Silver screens for 3D home cinema: a flawed solution? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 42 Old 01-30-2010, 05:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

All 3 of my screening of AVATAR in 3D, other than being a touch dim, were spectacular. Absolutely spectacular. The sharptest, clearest, most immersive image I've ever seen projected. I've seen several 70mm projections that had better color saturation because of the brighter image (Hello Dolly in 70mm was mind blowing).

In any case, other that slight dimming, the Real3D projections of Avatar that I've seen (at 2 different locations) were astonishing. And no hotspotting in 3D. Supposedly Real3D uses a screen in theaters that's a hybrid type that also works for 2D, though I haven't seen it in 2D to really know how well it would perform.

I saw it in digital IMAX (twice at the same place), film IMAX once and Dolby 3D once

film IMAX had the largest projected size by a bit (for some reason they didn't use the full screen width, if they had then it would've been largest projected size by far, as it was they appeared to not utlize a good 4' on either side of the screen, 1.78:1 ratio); a touch dim, some motion blurring, but generally spectacular; all together somehow it seemed the most impressive

digital IMAX very bright and rich, decent screen size, maybe a 61' wide 1.85:1 screen or so (but side-boxed to perhaps 59' width for 1.78:1 Avatar)

dolby 3D on a 2.34:1 screen as 2.34:1 which is not as effective a ratio for this movie as 1.78:1, certainly not in 3D, at least, the dimmest projection, a somewhat smaller screen, maybe 45' wide?? i also noticed some odd double images at times looking toward the edges and the orange/red text on the see through screen when he gave his scientific reports, in particular, had some weird color shifting and shimmering going on with it (this was not the case with either of the IMAX showings, film or digital); the glasses also had some internal reflections visible unlike with the others


that said it was a pretty amazing experience in all three cases, even the worst was definitely something, but did, by a pretty good margin, prefer the two IMAX showings
skibum5000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 42 Old 01-31-2010, 12:02 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 damnsam77 View Post

I fully agree with Kamus! I really think Shutter Glasses is the superior solution, considering that 240hz glasses/projectors, and bigger lumens are provided on the upcoming 3D active projectors


Well, just so we're clear, i don't consider Infitec inferior to Shutter.
The fact is, when all is said and done all techs work just fine.
But if we're gonna get technical, here's some fun facts:
extintion ratios:
Active: >100:1 (your average shutter glasses)
Passive linear: >250:1 (very angle dependent)
Passive Circular: >100:1 (this is what real D uses)
Infitec: >1000:1 (Dolby 3d uses infitec, but with even higher quality narrowband filters I've read)

So, most of these techs aren't very angle dependent except for linear polarized. That said, people that i know have polarized setups prefer it over circular because of it's higher ext. ratio (less ghosting)

As you can see, Infitec filters offer the best ext ratio of all the techs, which should translate to less crosstalk.

Now, i'm a bit skeptical on the Active ext ratio, this probably varies from brand to brand in shutters.

Only polarized filters (both circular and linear) require a silver screen.

Here's the prices on the glasses:

Infitec: $100 to $400

Dolby 3d: $27 (they don't charge nearly as much for the "licensing" since they do wholesale, but as you can see they're still pretty expensive due to the high price of the filters)

Circular / Linear polarized glasses: 25 cents and up. 25 cents would be wholesale cheap cardboard glasses, much like the anaglyph ones. Nice and big plastic glasses are about a buck each though, and you can pay a lot more if you buy branded (but better looking) glasses.

Shutter: $40 and up, with quality shutter glasses being anywhere from $100 bucks and up, and quality does vary a lot in shutter glasses in different price ranges, at least for now.


Again, all of these methods yield very good quality 3d, although on paper a properly color corrected Infitec setup should have the less crosstalk and is a good compromise in price if you plan on buying lots of glasses (as oposed to spending a lot on shutter ones) if you plan on using a white screen.

All of these methods have their share of light loss, and i'm sure that different brands of shutter glasses will yield different results in this regard.

Also, it's worth noting that if you use Stereopol filters you will have the least amount of light loss, and preserve up to 65% of the original light output. (this is much higher than other methods, regular polarizers are about 40% efficient)
These are pretty expensive compared to regular polarized filters though. They're available for both circular and linear polarized configurations.
Also, i'm not sure these filters work with all projection technologies, i remember reading some limitations on these on certain techs. But, don't quote me on this, i'd have to read up on this again.
So, for people concerned about the light loss, this is worth looking into if you have a huge screen.
Kamus is offline  
post #33 of 42 Old 01-31-2010, 12:05 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 8writer View Post

Just gotta weigh in on this one.

3D is just a marketing tool to get people out of their HT's and back down to the Cinema. Nothing more.

Step back in time a few decades and look at the Rise and Fall of Cinerama.
...

Don't care about any of this, at all.

I've been a fan of 3d long before 3d came to modern movies, this just makes it sweeter for me, since i will now have more content in 3d.
If you don't like it, don't view it in 3d, the 2d version isn't going away.
Kamus is offline  
post #34 of 42 Old 01-31-2010, 12:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mikenificent1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Z3VH View Post

Joe Kane obviously does not have all the facts. Dolby Lab's Dolby3D maintains picture fidelity just fine on a white screen, and doesn't lose brightness. They use a colour frequency filter on the projector(s) that allows for cheap, replaceable passive glasses, and any white screen you feel comfortable with. Much better than headache inducing shutter glasses.

It's ironic how you're accusing Joe Kane of not having the facts when you're the clueless one that has no idea what they're talking about. Dolby 3D has immense light loss, around 60-70% and shutter glasses with high frame rates does not cause headaches. Just because the Dolby glasses are cheap does not mean the complete solution is cheap; you still need the color correction box (which alone costs thousands of dollars) and the most expensive part, an extra projector which shutter technology does not need! So again, you are the one that is clueless, not Joe Kane.
Mikenificent1 is offline  
post #35 of 42 Old 01-31-2010, 08:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Z3VH View Post

Joe Kane obviously does not have all the facts. Dolby Lab's Dolby3D maintains picture fidelity just fine on a white screen, and doesn't lose brightness. They use a colour frequency filter on the projector(s) that allows for cheap, replaceable passive glasses, and any white screen you feel comfortable with. Much better than headache inducing shutter glasses.

Also, until they come out with better display hardware, your shutter glasses will not be anything close to professional theatre shutter glasses, because they need 144Hz to meet the specification of 3Hz-per-frame-per-eye that is required. This limits current 120Hz technology to only 2Hz-per-frame-per-eye which causes a much larger reduction in brightness, and a much more noticeable flicker effect.

Personally, I will go with the two-projector Dolby3D solution if/when it comes out. If not, I will still prefer buying a silver screen to use passive circular polarization.

True about the Dolby systems and I had hoped to use it on high end 3-D implementations for the home BUT DOLBY HAS BTHE IP OF IT LOCKED UP AND IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT's USE OUTSIDE CINEMAS. So shutter glasses it is for homes.

These are the diagrams I was pitching before I spoke to Infitec (the Dolby System Inventor) and they basically said they could not talk to me contractually.



CINERAMAX is online now  
post #36 of 42 Old 02-03-2010, 07:01 AM
Member
 
jonasandezekial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Please, oh please......will the 3D craze just die and go away for goodness sake????
Whats next, SMELLAVISION??
jonasandezekial is offline  
post #37 of 42 Old 02-03-2010, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonasandezekial View Post

Please, oh please......will the 3D craze just die and go away for goodness sake????
Whats next, SMELLAVISION??

Statements like that are about as intelligent as folks making fun of talkies in the 1920's. There's no more intellectual justification for decrying the legitimacy of adding a depth-perception component to our video reproduction media than there would be for suggesting that color, or detail, or panaramic widescreen images that fill our peripheral vision, or multi-channel sound are somehow unfit for cinema.

Whether you or anyone personally likes 3D or not, like anything that one likes or doesn't like, is a personal opinion. But I can't understand at a forum like AVS how real discussion about augmenting our image reproduction chain to encompass depth perception seems to be beyond the ability of so many so-called film enthusiasts.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #38 of 42 Old 02-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Member
 
jonasandezekial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Statements like that are about as intelligent as folks making fun of talkies in the 1920's. There's no more intellectual justification for decrying the legitimacy of adding a depth-perception component to our video reproduction media than there would be for suggesting that color, or detail, or panaramic widescreen images that fill our peripheral vision, or multi-channel sound are somehow unfit for cinema.

Whether you or anyone personally likes 3D or not, like anything that one likes or doesn't like, is a personal opinion. But I can't understand at a forum like AVS how real discussion about augmenting our image reproduction chain to encompass depth perception seems to be beyond the ability of so many so-called film enthusiasts.

Wow, those are some mighty big words....impressive.
I think posting an opinion is just fine-in my opinion of course-but if you, Mr. Videophile, don't think you're being milked DRY by the latest technologies from the display manufacturers, movie industry, et al, then, good for you. I guess then your bank account is even more impressive than your knowledge of Webster's. I'll stick with my OPINION that 3D has little to do with enjoying a real movie. It will most certainly be used in lieu of a real plot with REAL characters. (Think Avatar.)
jonasandezekial is offline  
post #39 of 42 Old 02-03-2010, 09:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonasandezekial View Post

Wow, those are some mighty big words....impressive.
I think posting an opinion is just fine-in my opinion of course-but if you, Mr. Videophile, don't think you're being milked DRY by the latest technologies from the display manufacturers, movie industry, et al, then, good for you. I guess then your bank account is even more impressive than your knowledge of Webster's. I'll stick with my OPINION that 3D has little to do with enjoying a real movie. It will most certainly be used in lieu of a real plot with REAL characters. (Think Avatar.)

That same argument has been used by someone somewhere against step of image progress we've seen.

There are plenty of "movie lovers" who "don't like HD" because they say that "the movie" is more important to them than picture quality... suggesting that caring about image quality somehow negates a meaningful movie-experience or runs contrary to the artistic intentions of the director.

I'm sure you could explain to indiviuals espousing that short-sighted view how image quality and the quality of the movie itself (or one's ability connect with the movie) aren't mutually exclusive. Why can't the same be true for 3D?

Just like surround sound, just like great picture quality and special effects, some films will be bad "movies" that excel in technical image quality. Does that mean that good technical quality is a bad thing? Or does it just mean that technical effects alone aren't worth the while unless someone makes a good movie with a good story to go along with them.

Same with 3D.

This notion that 3D is somehow fundamentally different than other image-criteria has no basis. Why can't 3D live and play by the same rules as any other option in the image-rendering palette for an artist?

Have you seen Coraline? Pretty damn artsitic. And very immersive with a sense of depth that really created for a more compelling experience over the flat 2D version. Anyone who feels that 3D is only a gimmick or that it's only applicable to action films or movies that rely on effects more than character and plot should see Coraline in 3D to discover just how much the depth-dimension can add to the visual art that supports the film.


As for the suggestion that by supporting a new possibility in image reproduction like 3D must mean that one is rich, Were you anti-1080p before you could afford a 1080p display? Were you anti HD DVD/BD before you could afford a new player? Were you anti-DVD before you could afford a DVD player? Weren't AV enthusiasts on a budget still allowed to get excited about DVD, HDTV, and 1080p dispays even when the initial technology might have been too expensive for them to afford? Can't these same enthusaists be excited about 3D without being told that they must be wealthy?

Why not just enjoy the fact that you can keep watching just what you want on the gear you have, and welcome the fact that if/when you choose to upgrade to the latest-techology, the longer you wait the better and more affordable it will be? Your 3D HDTV you buy 3 years from now will cost less than the 2D HD set you have today. 3D coming along doesn't hurt any 2D system or 2D collection in any way.

I can't afford to buy a new 3D projector when 3D comes to market in 2010. But I hope to do so in 3-4 years when prices are more affordable. However, I'm able to be excited about image-reproduction progress even while I wait to find the means to purchase it. And I don't consider it being milked-dry when I'm being given the *choice* to buy or not to buy. Having the chance to buy Coraline on 3D 1080p blu-ray, which will play on my 2D player with no problem in the meantime, is a privileged choice that I'm offered, not a "milking".

Quote:
I'll stick with my OPINION that 3D has little to do with enjoying a real movie.

That is indeed your opinion, and a perfectly valid one. It's the arguments you've provided to support that opinion that I take issue with.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #40 of 42 Old 02-04-2010, 12:25 AM
Member
 
KuroNeko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Indeed - Wow!

I certainly hope he's a salesman for the 3D lobby, otherwise he's missed his vocation and is doing it for free

Anyway, this seems to have become a pro/contra 3D thread rather than about silver screens, so I'll shut up and let the experts on that matter have their say instead.

Neko
KuroNeko is offline  
post #41 of 42 Old 02-04-2010, 07:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by KuroNeko View Post

I certainly hope he's a salesman for the 3D lobby, otherwise he's missed his vocation and is doing it for free

Google my posts and you'll see that I advocated for 16x9 anamorphic DVD (was nearly banned from HTF for doing so), pushed for DVD adoption over laserdisc when Criterion and other industry sources were suggesting that DVD was inferior (yes, they really did), and lobbied for Blu-ray's 50GB over HD DVD's 30 with much greater zeal than anything I've posted for 3D.

IMO, it's all about supporting the progress if image reproduction. And when 4K and higher color-gammete formats and displays are on the horizon, I'll advocate for those too. 3D is just one of many steps along the way, and like all of those other advancements mentioned above, for some reason it gets misunderstood, just like each of those other steps were cause for confusion and debate.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #42 of 42 Old 03-26-2010, 01:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Google my posts and you'll see that I advocated for 16x9 anamorphic DVD (was nearly banned from HTF for doing so), pushed for DVD adoption over laserdisc when Criterion and other industry sources were suggesting that DVD was inferior (yes, they really did), and lobbied for Blu-ray's 50GB over HD DVD's 30 with much greater zeal than anything I've posted for 3D.

IMO, it's all about supporting the progress if image reproduction. And when 4K and higher color-gammete formats and displays are on the horizon, I'll advocate for those too. 3D is just one of many steps along the way, and like all of those other advancements mentioned above, for some reason it gets misunderstood, just like each of those other steps were cause for confusion and debate.

Maybe 3D BD will finally convince me that BD was the right choice - my wife still claims BD doesn't look as good as HD DVD! Anyway, I certainly like 3D and that's what attracted me to digital projectors with frame interpolation - Coraline in 2D with FI on looks amazing with depth that looks extremely 3D. It doesn't look as good as Monsters vs. Aliens (in 3D) on the Samsung 3D T.V., but pretty close! I can at least understand your enthusiasm - no one is forced to buy new tech,; however, on this forum you are probably going to feel somewhat left out when threads that are raving about the latest 3D release start showing up. The resistance to change is guaranteed - VHS (and LD) to DVD, DVD to BD, BD to 3D BD and on and on. When all the networks moved to broadcasting T.V. programs in colour - that's when consumers really bought in (how do I know - well I was there!). Change is coming on faster and faster and I can understand the resistance since we just got that new LCD or Plasma T.V. and now what? It is time to upgrade again! Screw that you say! Remember, resistance is futile.
Deja Vu is online now  
Reply Community News & Polls

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