Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Real D and "Meet The Robinsons"

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Real D and "Meet The Robinsons" (Page 10)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10

Author

Topic: Real D and "Meet The Robinsons"

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-21-2007 11:38 AM

I'm not complaining that the projector is digital. I'm just complaining that there's only one projector there to do the job of two. I've said before that I would love to see what a two projector DLP 3D presentation looks like. I imagine it probably looks pretty darn good if it's any comparison to a dual film projector setup. I would love to see WB convert House Of Wax to DLP, or see Universal convert Creature to DLP and then show them on a two projector DLP setup. I bet that would be really awesome looking.

I'm not describing jerky motion artifacts. Imagine a ball flying very quickly across the frame from the left to the right. On one frame, the ball may be on the extreme left side of the frame. During the next frame, the ball may be in the middle of the frame, and during the next, it may be on the right of the frame. For a split second, one eye is retaining the image of the ball on the left of the screen, while the other is seeing it in the middle of the screen, then a split second later, the first eye is retaining it in the middle of the screen while the second is seeing it on the right. And that is happening 24 times a second. Now imagine a whole bunch of balls bouncing around like that on the screen (the way the leaves were blowing in the beginning on Monster House). No jerky motion, just separated images. It still looks cool to the untrained eyes of most viewers, but it would look a lot cooler if the eyes were in sync.

Try to understand that we bitch and moan all the time on this site about scratched prints, jumpy images, dirty prints, poorly cut aperture plates, poorly struck high speed prints, etc., and we complain about them to a degree WAY beyond what the average viewer notices. I notice film problems long before most viewers do, as I'm sure everyone else here does too. And we call all of those things "film done wrong" whether the majority of the audience notices the drop in quality or not. To me, a 3D DLP presentation done with one projector is "3D done wrong" as I have yet to see a method where both frames are projected in sync on the screen. I'm glad that the image separation isn't an issue for most of the people here, but it sure annoys the hell out of me. [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-21-2007 12:18 PM

quote: Tristan Lane
I also wonder if image retention over 144th of one second might be splitting hairs a little, as the majority of viewers have no complaints about the presentation. (many of which HAVE seen 2 projector 3D in IMAX)

Human vision does not work nearly as fast as 144 frames per second. That speed is imperceivable to the eye. We see at around 70 frames per second. Persistence of vision is another factor that further reduces any ability to notice visual differences at 144fps.

Anyone who says they can tell the difference in a 1/144 second delay between a right eye frame and left eye frame is very likely just not telling the truth. It's just like the crap where some people claim they can hear high frequency levels well past 20kHz (like 30kHz etc.), "oh, it's a harmonic and I heard it." Sure.
[Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-22-2007 09:20 AM

I'm not sure whether to thank you for that last post or not. Because each eye is not seeing 144 fps. They're both seeing 72 fps. Unless you count the black in between the frames as frames. But all of that is irrelevant because the brain isn't seeing fps at all. The brain is seeing two full motion images thanks to our eyes' persistence of vision. The question is, can the brain interpret when one full motion image is 1/144th of a second behind the other. Apparently mine can. I'm sorry if your brain can't.

I'm a guy who spent quite a bit in time and money to fly from the east coast to the west coast, and stay there for a week and a half to watch 35 3D movies because I really enjoy 3D. I've seen 3D where the images were out of sync by a full frame (there was a frame missing in the negative in the middle of the reel that threw the rest of the show off), and I've seen it where the images were out of sync by a partial frame (the motors slipped on start up so the shutters weren't in sync - the projectionist noticed it too and stopped and restarted the show). I've seen Chicken Little, and I've seen Monster House, and I'm telling you, I can clearly see that the frames are out of sync with that 3D, and I'm certain it's the issue of having a single projector. I'm a guy who would love to see this thing work better than it is. But I can't help it if you think I'm not telling the truth.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-22-2007 02:50 PM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
The question is, can the brain interpret when one full motion image is 1/144th of a second behind the other. Apparently mine can. I'm sorry if your brain can't.

Either you're lying or you're not human.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-22-2007 03:52 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
you're not human

Could this be the reason he hasn't put up a member picture?

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-23-2007 05:28 PM

Hmmm...

That's not the first time someone has suggested that I'm not human.

I'm starting to wonder...

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05-07-2007 06:05 PM

Hollywood Reporter story

[italics are mine]

quote:

Disney high on 3-D 'Robinsons'
By Carolyn Giardina

May 4, 2007

The 3-D digital cinema engagements of the Walt Disney Co.'s "Meet the Robinsons" have delivered about 31% of the film's total gross, said Chuck Viane, president of Disney's Buena Vista Pictures Domestic Distribution. The film's cume as of Monday was an estimated $88.4 million.

The 3-D screens represented 14% of the total screens from the film's March 30 opening. Still, Viane said they now are delivering more than three times the per-theater average of the 2-D version. Viane noted the staying power of the format, saying that as of last week, "Robinsons" was still playing on more than 400 of the 581 Real D 3-D-ready digital cinema screens on which the film opened domestically.

Viane said the 3-D versions will continue to perform for additional weeks. "We still have 3-D screens that will probably play up until the digital screens are needed for "Pirates 3,' " he said.

Looking ahead, Viane said, "Exhibitors have seen the success of 3-D, they are committing more auditoriums for 3-D. ... (and) 2008 will be good; 2009 will be a watershed year for 3-D."

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.