738
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked: 78
It is very hard to understand what the film dubbing policies are on a country by country basis specially for 3-D.

You raise a good point, maybe Cameron with his gazillion dollar technological budget setup a department in charge of global subtitles. Those were very pretty blue Navi style subtitles, so it is pretty reasonable that Avatar was the exception.

Maybe the studios do not have at the moment the capability, or it is too expensive to do subtitles in 3-D for movies.

Certainly for Blu-ray 3-D an entire set of tools had to be developed to properly display subtitles.

Time will tell, in the meantime you should ask/PM forum member: Aidoru he owns a digital cinema in Italy, maybe he can tell you.

Regards
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #103 of 103 Old 03-15-2010, 11:03 AM
Member
 
Aidoru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsert View Post

(...) In my country i only saw avatar got released with subs rest of the imax and reald movies were dubbed.

As for AVATAR, I'm pretty sure that every localized version was made in the US, there's no way 3D subtitles could be added at a later time by local versioning offices.

Generally speaking, CINERAMAX is right: every country works differently, for example in Italy basically every single mainstream movie is dubbed, whereas other nations tend to use subtitles more. It's a matter of culture, habit and cinemagoers' preference. At least here, knowledge of foreign languages - including English - is almost non-existent, and only a few people are willing to be "bothered" with subs.

Every now and then, especially with Digital, you can ask for OV copies, but they're generally captioned in native language as well, so they're of very limited use.
Aidoru is offline  
Reply D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off