|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: So is the Technicolor 3-D any good??
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 05-05-2010 12:32 AM
Well, there is always hope. I do think they'll be coming out with a 1.38" 4K DLP chip by early next year. The rest, time will tell.
About Technicolor 3D ... if you don't like it, you can always use Panavision 3D.
Haven't heard of it?
Picture a Dolby 3D clone. There, you have it in digital Panavision 3D.
Now picture a Technicolor 3D clone. Color correct the (over/under) print and replace the polarizing filters in the lens with frequency bandpass ones. There, "Dolby-like" 3-D in film. No silver screen, no ghosting.
quote:
The 3D solution uses a patent pending spectral comb filtering process that creates two spectral bands of light; one for the right eye and one for the left eye. Each band contains all of the spectral content necessary to generate the sensation of color to the human eye. What is sure to bring some attention to the system is that it can be used with a white screen.
The solution was developed over the course of two-and-a-half-years, in a joint venture between Panavision, Omega Optical, a company based in Brattleboro, Vermont that specializes in high-end optical filters, and Deluxe, the motion picture lab. Panavision and Omega have a longstanding relationship having worked on some of the filters for Panavision’s camera’s and lenses. Of course, Deluxe, brings both technology experience and a deep understanding of movie distribution and exhibition.
We were told that we were one of the first groups to receive a demonstration of the technology. A few studios saw the system earlier in the week.
The 3D system works by placing a special filter in between the light source and the lens. Viewers wear a pair of glasses with special lenses that interpret the spectral content in each of the two bands reaching the eye. With no need for a silver screen the system might be compared to Dolby’s digital 3D solution both operationally and technologically. But actually there are some huge differences. For instance, unlike Dolby’s offering, Panavision’s solution also works with 35mm film using an over/under method.
For film-based 3D each frame of film contains two images stacked on top of one another; one for the right eye and one for the left eye. Each image is two perforations high and is combined on the screen with a special split lens.
We were first shown digital footage which included a clip from “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” along with the trailer for “Avatar”. The same exact footage was then screened on film. Keeping in mind that some of the film-based systems I’ve seen were demonstrated in less than desirable conditions, Panavision’s produced the most pleasing results. It was almost impossible to tell that it was film and not digital.
To show how bright the 7.5 foot lamberts reaching each eye are a 30 foot white screen was lowered over the top half of a silver screen of the same size to provide a side-by-side comparison while watching some of the film footage. On the sides of the auditorium the white screen appeared to be brighter than the silver one. In the center of each row the silver screen, as expected, was noticeably brighter, though not overly so.
Afterwards some who had seen the demonstration said that the colors were off - a little too yellow. However, this could have been due to color timing or the fact that the content was mastered for 4.5 foot lamberts of light.
For the purposes of the demonstration a Sony 4K digital cinema projector was used, although it was said that they are working to integrate the system with Barco, Christie and NEC projectors as well. As for the glasses, they are reusable, as I mentioned, and it was estimated that they would cost in the $5 to $7 range.
Notice the price of glasses. $5-$7 range. Makes you wonder about Dolby's $100, then $80, then $40, then $27.50 pricing, doesn't it? Before you start talking about layers, curved optics, etc, let me tell you that I know the aprox. manufacturing cost of the glasses and are happy to report Dolby could sell them perfectly fine under $10 and not lose money. If you think you know differently and that indeed the glasses must be sold at around $25 to be profitable ... your choice.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 05-05-2010 02:56 PM
quote: Jake Spell
Julio, where did you find this?
Don't remember, as it was about a month ago, but it's here among other places:
http://3dcinecast.blogspot.com/2010/03/panavision-heads-into-theatres-with.html
quote: Steve Guttag
For the record, Dolby's price is now down to $17.00.
... which perhaps could indicate that, maybe, their $27.50 price until very recently was a bit high? I know there are volume consideration, R&D and licensing costs, etc, etc. But still ...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 05-06-2010 02:07 PM
quote: Manny Montes
quick question, does a scratch on the T3D film cause different issues than just a regular scratch (mainly, does it affect the 3d effects)?
It doesn't "affect the 3d effects" specifically, but depending on what kind of scratch, its position, shape, size, scene where it happens, etc, that we are talking about, it may look anywhere between "weirder than in 2D" to "really weird".
If the scratch is you usual "thin vertical line", then the line will appear at the screen plane. If the action in the movie (or say a character) is suppossed to be in front of the screen but it has a (long vertical whole-frame) scratch on top of it, the brain will kind of get confused about it a bit (how is the scratch at the screen but it's OVER a person that is IN FRONT of the screen????? it wonders... ). Also, it would just generally look weirder, as the scratch would be in two different parts of this foreground (or distant background) object for each eye.
Long story short: nothing wrong with 3D in film per se, but all the problems film may have (weave, uneven illumination, lamp flicker, focus, scratches, shutters out of adjustment, etc), many of which digital can also have, usually look "weirder" (=worse) in 3D. Sometimes, MUCH weirder and distracting.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic