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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Disney/Pixar "UP" (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Disney/Pixar "UP" Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-31-2009 08:34 PM                     David, I'm wondering if you saw this with the system using the regular, single element, "RealD" polarizer For we installed the Deluxe "RealD" polarizer which is like a dual element unit since the standard polarizer loses so much light via reflection on the front side of the polarizer. The reflected light is captured and re-reflected back to the screen - more or less like a torque converter in a transmission - to boost up the light level that was originally lost. The unit looks like the old "over/under" dual element system with the light passing through an angled optical glass that allows both the passing of a straight beam out through the lower panel and the reflected beam is reflected up to a mirror above the optical glass which in turn passes that light through the upper panel to the screen. We're using a 3k bulb and in 3D, hitting 5.5fL on the screen due to the dbl lens polarizer. In 2d, we're hitting 16fL. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 05-31-2009 08:46 PM                    quote: David Stambaugh How much light loss does the RealD polarizer cause? As Monte points out, they have two models now. The old one would let (much) less than 50% of the light go through. With the glasses on, the perceived brightness is a little less than about 20% of the one the same projector/screen would produce in 2D. The new one is almost (but not quite) twice as bright as the old one. It IS a huge light loss in 3D applications. Some systems, like Dolby, lose even more light ...  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-31-2009 08:49 PM                        Monte/Julio, I have no idea which one is installed there. This system was installed almost 2 years ago. From the auditorium side, I only see a single polarizer but then maybe I don't know what to look for. I didn't even know there was a "deluxe" version of RealD. Nothing I've ever seen on this specific screen in 2D or 3D has ever made me think "Not enough light" until "Up". "Star Trek" looked great a few weeks ago, and the one 2D trailer they ran today also looked fine.  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 05-31-2009 08:51 PM                    I have the feeling more people are going to eventually start complaining about dimm 3D images, specially in older theaters as they start to penny-wise on lamp-life and brightness and the sparking new silver screens start to get covered with a nice coat of dust ... And as film studios start to progressively "time" their 3D films to a bit higher light levels as they see more newer theaters hitting the 5.5fl mark ... Imagine what it would've been if the movie was in Scope 3D format ...  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-31-2009 08:53 PM                     Dave. when you go there next time, look up in the port window. If you see a dual element, "over/under" polarizer, that's the Deluxe version. Standard ones will be just the single element.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-31-2009 09:01 PM                        I know we're going off-topic, but just out of curiosity how much does it cost an early-adopter RealD theater to upgrade to the improved version? Just to help make this at least slightly on-topic: The campfire scene with the 3D burning embers rising from the flames was an inspired touch. (Even if it was dim)  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 05-31-2009 09:09 PM                    I don't know the specifics in pricing on Real-D (they negociate different agreements with each victim ). Totally off topic: one cool 3D scene I shot was in an underwater cave as the bubbles from the regulators floated up and made "air lakes" on the ceiling of the cave ... Unexpected 3D effect, very cool.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-31-2009 10:03 PM                     The basic numbers are: Dolby: 10% efficient Real-D: 15% efficient Real-D XL: 27% efficient. So, if you measure the white light on the screen conventionally, and read 50fL, Then with Dolby, it will be down to 5fL With Real-D, it will be 7.5fL Real-D XL, it will be 13.5fL. However, with a Silver screen process, the Real-D (or any other Silver Screen process), you only have that high number in ONE SPOT...and once you get as much as 20-degrees off of axis, it is down to half of that and long before you get to the edge of the screen, you are down to 1/10...so while typical installations will have a brighter center spot...most other places, Dolby will be as bright or brighter...all else being equal. If you follow Disney's guidelines for UP, then Dolby will be brighter everwhere since they specify for Real-D and Dolby 3D to be the same brightness in the middle. Steve  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 06-01-2009 04:22 AM                    Oh, the Silver Screen curse ... All things been equal, the different processes follow the efficiency numbers given. I.e: if you use the same projector/screen to show a film in RealD, RealD-XL and Dolby, you get a little more than 15% the light, 27% the light and a little less than 10% of the light respectively, that you would get in 2D with the same screen/projector, everywhere in the theater. That is to say, in relative terms, that Dolby, i.e., is almost 3 times less bright than RealD-XL. I.e. for each 10 lumens Dolby "produces", RealD-XL would "produce" 27 lumens, almost 3 times as many in the same situation, and 2D would "produce" 100 lumens. Of course, if you change the screen variable of the equation and use a silver screen with a typical gain of say 2.4 for the RealD processes and a different screen, i.e. a high gain perleascent screen for Dolby with a 1.8 gain ... then things change. The Dolby system in that situation would be an ADDITIONAL (aprox.) 25% DARKER than the RealD in the center spot, due to the screen lower gain (i.e. total relative brightness ~3.5 times darker than RealD-XL), but by about 25º angle it would be back to the same relative difference, making Dolby once again "only" ~3 times darker than RealD-XL in this example. And by the time you are in the ~45º mark off-center, then the RealD system "decays" to about half the efficiency, becoming only ~2.5 times *brighter* than Dolby in this situation. In this situation, RealD-XL would be brighter everywhere in the auditorium, raging from ~4X in the middle to only ~2X on the sides. Dolby typically is used on screens of 1.8-2.2 gain, while RealD systems are typically deployed on screens of 2.2-2.4 gain, so this is a typical situation. So normally, RealD is brighter all the time over Dolby when using the same projector/lamp, of course. BUT, you could use a much (much) higher rated projector/lamp for Dolby (i.e. 12KW over a 2KW for RealD) and use a matte white screen and match the brightness of a RealD-XL installation with a silver screen in the middle (i.e. following the guidelines for UP). Then, the silver screen will by half-as-bright when seen at around 20º, while the Dolby in this example will remain the same on the matte screen, becoming twice as bright as the RealD from this possition. And by the time you are at about a 45º angle, the Dolby screen would show about 3X the light. But that's only because in this example Dolby was using a lamp that is 6X as powerfull as the RealD-XL to begin with... But that's comparing Apples to ... PC's  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-01-2009 09:50 AM                     Julio, You are most certainly wrong here...your example presumes a constant light source and not one sized to work properly with the respective format. The only spot defined, this far, for correct illumination is the center. Thus, both Dolby and Real-D start off with the same center lumens of 4.5-5.5fL (if set to spec.). Dolby will remain much closer to that number, depending on the screen installed. Mine have been in the 1.5 range and curved and thus are much more uniform illumination. Note, too, the Real-D brightness is only achieved at one seating location on one spot of the screen too. Everywhere else, it is darker. As the center spot brightness is increased, the required lumens for Dolby is clearly at a disadvantage. Some have noted acceptable center spot brightness at 8fL and over with Silver Screen based systems. While they definitely are loosing their black levels in the middle...on average, it is probably fine since they have lost well over half their brightness everywhere else. The fact remains, with a silver screen, once you are 20-degrees off center, you have droppped your illumination to half of the on-axis level...by 40-degrees off center...you are at 1/4 the level. In my mind, this is an arguement for making the Silver Screen processes target 14fL in the center...thus for most of the typical auditorium, you will be at or more brightness than the brightest point in the current spec. One could probably also do some digital manipulation to the image to make the center less bright and pre-equalize. Mind you, it would be funky as the illumination would vary based on seating position but on average, it would even it out for most people. Steve  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 06-01-2009 11:59 AM                    quote: Steve Guttag You are most certainly wrong here...your example presumes a constant light source and not one sized to work properly with the respective format. I believe we are sort-of-saying the same thing, but perhaps it wasn't clear. If you want to compare apples-to-apples, then you must compare a Dolby on a (say) 4KW projector and a 2.4 gain screen to a RealD-XL on a 4KW projector on a 2.4 gain screen. In that situation, RealD-XL will be about 3 times brighter from all positions, like I said. But I also said that, like you are saying, if you try to match the luminance of both systems and create, say, a 6fl (center) on a Dolby and on a RealD-XL ... well, you have the SAME situation AS LONG AS THE SCREEN IS THE SAME, except that the lamp powering the Dolby should be (about) 3 times higher than the RealD-XL. Now, the third situation, when matching both systems on DIFFERENT screens, we get the third situation which you are centering your argument around. In that case, if you use a 1.6 gain screen for Dolby (nothing prevents you from using a 2.2 or 2.4, BTW) and a 2.4 gain screen for RealD-XL, you need a lamp on the Dolby that is (about) 4 times as powerfull to produce the same lumens at the center. But, in this case, as you move around, indeed the RealD system would fall off more quickly (like I also said) and by the 45º mark it would be half as bright as the Dolby. BUT, this is not a "fair" comparison, as you are comparing a (say) 2KW(+2.4 gain) realD-xl to a (theoretical) 8KW Dolby (+1.6 gain) in this example to reach your point of both images being the exact same brightness in the center but the RealD system falling off to almost half the light of the Dolby at 45º. A "more realistic" approach to compare brightness would be that you set up a Dolby with, say, 6KW+1.6gain and only are able to get, say, 6fl center/3fl@45º and then you get a 2KW RealDXL+2.4gain and get, say, a 7fl center/3fl@45º. Of course, if you lower the RealD lamp even more to match Dolby's 6fl, then the fall off at 45º would be larger and below Dolby levels because the screens are different. But nothing prevents you from using a 2.4 (or 2.2) gain screen with Dolby, thus saving on lamp size and matching perfectly RealD-XL at all angles ... except that the Dolby lamp is driven almost 3 times higher. At least it would be less than 4 times higher to meet the conditions of your example (assuming both screens are, i.e., curved to their optimal geometry, of course) You can make a Dolby look brighter than a RealD all you want, but only by the no-brainer of using a much brighter lamp. And you can make the fall off to be "zero" using a matte screen and thus beat the pants off RealDXL at an angle, but once again you must use a much, much, much brighter lamp for Dolby. If you wanted to, you could also use a low-gain specialty polarization retaining screen for RealDXL. In this case RealD would still be 3 times brighter than Dolby and, this time, from all angles. But your point is noted that, if you go to a theater that has a 6fl at center for RealD and another that has a 6fl at center for Dolby, chances are the one running the Dolby is using 3x the lamp size and the one using RealD will look dimmer from the sides, as it's typical for Dolby to use screens of 1.6-2.2 gain while for RealD is "always" 2.2-2.4  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-01-2009 04:45 PM                     Julio, The fair comparison is the one I gave...the only specified, currently, spot on the screen is in the center. That is the pivot point for any system...at the moment, it is 4.5-5.5fL for the latest movies. The fact is and remains, Dolby requires significantly more light than the other alternatives. The fact also remains, Dolby's system has the best method for even illumination throughout the screen of the passive systems. If you allow hot-spotting and also allow for over-lighting (raising the black levels) in the middle, then you can claim that Real-D and other Silver screen methods can get more light...however, until the movies allow for this (have the black levels)...you are going to get a washout in the middle. As I said, they could, intentionally, lower the luminance in the middle of a Silver Screen system to sort of even-out the perceived illumination (for one seated in the center) and probably get a better fit for all. Steve  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-01-2009 04:51 PM                        Yeah, but the movie was pretty good. I guess I would put it about halfway up the list of my favorite Pixars. Finding Nemo is squarely at the top, followed by Toy Story 1, Cars, Ratatouille and Toy Story 2. I liked this one much better than Wall-E which is at the bottom of my list. I was a bit turned off by the ridiculousness of it all, although all animated movies have that to some extent....living plastic toys, cars with eyes in the windshields, a cooking rat, and so on. But this seemed to go to another level -- like the guy is able to pull his house around at will and it never, like, "gets away." And sometimes the house would float, sometimes it would crash to the ground, the number of balloons lost to bullets, fire etc. didn't seem to make any difference to its bouyancy, etc. I didn't like the talking dogs either. I also wished to know "how he did that." I also wish I hadn't known it was Ed Asner doing the old guy's voice...I kept visualizing Lou Grant. The movie looks great. Every time it showed the balloons I was wowed. I didn't miss the 3-D at all, but do wish the movie was in scope. Overall -- a good effort but not a great one. I would say 3 out of 5 stars. Am planning to watch it again and might be blown away more, hopefully.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-04-2009 01:31 AM                        OK finally saw this in Disney Dolby Digital 3D featuring Real-D Digital Christie projection or some such stupid bullshit. God DAMN this movie is dim! The glasses really eat up a lot of light! Also, the trailers were really, really loud and harsh. This theater obviously doesn't believe in running the trailers at a lower volume than the feature. Pity they are not willing to do that. Lazy. Anyway, the movie was very enjoyable and I enjoyed it a lot! Great story that really didn't have any slow spots or parts where I got bored or disinterested. This movie taught me that I can be accepting of both obese people AND asian people! The computer animation was great, but certainly nothing groundbreaking. The visuals look like they use the same engine as The Incredibles, but with fewer effects. Then again, this movie didn't really need anything like that. It also did not benefit at all from 3D, either. In fact, I wish I saw it in 2D instead because it would have been brighter. 3D actually diminished the enjoyment somewhat, but I will be looking forward to this on Blu-ray. I just hope they don't waste space by including a 3D version with it (unless it is on a separate disc).  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-04-2009 11:02 PM                        quote: Joe Redifer It also did not benefit at all from 3D, either. In fact, I wish I saw it in 2D instead because it would have been brighter. I saw this and I agree. Oddly enough I was with my little ones and they spent half the movie with thier glasses off. In trying to help then throughout the movie with popcorn and things - I had my glasses off too and I noticed that there were entire 15 to 20 minute segments of this film that were not even in 3-D. Made me wonder how many other 3-D movies I saw that would have been just as good in 2-D. Hmmmmm....  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.