|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Who Is Installing Digital Projection For "Chicken Little"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-06-2005 04:01 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
even ones in Las Vegas where you have to pay $184,858,838,269.95 for a 25 second ride.
The (now closed) RACE FOR ATLANTIS ride at Ceasar's Palace {used them (LCD shutters). Polarized 3-D would be really difficult on a ride film, since you have to keep your head at a straight angle. The smallest tilt and ghosting happens. Any great tilt and you might as well not even be wearing the glasses. The IMAX at the LUXOR was using the LCD goggles at one time, but they may very well have switched over to Polarized by now.
I know the LCD shutters were dropped at several IMAX theatres due to cost, cleaning and replacement. The IRVINE Edwards location, for example, used them in the first few years, but now use the polarized version instead.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-06-2005 04:53 PM
quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
They were, indeed, battery powered, but they were infrared, not laser. The glass in them was polarized, so they would work without a battery (should it die in the middle of a show, and if the projector ran with polarizers, too). The batteries powered the liquid crystal flicker, that was timed to the projector shutter system. It did a fantastic job eliminating ghosting, but I guess it wasn't worth the $600 or so per headset. Simply polarized disposable paper pieces of junk, handed out at box office, are a much better financial decision, it appears, to those in control.
The long-closed Pepsi London Imax used them, and I didn't find them very satisfactory; I preferred the simple polaroid glasses. Some issues may have been due to the way they were used at this venue, it was certanly not the best Imax I've seen, but others were inherent in the design.
They were front-heavy, and I found them uncomfortable to wear. They still gave a double image if the head was tilted, though less so than with polaroid glasses. Was this a fault with this installation? It happened with all (three, I think) 3-D shows that I saw there, but I've never seen them used elsewhere. Before each show a woman would instruct the audience how to do a battery test; there were usually a couple of failures, and the show would have to wait for these to be exchanged. Despite cleaning between shows they weren't always wery clean, and were sometimes scratched. Of course, this can also apply to the high-quality Polaroid glasses which the other 3-D IMAX venues I've been to use, and is still better than the National Film Theatre practice in the days when they ran 3-D festivals from time to time, of using 'disposable' cardboard glasses, but collecting them in for re-use. Most were in a pretty poor state by the end of a week long festival, even leaving aside the hygene issues. Lastly, I never heard any sound from the headsets; whether the system was not installed in that theatre, not working or simply not used on any of the films I saw with them, I don't know.
quote: Brad Miller
Anaglyphic is just crap and shouldn't even be called 3D.
I've actually seen some anaglyph 3-D that worked very well indeed, though it wasn't used for moving images, and wasn't projected. What I saw were some sample prints, about postcard size, from a company who produce these images for various scientific, technical and medical applications. There was perfect separation of the two images, with no ghosting, and no eye strain, at least in the fairly short time for which you would be likely to view such an image. The glasses were made from Wratten filters mounted between optical glass, rather than bits of stage lighting gel, and the printing inks used were obviously chosen with care, for the correct spectural absorbtion. Of course, this sort of thing doesn't come cheap; I agree that most anaglyph 3-D on films, comic books etc. is pretty poor, at best.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-07-2005 02:22 AM
Edit:
Sorry, I missed the 'Brad' in the first line of your post, so the first line of my one doesn't now apply. I think the rest of my post is still relevent, so I'll leave it here.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
You shoulda went to Jeff's 3D Fest, Brad. You might have a different outlook on polarized 3D.
Alex, it is unclear who you were replying to; if to my previous post then I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I found the polarised IMAX system *more* satisfactory than the LCD shutter one. Problems with dirty or scratched glasses are not inherent in the system, but are problems with the venues concerned. Polarised 3-D does have inherent problems, ghosting if the head is tilted, need for a silver screen, restricting the viewing angle etc., but I think it is the best system currently available for projected moving images.
Some of the best, from a technical viewpoint, 3-D that I've seen is on the short films from the 1951 Festival of Britain. Unfortunately, the films are not very interesting; they were intended mainly as a novelty and demonstration of the process. The original prints still exist, and are shown from time to time, but sadly the original stereo tracks are now 'lost', so they are now run with the mono optical track only.
Unfortunately, many (most?) 3-D films are either badly made, or badly projected or shown in unsuitable venues; or, sometimes, all three.
The Lafayette, Suffern, NY is running 'House of Wax' in two strip 3-D this month.
http://www.bigscreenclassics.com/indexlafayette.htm
I would like to have gone, but I just can't find the money this month ![[Frown]](frown.gif) . I've never seen 3-D at the Lafayette, but I have been there for several conventional shows, andthe design of the theatre should make it a very suitable venue for 3-D. Maybe I can get there next time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 14 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 13 14
|
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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic