AVATAR ? Xpand 3d, Dolby 3d, Reald 3d which one?

the Arclight Cinemas in Hollywood choose Xpand for their 3D use and they claim to have a bright image with no ghosting effect.
They have a video on their Facebook page but you have to have a Facebook account to view.
https://www.arclightcinemas.com/ArcLight/faces/Home.jsp

see "The Dome Goes 3D!"

I vote for Xpand because I've never seen a movie with their glasses and you could report back how good it was! Seriously, the best 3D I've ever seen was back in the 90's when IMAX (film) used shutter glasses. I still think they work better than passive. No possibility of color shift or ghosting.

No ghosting eh?
This is simply not true, I've seen my share of ghosting on shutter glasses, it varies from brand to brand.

I saw Avatar on Real D, saw no ghosting at all (a first for me with Real D, I've always managed to see some ghosting, even if just a tiny amount on all Real D movies I've seen)
The theater i went to could clearly use a new bulb though, daytime scenes looked more like early morning or evening.

I watched Avatar in RealD with a couple of buddies. I had very high hopes for the technology but it really, really fell flat. For whatever reason, my eyes began burning within 10 minutes of the film and the pain never stopped. It was the overly-tired eyes feeling I'd get from being up playing video games for a 12 hour run at a LAN party. Without the glasses, the screen brightness seemed correct (but obviously blurry) -- with them, it seemed to be a bit dark. There were 3-d effect, but you kind had to constantly refocus or "concentrate" to see it correctly.

My buddies all came out of the theater with the same underwhelming feeling about the technology. Not only did it seem like a gimmick, it was a bad, painful one at that. Everyone had sore eyes and a headache. This lead me to start poking around this morning and I found what might possibly be an explanation:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15503902

I'm thinking that the theater may have screwed up the polarity. My buddy (who's the biggest Cameron fan out there) decided to go watch the movie later this week without 3d - he thinks it'll be much "clearer" and won't give him a headache. I was planning on seeing it again in a 3d Imax theater.

In any case, this thread talks about the technical differences between the techologies:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1085037

If I knew of a place around here showing it on DLP in 2D I would probably go check it out, but I don't know of any. And I don't think I am interested enough to go to a 2D film presentation around here. I might try a Sony 4K digital projector in 2D if I knew of one, but I would be afraid that they would have left a 3D system in place and reduced the resolution and light output. I thought Up on a Sony 4K digital in 3D was pretty bland (probably not bright enough), so I wouldn't be too enthused about that combination for Avatar.

One thing I think he would get with the 2D presentation is 2.35:1.

I hope you do and report back. I saw it in digital 3D IMAX partially because I thought the 2 projectors would help keep things bright enough and it did the trick for me. I thought it was just about right. In the past I thought digital IMAX in 2D was too bright for at least one movie. As much as I've made fun of these digital IMAX theaters in the past, I think it worked great for Avatar in 3D.

--Darin

Saw Avatar in Dolby 3D. Perfect 3D presentation, with the exception of motion artifacts, which seem unavoidable with all sequential 3D. I'm really excited to watch this in blu-ray 3D next year with a dual projection setup that eliminates motion artifacts. About 15 minutes into the movie the 3D felt pretty comfortable, and after an hour or so I pretty much forgot I had glasses on.

What was really interesting is that this felt like one of the most intense visual experiences I've had watching a movie. I've seen lots of films presented on digital projectors, but nothing like this. It's hard to describe, but the 3D effect was more than just visual, there was a psychological effect or something going on in the brain that made certain scenes feel almost dream-like.

Saw it in RealD. No issues at all. the 3D was outstanding. The foreground AND the background were in focus almost all the time. Only in extreme closeups did the background lose focus. They showed it in an AR of 2.00.

No IMAX theaters of any kind in my area.

I sat about 1/2 way back. Next month I will see it again and sit a bit closer - about 1/3 back is the sweet spot for my theater.

I pre-purchased tix for the IMAX version... I'll let you know.

Get there early and sit smack in the middle H/V of the screen for best results. I did and it was fantastic.

You know Avatar is going to change the horsepower requirement for front projection at home...

Well: I'm almost completely certain that the projection setup in my first RealD viewing of Avatar was somehow fouled up. I just returned from seeing the movie in Imax 3d and the difference was significant. I explained in my earlier post that the RealD viewing caused eye strain and pain. In contrast, the Imax 3d was flawless. Aside from some slight haze from smudges and scratches in the junky glasses they gave me, the film was crystal clear and felt 100% natural on the eyes. There was no "getting used to it" warm-up time. It just worked.

The main difference between the two viewings was noticeable from the moment the trailers started: It was the depth of the 3d effect. In the RealD theater, the depth seemed highly exaggerated -- I think I was going cross-eyed half the time trying to follow various people and objects. There seemed to be no way to keep a consistent focal depth, and as a result there was quite a bit of blurriness.

In contrast, the Imax 3d effect seemed almost muted: the depth was realistic and did not distract at all. There were still plenty of times that there seemed to be leaves and ashes floating only inches away, but it felt completely natural and part of the experience. My eyes kept the same focus throughout. It seemed more like a traditional movie screening with additional depth.

I don't know nearly enough about the RealD technology to even guess what might have been wrong with that first theater. It's difficult to describe, but when your eyes are sending you visual queues that don't make sense it ends up being a very uncomfortable experience and you know something isn't right. I'll send a note to the RealD.com support guys and let them know that I had a problem with the theater - perhaps they'll look into it.

And while this is starting to get expensive, I'm also considering watching Avatar one last time in another RealD theater to prove to myself that it was the theater and not the technology. I'll drop a note if I do.

I saw the midnight showing at a an IMAX theater, and the 3D was outstanding. Not perfect, but still outstanding and very convincing. After you adjust to it. There were some instances of issues with focus, bit those were fleeting and not at all frequent. I do hope that 3D improves in movies, but at the same time I don't. There are still so many issues we have with viewing movies at home now and I wold really like to see those get addressed before moving on to 3D.

I saw it in 2D at the Arclight Cinemas in Hollywood and it was a great movie, I want to try it next in Xpand3D at the same theaters. They outfitted the Dome with dual NEC digital projectors to combat the brightness issues with 3D.

That's what I love about the Arclight, pre-assigned seating in all theaters. Just buy your ticket early and you can pick your seats.

I still think the IMAX presentation could have used a couple of kilowatts more per projector lamp, the scenes in the jungle looked a bit crushed.

Still very very good though, with minimal ghosting contained to small micro areas at mid parallax.

What kind of 3d does this theater have? All I can find out is 'digital 3d'. It doesn't appear on reald or dolby digital 3d lists.

AMC Loews Menlo Park 12
390 Menlo Park, Edison, NJ

Sony, AMC theaters in digital deal

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/extURLs.aspx?id=347

at my theater the movies was just amazing no blurring or ghosting at all really bright too. i don't know what kind of projector do they use other than it is a 3D digital projector, shooter glasses. it was a regal theater about 2 years old.
it could had been due to where i was sitting too center of 5th row i think it was

i would like to go to imax & see if it looks even better.

i think I'm sold. I'm getting a 3d tv next year if they can produce the same effects i saw at this theater.

Thanks. So Sony projectors are RealD, but AMC Imax 3d is different?

IMAX signed a deal with Christie. They install 2 PJ's in a LieMAX theater.

I don't know what the exact method of 3D they would use - I will guess and say polarization.

It's like when they advertise Disney Digital 3D - what's that? Especially when the movie plays in a RealD theater.

It's just a stupid 30sec. intro trailer to showcase that Disney Digital provided the audience with the 3D presentation they are about to see. We still played our RealD trailer as well, Feature Presentation trailer and then the Disney Digital 3D trailer before their 3D feature film. It really means nothing other then Disney made a 3D film

Both IMAX film and digital use 45 degree polarization.

Yep, the amc theater with 'digital 3d' gave me RealD glasses, even though it's not listed on RealD sites. I think the 3d looked sharper and more noticeable than the amc pseudo-imax 3d theater.

The viewer comments are better than the article.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/hero...ng-old-2d.html

I saw Avatar in a RealD theater in Lowell, MA on Tuesday. It was bright, clear, and effortlessly immersive. I saw Avatar in a Dolby 3D theater in Hooksett, NH tonight. It was fuzzy, low-resolution, too dark, and had a fogged appearance. I tried my wife's glasses, they were the same. My left eye's view was darker than the right's. And the green "Exit" sign was causing reflections inside the glasses (which I cleaned with great care--they needed it after the previous user).

I'm surprised to read about Dolby 3D's supposed technical superiority here. I realize that different theaters have different setups, but after tonight's disappointment I can't imagine spending the money on Dolby 3D again, at least not at the Hooksett Cinemagic Theater.

I do wear eyeglasses for distance vision. Perhaps that is an important factor in Dolby 3D's apparent inferiority.

I'll give IMAX 3D a try. That system was reasonably good with the Space Station movie.

I have no affiliation with any of these technologies. I was a videographer and editor in a previous career, and now I work with medical software image processing. I don't claim to be an expert; I only know what looks good to me.

-T

Anybody see it on the XD 3D Theater? Im thinking of check it out.

4K Sony projector with RealD beat 2K Barco projector with Dolby 3D.

I went with my family to the Alamo Drafthouse Village (on Anderson Ln in Austin Texas) and watched Avatar in RealD 3D. RealD gives you these disposable glasses that have circular polarization, clockwise for one eye and counterclockwise for the other eye. This theater has converted over completely to Sony 4K projectors. It was stunning. No ghosting, good brightness and crisp detail. Foreground and background were sharp and in focus. I was so impressed by the visuals I decided to go again. Despite a terrible plot with 1 dimensional characters. Can I watch it on mute?

Due to scheduling I ended up at the Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek (off 183 north) for my second viewing. I thought they'd have the same setup. But the glasses were different. Turns out this theater has Barco DP-2000 projectors with Dolby 3D. Dolby 3D uses color separation glasses, so they are heavier and have red/green kind of glass lenses. My pair of lenses were dirty and I had to clean them, a problem RealD and their disposible glasses don't have. They also are really reflective so you get some light reflection off your face, which is kind of distracting. But the main thing I think that hindered this viewing is that the Barco DP-2000 is a 2K projector. 1/4 as many pixels as the sony projector at the other theater. The end result was that some of the image seemed blurry at times, like it was out of focus. This is really apparent with the background which tends to look fuzzy or out of focus a lot. But no ghosting. The depth didn't seem too crisp either. Still a nice image overall, the 3D is better than a 2D image.

It's my understanding that with the Sony 4K projector it essentially splits into 2 2K projectors by using 2 lenses so you get a true dual projector setup with a single projector.

I'd like to see a 4K Dolby 3D vs 4K RealD.

Both the Sony 4K and the Barco 2K have the same resolution for L/R eye.
The differerence was probably due to underpowered/badly set up and throw/screen size differences + wear and tear of glasses being cleaned many times (scratched)


The Sony puts up the L/R image at the screen at the same time. The Barco alternates the the images 3 times pr. 3D frame 144Hz.

A dual 3D projetion upset will either alternate the frames between the projectors like with one projector or use the "Over Under" method used with the Sony and the 3D system developed by Technicolor for film.

So the difference you experienced lay somewhere else than where you concludes.

The Sony method; no 4K image;

If that's the case then the Sony/RealD setup should have better motion resolution.

With frame-sequential Dolby3D any significant motion on screen will cause the image to blur or break up/artifact, you will see a trail behind objects. Even though images are alternating between eyes, the frames should be in-sync. So maybe these motion artifacts are visible because there is an after-image in the visual system, and the after-image would not be in sync with the next frame.

All three digital 3D systems, RealD, Dolby3D and XpanD 3D, use 144Hz triple flash on DLP projectors.
Most, if not all of the artifacts/blur comes from the fact that 3D movies like Avatar are filmed at 24fps., so you get the same motion blur and motion judder as in 2D movie.
This would have improved if the movies where shot at 48fps. or higher framerate, which was what Cameron wanted initially.

In addition was Avatar lit and focused as a 2D movie because it first and foremost had to work as a 2D movie, because most people would see it in 2D.

In some years when there are more 3D cinemas and 3D movies are shot at higher framerate, with higher resolution cameras and projectors, and with deeper DOF, 3D movies will look very different.

3D movies and display today is just a primitive preliminary of how 3D should be created and presented.