or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Official 3D Projector Thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official 3D Projector Thread. - Page 6

post #151 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My point is I want better than Avatar I iwant 3D shot with a two lens camera without gimmicks. OK. Perhaps some immersive effects like things flying around you and in my face but please no depth for objects mid or far field. Make it look like Iwas there.

Did you see UP or Coraline in 3D? Up is CGI, but Coraline is analog modeling and so it represented 100% "real" 3D from stereoscopic cameras. Coraline was gorgeous.
post #152 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My point is I want better than Avatar I iwant 3D shot with a two lens camera without gimmicks. OK. Perhaps some immersive effects like things flying around you and in my face but please no depth for objects mid or far field. Make it look like Iwas there.

I actually thought the 3D in "Avatar" was quite restrained. It didn't seem like Cameron made it a point to purposely have objects fly into the camera for that "3D" effect, or perhaps he purposely avoided it. To me, there was "immersion" because the 3D didn't seem forced. In no time at all during the screening I saw in IMAX 3D, I felt as if "I was there". There have been other films I've seen in 3D such as "Beowulf" where I thought there were shots that were "gimmicky", but certainly not with "Avatar".

Having said that, I actually don't mind "gimmicky"! Probably one of the best 3D experiences I've ever had was at this "real" IMAX 3D ride at the Luxor in Vegas where the screen was a dome for the full 180 degree field of view. It was relatively low resolution, which was the only drawback, but it had all types of thing flying into the "camera" which I thought was excellent, and really made me duck my head at times. Of course the motion ride along with it helped as well!
post #153 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My point is I want better than Avatar I iwant 3D shot with a two lens camera without gimmicks. OK. Perhaps some immersive effects like things flying around you and in my face but please no depth for objects mid or far field. Make it look like Iwas there.

You know Avatar was shot with a two lens system. Are you saying that you didn't like the "gimmicks?"
post #154 of 346
Often,the actrs in the fore ground were in 2D not 3D. looked like card board compared tothose instanceswhen they were in 3D. Why put them in 2D and then fact the miod and far dimensionality,ooh ah?
post #155 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Often,the actrs in the fore ground were in 2D not 3D. looked like card board compared tothose instanceswhen they were in 3D. Why put them in 2D and then fact the miod and far dimensionality,ooh ah?

I think that's more a limitation of today's 3D technology than anything else. Unless you frame an extreme close-up, it's going to be difficult to get a real "3D" effect just within an actor's face, for example. And you're correct, when it's a shot that also includes objects in the "mid or far field" that's in focus, anything in the "near field" will look 2D in relation.

Having said that, I know some filmmaker's use rigs which spaces the cameras further apart to exaggerate the 3D effect, where the 3D on the screen is more pronounced than in "real-life". That could be a "solution", but it also pronounces the depth of mid and far field objects even more.
post #156 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn View Post

Having said that, I know some filmmaker's use rigs which spaces the cameras further apart to exaggerate the 3D effect, where the 3D on the screen is more pronounced than in "real-life". That could be a "solution", but it also pronounces the depth of mid and far field objects even more.

I actually believe this can be part of the problem. If you look at pictures of the 3D cameras, most, if not all, have the lenses much further apart than human eyes. Spacing the cameras far apart increases the 3D effect, but it also makes it less realistic and I believe this can cause the cut-out cardboard effect. The sense of depth is so great that the objects themselves seem flatter in comparison.

This is of course just speculation...
post #157 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I actually believe this can be part of the problem. If you look at pictures of the 3D cameras, most, if not all, have the lenses much further apart than human eyes. Spacing the cameras far apart increases the 3D effect, but it also makes it less realistic and I believe this can cause the cut-out cardboard effect. The sense of depth is so great that the objects themselves seem flatter in comparison.

This is of course just speculation...

Yes, that's true, and that's why I said, "but it also pronounces the depth of mid and far field objects even more". It would only really help when it's for tight shots on the face or person. Then again, it might also produce a "Pinocchio effect" if the person's face is facing the camera.
post #158 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn View Post

Then again, it might also produce a "Pinocchio effect" if the person's face is facing the camera.

I'm betting the male porn stars would like that...
post #159 of 346
Of course the distance between lens center to lens center is more on a 3 D camera than the distance between the center of your or mine eyes.The lens diameters are much wider than your eye diameter. But for close ups,the camera is further away than your eyes getting the same close up. For mid and far objects, the depth of 3D effect field will be a little bit more but nothing drastic I would think. Anybody know?
post #160 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I'm betting the male porn stars would like that...

Yucchh!!
post #161 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Of course the distance between lens center to lens center is more on a 3 D camera than the distance between the center of your or mine eyes.The lens diameters are much wider than your eye diameter.

The key is not to measure it based on the distance of a human's eyes, but rather the distance of the two cameras apart with relation to the composition or framing of the shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

But for close ups,the camera is further away than your eyes getting the same close up. For mid and far objects, the depth of 3D effect field will be a little bit more but nothing drastic I would think. Anybody know?

That's not necessarily true. If the camera rig is placed too far away from the subject, it negates the effect of placing the cameras further apart for the purpose of exaggerating the 3D effect. To create the 3D depth on something as "shallow" as a human face, the cameras would have to be closer to the subject.

Basically there are going to have trade-offs depending on the composition of the shot. If the shot is going to encompass a foreground, middleground and background all in focus, the foreground is going to look 2D in relation to the whole shot. Of course, a lot of "tricks" can be done, such as shooting the three "planes" separately (i.e. with chroma key or "green screen") and then compositing the three shots together. And with CGI animation, everything is manipulated anyway so it would be easier to address these problems, but it really just depends on how much the filmmaker wants to focus on eliminating that "cardboard" effect.

Keep in mind we're still in the very early days of modern 3D filmmaking. I think as more and more 3D films get produced, more time and attention will be focused on addressing these issues.
post #162 of 346
One more question....


So this new LG 3D projector with the dual engine design due out in May 2010...... What glasses are needed for it? I read and read but never seen that bit of information listed for it. I may have just missed it.
post #163 of 346
I believe the LG CF3D will be paired with passive glasses.
post #164 of 346
So circular polarized then? On the new LG?
post #165 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

So circular polarized then? On the new LG?

That's what was implied by the demo at CES. I think I read somewhere it was circular polarized. They were reportedly also using a silver screen.
post #166 of 346
Thanks for indulging me on all my posts.... This has helped me greatly!!!
post #167 of 346
John. Personally I would stay away from any home 3D projection system that uses a silver screeen and polarizers. Such a screen will severely compromise the quality of your 2D. The only issue with single light engine projection of 3D is having a fast enough refresh (not really an issue at all with today`s projectors), having the projector accept the 3D transmission rate (and that is clearly coming to the nest gen of flat panels and should be easily transferable to front projection machines, and having a bright enough picture on the screen viewed through shutter glasses. The last is the big issue. Look for rapid improvements in shutter glass transmissivity (how much light can pass when the shutter is open). What we will need are light canon machines. These in 1.78 are available now but are very expensive. In 1.33 lower resolution they are cheap, business projectors kicking out at least 2500 lumens if not more.
post #168 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

john.Personally I would stay away fromany home 3D projection systemthat uses a silver screeen and polarizers. Such ascreen will severely compromise the quality of your 2D. The only issue with single light engine projection of 3D is having a fast enough refresh (not really an issueat all with today`s projectors),having the projector accept the 3D transmission rate (and that is clearly coming tothe nest gen of flat panels and should be easily transferable tofront projection machines, and having a bright enough piucture on the screen viewed through shutter glasses. The last is the big issue. Look for rapid improvemenys in shutter glass transmissivity (how much light can pas when the shutter is open). What we will need is light canon machines. These in 1.78 are available now but are very expensive. In 4 3 lower resolutiont hey are cheap, business projectors kicking out at least $2500lumens if not more.

here's an idea:

Why not just have a pull-down silver screen you lower when watching 3D, that then moves out of the way/retracts when you're watching 2D?

Real3D supposedly has some sort of hybrid screen that's not a normal silver screen... maybe this would reduce hot-spotting in 3D even if you chose to use a dedicated (different) screen for 2D material.
post #169 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

These resolution numbers produce only 1/4 (not 1/2) resolution images since 1/2 vertical x 1/2 horiz. = 1/4 image pixels. Thus each 960 x 540 image would be about 0.5 Mpixel while a 1080i image is 2 Mpixel. Even providing both a right and and left image stream would still result in sending only 1/2 the information content of a standard 1080i video. Therefore I doubt that your resolution numbers are correct.

Correct. I'm working on this as we speak and the typical broadcast format will be half res (either side by side or top/bottom) so 960x1080i60 to each eye from a 1080i60 stream (side by side) or 1920x540i60 to each eye from a top/bottom stream.
post #170 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

Thanks for indulging me on all my posts.... This has helped me greatly!!!

John, what's happening man!

I agree with Mark and most others on this thread. Having to frame or buy a single-purpose silver screen for the LG 3D passive projector doesn't seem like the best or most logical choice. I, for one, want to continue using my 1.13 gain "acoustically-transparent" white screen. I spent several hours cutting the fabric, cutting the frames, stapling and putting it all together, and most importantly, I LOVE how my JVC RS20 projects on it. The picture quality using a demo/ref_quality bluray is still breathtaking a year after ownership. So The last thing I wanna do is use a second silver screen. I don't know why LG chose the passive route with their projectors, I can understand some manufacturer's using the passive route on LCD TVs (w/ dirt-cheap polarized glasses) but I don't think most of us would jump at the chance of buying a passive 3D projector and having to redo their screens or add a 2nd one just for the 3D viewing. I think LG just wanted to be the first one to come out with a 3D projector, and it didnt matter if it were practical or not. I sure hope they bundle a 100"-120" silver screens w/ their projectors because not doing so that will cause nothing but consumer confusion, and LOTS of returns.

Personally, I am gonna hold out for the 1st or 2nd generation shutter_glass based active DILA projectors, preferably an ultra high contrast DILA.
post #171 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

john.Personally I would stay away fromany home 3D projection systemthat uses a silver screeen and polarizers. Such ascreen will severely compromise the quality of your 2D. The only issue with single light engine projection of 3D is having a fast enough refresh (not really an issueat all with today`s projectors),having the projector accept the 3D transmission rate (and that is clearly coming tothe nest gen of flat panels and should be easily transferable tofront projection machines, and having a bright enough piucture on the screen viewed through shutter glasses. The last is the big issue. Look for rapid improvemenys in shutter glass transmissivity (how much light can pas when the shutter is open). What we will need is light canon machines. These in 1.78 are available now but are very expensive. In 4 3 lower resolutiont hey are cheap, business projectors kicking out at least $2500lumens if not more.

Mark,
regarding the lumens issue. I have an RS20 which pushes about 500-900 lumens depending on setting/config/modes. At 700 hours thats still PLENTY of light for my light-controlled bat cave (no outside light). I have the lens aperture at 4 or 5 I think, my contrast is up there, but brightness is at mid-level (anything more and it starts looking too bright and washed out for me).

So with this said, how much lumens do you think an active 3-D shutter-based DILA/LCD projector would approximately need to fill 120"-140" 2.35:1 screen? not looking for exact figures, unless you know for sure. But an estimate would be greatly appreciated. I really want to stick with JVC for my next 3D projector but I hope they go the active route and announce something soon, other wise my 2nd and 3rd choices will have to be Sony or Panasonic (respectively).
post #172 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I think you quoted the wrong person. I really did not fatigue at all. I watched three movies in a row. The experience was actually pleasant. The 3D actually worked pretty darn well too. I think as much as anything, this was to give me some sort of baseline. I'll not make Avatar at the theater though. I don't have enough interest in it, from a film, or a 3D perspective. But my 3D Marathon Friday night actually helped my acceptance of it all quite a bit.

PS: And actually "No" I cannot tolerate sunglasses period, ever.. So the non substanative nature of cheapo red / green 3D glasses may have been a plus there for me personally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

If for whatever reason you choose to not watch AVATAR, please please please go and see some real high-quality 3-D when a film comes out that suits your taste (what's sad is that Coraline was STUNNING in 3D in the theater... a real work of art unlike the bastardized "3D" version out now. That will be a gorgeous 3D event when re-released properly on 3D blu-ray).

Interesting that you were able to tolerate the red/blue 3D compromise. If that's the case, you should have no problem whatsoever when actual stereo 3D comes along.


Hey John,
If you are refering to the home video 3D versions of DVD/BD movies when you're basing your 3D experience, then you're probabaly talking about the old archaic anaglyph glasses (red/green, red/blue...etc). That is the WORST way you can experience 3D, and it is truly an abomination and a gimmick. Plus I personally cannot tolerate watching current 3D anaglyph for more than 30 mins, not to mention it looks like crap!

If you want a preview of what the future holds for High Quality stereoscopic 3D home viewing would be like, then check out any current or upcoming theater releases (in theaters, not hoem video) like Avatar or the next Fox/Pixar/DreamworksSKG animated releases. Again, don't confuse the cheap red/blue bundles anaglyph glasses to what real 3D looks like in the theater (i.e. RealD Passive Circular or Active-Shutter or Dolby Infitec). Real High Quality Stereoscopic 3D is a totally different animal! The current home video anaglyph paper glasses (circa 1950's-2000's) are a terrible representation of what 3D at home should be.
post #173 of 346
I am not going to a theater, I'd bank I can review the new tech in somebodies home theater this year.

I actually didn't bash this old school 3D either and I needed to have some experience with it, if for no other reason for a baseline of the worst. On the glasses, the very light and insubstantial nature of them was a plus, I am not one who can wear any type of solid glasses at all. No sunglasses fo rme as I get headaches.

I think I have decided that I will be more of a stacked person if / when 3d comes to my theater. Passive glasses if that is possible with a stack. I will need the lightest most insubstantial glasses possible, I already know this.

The old school 3D was actually pretty impressive for two out of the three movies I screened, the last of the three was SD-DVD and had bad PQ.


I think I made some educational strides in this thread and again I want to thank all who indulged my posts with responses here.
post #174 of 346
I have been tracking 3D for a couple years now. In fact the only two movies I have actually seen in a commercial movie theater in the past few years have been Beowolf and Avatar.

Some issues overlooked in this discussion:

#1 Glasses Cleaners - Just a few years ago there were manufacturers of devices about the size of an home washing machine that could safely wash active glasses fast enough to have clean ones available for the next showing. There had been a discussion at the time as to active versus passive glasses for theatrical venues. Shortly thereafter all the major systems for theaters went to passive glasses. This move was not determined by image quality but by logistics. The active glasses were too expensive to lose and people didn't want to wear glasses that someone else had worn.

For Home Theater uses active glasses don't have these limitations (they may be dirty but it's my dirt). Also for home use there will be prescription glasses just as there are prescription sun glasses.

#2 Butts in Seats The three biggest heavyweights in Hollywood - Speilberg, Lucas, and Cameron created a conspiracy around 3D. They all regretted that theater attendance was down and they all three looked to 3D to bring the people back just as Hollywood had in 1953.

3D was assumed to be only available in a real movie theater so it would draw people back to the box office. In part that has worked. But it should be obvious to everyone that 3D will soon be available for Home Theater.

When I saw Avatar the previews before the feature had Speilberg pushing his new TV series to be shown on HBO. The traitor! Cameron had drawn me into a theater only to see his co-conspirator Speilberg argue that I should stayed at home and watched cable TV.

#3 The Experience I got to the theater a bit early and I sneeked into a 2D showing of Sherlock Holmes. I was shocked at how dim and fuzzy the picture was compared to what I was used to seeing in my Home Theater. I was impressed by how big the screen was. I did a little calculating.

I have a modest HT. I have nearly new Mitsu 1600 (720) projector and a Da-Lite 110" HP screen. The calculator at Projection Central tells me that I get 62.5 foot candles. Commercial theaters, I'm told try, to get 16. No wonder it seemed dim to me. Also I'm getting nearly a million pixels on 36 square feet of screen. If I upgraded to a 1080 machine I would have about twice as many pixels.

The cineplex theater screen was about 40 feet wide and 25 feet tall or 1000 square feet. It was film, not digital as it happens, but even if it had been one of those new top-of-the-line 4K DLP projectors it would have had only about eight million pixels. That would be about 8,000 pixels per square foot. At home with my low end projector I'm used to a pixel density more than three times as high. That's why the image seemed fuzzy and lacking detail.

Some posters have claimed that HT won't soon match the 3D experience of Avatar when seen in a "million dollar" theater. Wrong! Home 3D is likely to be vastly better than theater 3D. It should be brighter, sharper and deeper.

#4 The Death of the DVD Last year the DVD died. Its 480i format was eclipsed by digital TV, cable and Roku HD streaming and of course Blu-ray. In 2006 South Korea bought $1.2 billion of DVDs. By 2008 that had crashed to merely $80 million after the introduction of high speed Internet. That could happen in America this year. To date the biggest source of revenue for Hollywood has been from DVDs (not box office). Movie makers need something to replace the DVD and they need it fast. It could be the 3D Blu-ray disk.
post #175 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

I have a modest HT. I have nearly new Mitsu 1600 (720) projector and a Da-Lite 110" HP screen. The calculator at Projection Central tells me that I get 62.5 foot candles. Commercial theaters, I'm told try, to get 16. No wonder it seemed dim to me. Also I'm getting nearly a million pixels on 36 square feet of screen. If I upgraded to a 1080 machine I would have about twice as many pixels.

The cineplex theater screen was about 40 feet wide and 25 feet tall or 1000 square feet. It was film, not digital as it happens, but even if it had been one of those new top-of-the-line 4K DLP projectors it would have had only about eight million pixels. That would be about 8,000 pixels per square foot. At home with my low end projector I'm used to a pixel density more than three times as high. That's why the image seemed fuzzy and lacking detail.

Pixels per square foot of image area isn't really a valid metric when discussing things with such different viewing distances. Pixels per degree of vision is much more relevant and the theater can have just as many if not more. At the same viewing ratio the 2K DLPs would have more pixels per degree of vision than your home projector, but your home projector being 720p DLP could also be giving you a kind of false sharpness.

--Darin
post #176 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

.... #3 The Experience I got to the theater a bit early and I sneeked into a 2D showing of Sherlock Holmes. I was shocked at how dim and fuzzy the picture was compared to what I was used to seeing in my Home Theater. I was impressed by how big the screen was. ...

I also checked out Sherlock Holmes (during the intermission of the live performance Carmen from the Metropolitan Opera). I was also unimpressed by the quality of the image (which I think was from film). I was not surprised though.

OT: The Carmen was fabulous. There's an encore (replay) on Wednesday evening February 3.
See http://www.ncm.com/Fathom/Opera/MET_Carmen_Enc.aspx
Unfortunately, I haven't been to a movie theater that does justice to the signal that's being sent from NY.
post #177 of 346
Quote:


Some posters have claimed that HT won't soon match the 3D experience of Avatar when seen in a "million dollar" theater. Wrong! Home 3D is likely to be vastly better than theater 3D. It should be brighter, sharper and deeper.

I agree with what Darin stated about pixel density per square foot not the issue so much as pixels that matter given your viewing angle. However, I do agree with your above statement. Given a 1.5 screen width viewing, HD 3D content could look *spectacular* on a well designed 3D home theater system... even BETTER than a the movies since an enthusiasts could probably achieve better brightness, among other things.
post #178 of 346
Damncan77.Ineed more info. What gain screen do you have and are you using andare you using an anamorphic lens, If you are using such a lens would you useanother andadd another projector/as a quick rule of thump,3D will eat up about (ABOUT guys)85% of te light. So to maintain your present brightness with present dhutter glasses you will need roughly 6 tines your present light if using your present screen. Now in reality you can indeed live with a nuch lower brightness than present. For 3D viewing I suspect if youi get 6 ft lamberts off the screen and through the glasses you will be fine. Soi suspect something like a 3000lumens single projector will be necessary.but i really don`t know.

Now a 1.5 gain pull down screen?Notfor me or others Isuspect that have a realhigh end set up. Ijust don`t like the hot spotting with gains over 1.3.those with perf screens or masking screens justwon`t want to take such a step backwards.
post #179 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Damncan77.Ineed more info. What gain screen do you have and are you using andare you using an anamorphic lens, If you are using such a lens would you useanother andadd another projector/as a quick rule of thump,3D will eat up about (ABOUT guys)85% of te light. So to maintain your present brightness with present dhutter glasses you will need roughly 6 tines your present light if using your present screen. Now in reality you can indeed live with a nuch lower brightness than present. For 3D viewing I suspect if youi get 6 ft lamberts off the screen and through the glasses you will be fine. Soi suspect something like a 3000lumens single projector will be necessary.but i really don`t know.

Now a 1.5 gain pull down screen?Notfor me or others Isuspect that have a realhigh end set up. Ijust don`t like the hot spotting with gains over 1.3.those with perf screens or masking screens justwon`t want to take such a step backwards.


Mark, I am using similar material to SMX/AVSeymour 1.1 gain acoustically transparent material. Its about an 11 foot wide 2.37:1 screen coming through a JVC RS20 w/ anPanamorph corrected UH380 lens for CIH set up.

3000 lumes is about 300% of what the current JVC projectors are pushing. Do you think JVC or even Sony would produce such a 3D light canon?
post #180 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I am not going to a theater, I'd bank I can review the new tech in somebodies home theater this year.

I would LOVE to check out the next upcoming Coloradan 3D home theater too. I salivate at the thought of seeing some of my favorite Pixar or DreamWorks animated movies in 3D at home. Or even some of the newer 3D non-animated releases like Avatar, Final Destination, or My Bloody Valentine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Official 3D Projector Thread.