Question about 3D and anamorphic lens... - Page 7

I would have thought so too. It is amazing how fast the eye responds to the darker image in 3D with the glasses on.

Interesting. I have only seen it at shows and while I watched a good while, never in a properly "tuned" HT enviroment, so you are up on my experience there.

Exactly. I was not super impressed by what I saw at CEDIA, yet having set one up in a dedicated HT, and after calibration, I was quite impressed with what you get for the money.

Despite my setup, my fascination with 3D has waned. It looks fantastic but after 20 or so movies its no longer the preferred method of viewing. Mainly because of the cumbersome glasses and lumen-loss.

I don't even have it yet and after going to see KUNG FU PANDA 2 in the cinema, I am starting to agree as the colours lose their luster through the glasses. What I will say in a positive note for 3D though is that because of the need to really carefully compose shots for 3D to work, the 2D counter parts seem to be more enjoyable to watch.

Until I saw 3D a week ago on the new Lumis 3D Solo, I was indifferent about it. Now I understand how great it can be...no fatigue, no flickering...bright and smooth and easy on the eyes...no compromises to color. The only downside is that to achieve this level of performance you need to belly up with the bucks. All the affordable 3D options (relative to the Solo) are compromised in one way or another. Yet all too many folks have been basing their less-than-enthusiastic opinions of 3D on their exposure to these and to commercial theater presentations which are, for the most part, horrible.

I've seen all the best 3D with these highend FP's and while I agree its better than what I have, I've lost interest quickly. 2D has progressed to the point that the difference is small. When you have owner's complaining that they don't see a lot of difference with 3D, its a testament to how far 2D and projectors have come. Even with a 10000 lumen Barco you still have to wear glasses. When I can get 3d without the glasses, maybe I'll change my mind. I guess compared to what we got with 3d sound, digital 5.1 and so forth, its just not a big step up. The fact that I have to remove the glasses to compare the picture whether at home or at the movies says a lot. In fact I have to look at the picture near the frame to make sure its 3d.

I watched TANGLED in 2D the night which was created as a 3D film. The 2D version of the film was stunning and I do wonder if this 'improvement' is because they now have to really carefully compose each shot to make the 3D actually work.

TRON LEGACY was another that I saw in 3D in the cinema, but found the 2D version on BD to be almost a better experience possibly because it was so dark. Yet I found AVATAR to be the other way where I prefer the 3D version of the film.

Well there's a lot of ironing out in the stereoscopic process still going on and the methodology isn't yet standardized. For all the marketing hype surrounding 3D, the physical production process is still taking baby steps, everyone is kinda learning as they go. For example, lots of blacks do not always work as well in stereo as they do in 2D primarily because it hides edges, so its hard to establish separation between objects to denote depth, especially people and objects converged deep in the background. CAVX is right that darker movies can be more challenging for 3D though Tron Legacy is weird because it exists in kinda a wireframe world.

Objects converged forward can also suffer.In 2D for example we recognize someone is wearing a black shirt against a dark background, but if you converge that same person forward in stereo and aren't careful you can end up with what appears to just be a floating head because the black object in the foreground may not be that distinguishable from the background especially if the face and arms are pulled several pixels towards the audience. This gets further compounded if the character or object is a room of mostly negative space or white limbo. How do you know what forward or backward (stereoscopic depth) is without a point of reference?

Many movies today that are stereoscopic presentations are conversions from 2D for a myriad of reasons - actually shooting in 3D can cause more problems than it solves. Add to that, no director making a movie with the kinda budget where it will be shown as 3D will want to compromise their vision for technical restrictions unless you're Michael Bay or James Cameron and have whatever you want at your disposal to make up the difference (and Bay was not all that thrilled with either 3D or having to shoot part of his movie digitally). Additionally, some stereographers play it safe to coolrda's point and rely on gags as opposed to trying to create really 'deep,' aggressive 3D scenes. Thor comes to mind as a movie where the 3D didn't really jump out at you. Avatar had the advantage of being both almost completely digital and shot with a 3D rig so the stereo supervisor had the best of both worlds to create the best possible experience (they also had a lot of money and time which never hurts).

Any news about PJ wich support anamorphic lens in 3D? What are about the upcoming JVC DLA-X35?

I'm also curious about this. I read the super cheap Benq supports Anamorphic so if I buy that, then find a cheap enough A-lens on ebay, I'm hoping to get some decent ultra-widescreen 3d gaming action on!!

Does 3D need a special lens? for polarized light. I guess it might...hmmm. Maybe if the colours get misaligned ever-so-slightly with the cheaper lenses, that would wreack havoc on polarized light too. //profess ignorance on this subject. It's interesting, for sure.

I'm also wanting to know about this. I was able to get a good deal on a Panamorph 480 and want to pair it w/ one of the new projectors. Anyone know if the new Epson 6020 or Sony HW50 can do Anamorphic support in 3D mode?

HW50 supports only horizontal squeeze in 3d.

What exactly does Horizontal Squeeze do? If I was to pair this w/ a Panamorph which is a Horizontal Expansion lens, would it not work in 3D mode? Thanks.

The Horizontal Squeeze mode is actually the 4 x 3 mode in many projectors. When used to scale 16:9 (horizontally squeeze), every fourth line is removed to allow 1920 x 1080 to be mapped as 1440 x 1080 which is then optically expanded by the anamorphic lens. You use this mode when leaving the A-Lens in place all the time.

Assuming the projector can scale for CIH in 3D, this HS mode should work as well.

Got it, thanks!

If you activate the horizontally squeeze modus on the HW50 (from a 16:9 source) - will the picture squeeze like the red or green sample? or is this the vertical squeeze which is not supported in 3D?

From what I gather, it will look like the green circled image. Used for keeping an anamorphic lens in front of the projector all the time so the lens will re-stretch the now squeezed image of 4:3 aspect ratio back to it's original aspect ratio of 16:9. But it does so at the cost of losing some resolution because the horizontal squeeze takes away something like every 4th line of resolution to reduce the image to 4:3.

Also correct, the HW50 does not support 3D mode and the vertical stretch at the same time. I recently confirmed from Epson customer support and Dave at Panamorph that the Epson 6020 does allow both 3D mode and vertical stretch at the same time.

As far as I know the following PJ will support anamorphic lens in 3D:

- Mitsubishi HC9000
- Mitsubishi HC5
- Epson 6010 (9000 EU)
- Epson 6020 (9100 EU)

What are about the new JVC's? Which model supports anamorphic lens in 3D?

Others:

- Sony HW50ES (only in 2D)
- JVC DLA-X30 (only in 2D)

It's my understanding that all of the new JVCs will support anamorphic and 3D.

Looks nice Mark! There is talk that the Oppo 93 is in fact able to vertically stretch 3d, as long as the disc doesn't want to run java durring playback. This is just what I've read, no first hand experience. Oh, and you are able to use the MK4 with the X3 at a 1.4 TR? That's pretty sweet!
Edited by avsforumsdsd - 12/18/12 at 1:03am

As I posted in the thread below this I tested 3D side by side last night on my X35. Although I don't have glasses and an emitter (not bothered by 3D myself) I can confirm that the anamorphic stretch and squeeze function worked on my projector in 3D. I don't have any 3D BluRays to test, but hopefully this confirms that the JVCs support anamorphic in 3D.

It has been a while since I have had a chance to play with this gear. Last time I did, non Java 3D discs could be vertically stretched by the OPPO.

Yes the MK4 is working at that incredibly short TR with the JVC. X3.

Folks,

As far as playback is concerned, most Realtek 1186 based players have a custom X Y Scaling option which works in 3D also.

One of the most promising players is MED1000X3D, which is also capable of Bluray 3D iso streaming over network. I recently bought this and am using it with Benq W7000.

The only drawback is that the scaling needs to be set done each time playback starts. I have created a feature request for this, http://www.mede8erforum.com/index.php/topic,9754.0.html, please vote there if you are interested.

Regards