quote:

---

Could you look into it more, rather than posting links. I kind of hate that.

---

quote:

---

Ghosts of the Abyss details Release Date: Apr 11, 2003
Rating: G
Runtime:
Academy award winning director and master storyteller James Cameron journeys back to the site of his greatest inspiration - the legendary wreck of the Titanic. With a team of the world's foremost historic and marine experts and friend Bill Paxton, he embarks on an unscripted adventure back to the final grave where nearly 1,500 souls lost their lives almost a century ago. Using state-of-the-art technology developed expressly for this expedition, Cameron and his crew are able to explore virtually all of the wreckage, inside and out, as never before. With the most advanced 3D photography, moviegoers will experience the ship as if they are part of the crew, right inside the dive subs. In this unprecedented motion picture event, made especially for IMAX 3D Theatres and specially outfitted 35mm 3D theatres across the country, Cameron and his team bring audiences to sights not seen since the sinking 90 years ago and explore why the landmark vessel-more than any shipwreck-continues to intrigue and fascinate the public.

---

quote:

---

"specially outfitted 35mm 3D theatres" not "specially outfitted 35mm theatres"

---

quote:

---

but a HIGH-GAIN screen can work too I'm sure, erm think

---

quote:

---

Spy Kids 3 is being filmed in 3D with the same camera as GOTA.

---

quote:

---

As if the experience of watching one of Robert Rodriguez’s Spy Kids movies wasn’t crazy enough, it looks like the frenetic director will be adding one more visual twist to the franchise’s third installment. That’s right, it’s Spy Kids 3D! Apparently, Rodriguez will be making use of the same digital 3D camera Jim Cameron put to work in his IMAX Titanic movie. Coupled with the kind of Willy Wonka-on-speed antics we saw in Spy Kids 2, this could lead to the largest number of movie-related seizures since Jaws: The Revenge.

---

If this is the case, I wonder if this will be released in IMAX 3D theaters, too?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-04-2003, 11:59 AM:
 
What's anaglyph 3D?

I wish they would release GOTA in a single-strip 3D format. We have a silver screen, so we could do it.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-04-2003, 12:37 PM:
 
anaglyph = red-green / red-blue / whatever...
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 03-05-2003, 07:49 AM:
 
Well that is great to hear! I have been trying to get a source for 3D films on digtal as I plan to setup a 3D system at the theatre I work at. Would be great to show 3D there. They have a silver screen. I showed 3D last year at my high school in the auditorium. Encounters in the Third Dimension as a demo, worked well. Would be great if this is also avalible on a digtal system. I think that should be digtals only chance is for 3D!
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 03-05-2003, 07:57 AM:
 
Found this on Big Movie Zone- Good new for us all, no dual projector and is on digtal for me!

May 24, 2002: Cameron to Release 'Ghosts' in 3 Types of 3D, Including 35mm
In an interview with 'The Hollywood Reporter' published May 10, 'Titanic' director James Cameron revealed plans to release his upcoming Big Movie, Ghosts of the Abyss, in three different 3-D versions: 15/70 IMAX 3D; HD 3-D; and 35mm "over-and-under" 3-D. By offering the film in the latter two 3D formats, both for use in normal 35mm theaters, Cameron hopes the film will show on an additional 100-150 screens (or roughly double the number) than would be possible for a standard IMAX 3D release. According to Cameron, "[t]he company that is financing the film, Walden Media, is owned by Philip Anschutz, who owns something like 20% or 25% of the theaters in North America, and they're going to be encouraging a number of their theater chains to install either 35mm over-and-under projection or digital projection to support this title."
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-05-2003, 08:38 AM:
 
Great! I wonder if anyone around here will (Philly market) have that setup.
 

---

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 03-05-2003, 09:01 AM:
 
The specially outfitted 35mm 3D theatres (or whatever the exact quote is) will generally consist of 35mm over-under 3D on single machines. ISCO is providing the lenses for these projects.

Pat
 

---

Posted by Jon Bartow (Member # 241) on 03-07-2003, 08:57 AM:
 
One of my theaters is getting "Ghosts of the Abysss". Disney is providing the special Silver screen and the over/under 3D lens. (Still not sure who is installing it though.) The total running time is 64min (with an attached 3D trailer). Opening Date is April 11th.
Jonathan
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-07-2003, 07:40 PM:
 
Perhaps this will spark the long-expected Third Coming of 3D.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-11-2003, 11:32 AM:
 
At ShoWest, I talked to Chris Condon of StereoVision. He said he has been contracted by Disney as a consultant in outfitting the 35mm theatres, which AFAIK, will use the 35mm StereoVision "over-under" 3D print format. I believe MDI (Andrew Lee) will be supplying a special lenticular high gain screen for some of the theatres.

http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-movie-magic/

http://www.stereoscopic.org/2000/sdphco.html

http://www.filmthreat.com/FilmFestivals.asp?Id=902
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-12-2003, 02:56 PM:
 
With the Anschutz ties I expect Ghosts of the Abyss to play all the Regal-owned IMAX theaters, including the Regal New Roc City and UA King of Prussia.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-14-2003, 10:43 AM:
 
Here's a list of theatres scheduled to show GOTA, according to the Disney website.

Disney is trying, apparently, to be confusing with their list by adding "3D Theatre" to every theater name, blurring the line between 35mm and large format.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-13-2003, 06:10 PM:
 
So, now that this movie is out, does anyone have details? There are 3 theatres in my area claiming to show the 3d 35mm version, but I have not had time to check it out yet.
 

---

Posted by Jon Bartow (Member # 241) on 04-13-2003, 06:43 PM:
 
One of my theaters is currently playing Ghosts of the Abyss in 3D. it opened on the 11th of April. It is the over/under system. NOT dual machine. As I have been told Disney supplied the lens (Schneider I believe) and the silver screen (a directional high-gain silver, I think. They are telling people to not sit in the front few rows). Patrons have to wear those polarized glasses.
Jonathan
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-13-2003, 07:18 PM:
 
Abyss is over under single machine
 

---

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 04-16-2003, 12:18 PM:
 
I believe Adam and other mentioned that Spy Kids 3 will be filmed in 3D with the same rig used in GOTA. Me thinks that some marketing hype may be behind this. As I understand it, SP3 will have short segments filmed utilizing the Pulfrich method. Theatre patrons will don their glasses (or should I say glass) during specified segments of the film.
 

---

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 04-16-2003, 02:01 PM:
 
I went to the Lincoln Center IMAX theatre (located in the heart of New York City) to see the 6:30 show last night. As I was about to buy my ticket, I asked to confirm that it was showing in 3-D. They said no, because there was a problem with the glasses. They hoped it would be fixed by today.

If they can't get the technical bugs worked out at their premiere
Manhattan venue, I wonder what kinds of problems they're having around the country. Faulty presentation (as in the 50's and the 80's) is going to doom 3-D again!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-16-2003, 02:30 PM:
 
That is a little unfair considering that most of the IMAX 3d theatres run day in and day out with out a hitch so the odd failure is to be expected.
Also the PSE headsets used are not just cheap glasses
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-16-2003, 02:40 PM:
 
Bernie,

The first IMAX 3-D film I saw was at that same Lincoln Centre IMAX theatre and it was about a young Russian boy in New York City. The glasses or goggles they used was the electronic type that had a red light and before the film started we were asked if we saw the light. If the goggle did not show this light, it means that that it was defective and need to be replaced. The Waikiki IMAX here in Honolulu uses the standard kind and the the problem you experienced in New York is non existent in this theatre.

By the way, what is the difference between the goggles and the regular Polaroid glasses?

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-16-2003, 03:27 PM:
 
The polsrized system uses 2 polarizing filters one rotate 90 degrees in respect to the other with complementing filters on the left and right image source (2 machines or a split lens)
Effectively this allows only the eye in question to see the image for the complimenting filter source.
The problems with them is there is always some ghosting and if the audience has there glasses slightly off level then the ghosting is worse

The headset system has a rotating shutter on the projector that is synced to the lcd stlyed shutters in the headsets and this increases the amount of seperation dramatically reducing ghosting and eyestrain
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-16-2003, 03:42 PM:
 
The film Claude saw was Across the Sea of Time: New York 3D. We've talked about the E3D glasses here and I'm sure other places.
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 04-16-2003, 05:15 PM:
 
We are running GoA 3D here at the Charleston IMAX. We are the only theatre showing this print in the area, there is another in Greenville , I think.

We are having no problems running GoA 3D, but when we ran our trailers for it GoA in 3D we had problems, or we thought we did. Our images we not lining up. The backgrounds where not in focus and what was suppose to be in 3D was not in true 3D. Also the picture was not lined up correctly. At the edges of the screen you could clearly see 2 different frames or scenes. We first switched eyes, but that didn't help, so we asked for new trailers, they came and same problem. Apparently we where the only theatre running GoA trailors in 3D. . Our Space Station 3D was fine, so we knew it was the trailers.

We continued playing the trailers and had no complaints. We finally screened GoA 3D, when it came in and the same problem was visible as the trailers. We called DKP and was told Cameron didn't leave a 2 inch gap for your eyes and when filming 3D movies, he went to 4 inches.
 

---

Posted by Tom Doyle (Member # 1474) on 04-16-2003, 10:53 PM:
 
I just got a copy of The Hartford Advocate today - Ghosts Of The Abyss is reviewed by John Boonstra. Here's a snippet from the review:

". . . the 3D process is instantly headache-inducing and never, ever looks particularly three-dimensional."

As I write this, the website has not been updated yet for this week's issue, but you can try here tomorrow: www.hartfordadvocate.com and click on 'film'.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-16-2003, 11:46 PM:
 
I have a 3D trailer for GOTA on SOS Planet. The 3D sync is just fine, but one of the eyes was mis-printed and is cocked at an angle of about .5 degrees. This is throwing the 3D effect off a little, as well as focus. The feature print of GOTA is just fine.

The HD camera that Cameron used has a couple of major limitations. The convergence (which controls how "deep" the image is) on the camera was fixed. This means that the 3D effect will be subtle rather than "in your face".

The interoccular distance (the distance between the lenses/eyes) controls how large an object appears. The greater the distance, the smaller the object looks. The average human eye pair is 2.5 inches apart. That's why when a 3D image is properly set up on screen, there should be a 2.5-inch offset (which also matches the camera lens offset). The lenses that Cameron used required that a 4-inch distance was used.

Additionally, the cameras were modified so that the pitch angle could be adjusted with the focus.

I'm not real clear myself on how that last item affects how one perceives stereo vision, but I understand it was an unusual thing to do with the cameras.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-17-2003, 07:02 PM:
 
The excessive interoccular (4" instead of 2.5") explains why everyone looked just a little too small.

I'm still cogitating over your statement about the interoccular matching the image offset on the screen. Screen size doesn't matter? I thought an image that is to be seen at the level of the screen (neither in front of nor behind) would be completely converged.
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 04-17-2003, 07:14 PM:
 
William

Was it you who coined the phrase " This trailer looks like stomped dog !"?
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 04-17-2003, 07:27 PM:
 
Nope was not me, but I do agree.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-17-2003, 07:58 PM:
 

quote:

---

I thought an image that is to be seen at the level of the screen (neither in front of nor behind) would be completely converged.

---

A dual-strip 2D trailer (both eyes identical) presented with an offset of 2.5-inches at the screen will appear slightly in front of the screen.

I honestly don't remember (it was explained to me once) why there is an offset at the screen, but it had something to do with consistency with the cameras. (Could have been BS!)

I wonder if GOTA would look any better if I changed the offset here to four inches? Obviously, I won't be able to do that, because our 2D would then be showing on the walls and our other 3D films would look like crap. But it would be an interesting all-nighter experiment, nonetheless.
 

---

Posted by John Stewart (Member # 989) on 04-17-2003, 11:12 PM:
 
Spy Kids 3 is being shot in 3d but I don't know if the whole film will be shown in 3d. The crew spent the last 2 sundays shooting in front of our theater in downtown Austin. I saw 2 Sony HD camera with cables going over to 2 VTRS. I did not get to see the cameras up close but one was in the normal horizonal position and the other was vertial in the downward position. My guess it is looking into a mirror. We had an afternoon shower and a lot of plastic showed up to cover it all up.

John
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 04-20-2003, 10:11 AM:
 
May not fit here exactly but here goes.

Went to see GOTA at London Waterloo Imax yesterday and enjoyed the film itself. However, its been a while since I've seen an IMAX 3D show and I have to say I was not impressed.

The last time I saw a show we had to wear electronic headsets and the 3D was amazing as was the image quality. Yesterday we were given flimsy glasses that used poloarising filters and the image was very dissapointing to say the least.

At times there was a distinct ghost image, presumably the filters not cancelling out wrong eye information. Also the focus was very suspect and the image seemed to stutter as things moved quite fast, mainly peripheral but disturbing none the less. The light fall off from left to right was noticable but not too bad. We were sitting to the left off center. I did not see any of this on my last visit.

I relaise the expence of using the electronic head gear must have been considerable, cleaning and charging etc etc. Also there may have been some resistance from the public to wearing them. But for a quality experience it was unbeatable. Why the change to this simpler, cheaper system. The impact is still there but its no longer the spectical I remember.... or is it just me.

I should add that the friend I was with whilst he did not understand the process did notice some of the things above.

When did the change take place and does anyone else feel the standard has dropped.
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 04-21-2003, 08:34 AM:
 
Well first let me say there is no reason why over and under 3D vrs dual system should be better then one another in the 3D effect. I know most things there is too know about 3D. Having shot my own 3D test films, I have read a book on the topic and more. Polarised 3D is better then shutter method becuase the shutter method has the crippling effect of not being able to present both images to the eyes at the same time. So on a quick pan a rippling effect can happen.

I am not sure why cinemas are not considering showing the 3D with 2 pretty bright video projector and getting the film on dual HD DVDs?

I have been looking it to it for the cinema I work at. Nwave can supply me their films on 2 HD 32mbps DVDs.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 04-21-2003, 08:56 AM:
 
Ken, I believe Imax has changed out or is in the process of changing out their electronic 3D glasses to passive in all their theatres. Although the shuttered liquid crystal glasses provided a superior presentation over polarized, the cost of maintaining the electronic glasses as well as logistics in handling made them less than desirable to theatre owners. The electronic glasses were somewhat bulkier to wear and most people seemed to prefer the lightweight aspect of the polarized type. I'm glad there are people out there who actually noticed the difference. Cheers!

Paul, what colour is the sky in your world? Since when are "quick pans" a factor in filming of 3D presentations. The only reason theatres are showing GOTA in under/over is that it is the only way it can be presented within a reasonable budget. Dual 35 as well as 2 video projectors are not only costly, but most current projection rooms are not equipped for either.
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 04-21-2003, 09:14 AM:
 
Last time I check it was blue!

When I said quick pans, this referse to when shutter type glasses are used. This is a well know fact. Think about it, if each eye is not reciving both images at the same time is not as good as both of the images being seen at the same time.

The rental of portable bright projectors are not expensive for shows. I don't mean fulled sized DLP projectors. Just general sized LCD or DLP portable projectors.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-21-2003, 01:56 PM:
 
Generalized LCD portable projectors are not even in the quality ballpark for comercial showings unless one is saying quality doesn't matter
As for panning with the shutters that is not an issue as the original source is descreate source.
Also I believe the flicker rate on the LCD glass/shutter is high enough it is not an issue
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-21-2003, 03:39 PM:
 
I'm curious. Re IMAX Shutter 3D, is that a single strip film with alternating images? And if so, does it run at 2X speed?
 

---

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 04-21-2003, 03:57 PM:
 
Gordon is correct....as usual. The flicker rate in an Imax LC 3D presentation is well above what the human brain can perceive. I beleive the flicker rate is actually 96Hz (24 fps x 2 flicker shutter x 2 eyes) if you look at it as a whole or 48Hz per eye.

The Imax 3D system uses two films, not one film with an alternate frame.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-21-2003, 05:41 PM:
 
Imax has nothing to do with exhibitors choosing to change to polarized-only 3D glasses. It is simply a choice on the exhibitor's part to not deal with the high maintenance that the E3D system requires. Many theaters which have the E3D system are simply using the polarized part of the electronic goggles and have the shutters disabled.

Because of this, Imax has decided (from what I understand) to no longer install E3D systems. They do, however, continue to service them and continue to offer refurbished goggles to the exhibitors.

Exhibitors are not required to purchase the nice XR polarized glasses from Imax. They may choose to use glasses manufactured by a third party. Unfortunately, these glasses are often less effective at extinguishing opposite-eye image ghost and are usually a lot flimsier. So please don't let one theater's cheapness ruin your opinion of Imax 3D in general.

Additionally, keep in mind that for this particular film, the source material is from HD video, so there's no way it's going to look as good as what you're used to seeing in 15/70. The 3D does, however, hide a lot of the flaws.

The dual-projector systems (SR or dual classic) are the only Imax systems that show both images flickering at the same time. The GT rotor has the right eye running a quarter frame behind the left eye (the first impression on the right eye occurs as the left eye flicker shutter passes the image). The strobing that you perceive is caused solely by the speed of the camera movement and is noticeable in many of the 2D films that I have run. At 24 fps with a frame that large, an object can only move so fast across the frame before it appears to be jumpy. It's not as noticeable with slower-speed films because the image blurs together (or with any system that is under-lamped).

Rippling is a completely different matter. If you see rippling between the two images, then the images are seriously out of sync. I've noticed slight rippling with as little as one frame off-sync, and have had theaters run films as much as three frames off-sync without so much as a single complaint. It all depends on what's in the frame and how contrasty it is.

GOTA is being presented in over/under in 35mm because Disney is paying for the initial installations with the stipulation that if the film does well and expands, the additional installations will be covered by the exhibitors. I don't see Disney upgrading a bunch of booths with dual projectors and synchronized motors and additional platter systems when a much more cost-effective method is available for their "experiment".

We rent portable LCD projectors fairly often here. A 7700 lumen Sanyo projector rents for anywhere from $500-1000 per day depending on the deal we work out. Not exactly cost-effective for this situation.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-21-2003, 06:53 PM:
 
Adam, what is the purpose of having the two films 90° out of sync? If they were clever and had a spinning mirror so both films could share one lamp it would be cool(er, pun intended) but obviously that's not the case.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 04-22-2003, 02:07 PM:
 
I'd worked out it was a cost consideration. I remember seeing those rows of headsets on charge and the cleaning and checking etc etc...

It's a shame that the 'Standard' is not enforced so that IMAX is always best it can possibly be. Unfortunatly they don't drop the ticket price to reflect the saving from using cheap glasses.

It's just another cinema experience.... popcorn & coke and adverts.......

THX seem to be going the same way by introducing a new standard for the older movie palaces that can't reach the usual standards..... according to another post on here.

I think all they will achive is to reduce the brand name 'value' in the long run.

But hey.... it's cheaper to run and maintain so it must be good.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-22-2003, 02:41 PM:
 
The WAikiki IMAX Theatre here in Honolulu has been playing 3-D IMAX films ever since Consolidated installed the equipment after they bought the thetre from Destination Cinema about two years ago. The theatre has always been using IMAX issued Polaroid glasses and not the electronic type I used when I saw my very first 3-D IMAX film in New York City a couple of years ago and could not tell the difference between the two because they were both great. I also saw the T-2 show in 3-D at Universal Studio's theme park in Orlando shortly after it was released and I think they also used the regular Polaroid glasses and it too was awesome!

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 04-23-2003, 08:06 AM:
 
I belive 2 video projectors with enough brightness and res would look very good on a fairly large screen, not something tooooo big. At work I have seen a video projetor used with a widescreen lens and the image looked very good. The projector that we play the adds from is only a cheaper model yet even from the front row the pixels are barly evident, have to look really hard.

A company is selling software to use with these digital 3D servers and already a couple of cinemas are running it. http://www.lightspeeddesign.com/3d/3d.html
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-23-2003, 08:26 AM:
 
Paul you will need over twice the light level per projector of non 3d just to overcome the losses on the two sets of polarizers (one on the lens and one in the glasses) A polarizer typically represents 2 fstops of light reduction
And unless the screen is real small pixels are evident and it is definitly not a film done right solution
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-23-2003, 11:17 AM:
 
Many LCD video projectors somehow polarize one or more of the color panels. The Mitsubishi projector ($9,000 price range, producing a nice 30-foot wide image) I installed in the Grand Rapids Imax theater did this. If you were wearing the polarized 3D glasses while watching the video preshow, one eye could not see one color and the other eye could not see another color. This resulted in severe eye strain and I had to re-polarize the light with a spare Imax filter after it exited the main lens so that both eyes could see all the colors in the 2D image.

I can't imagine what I would have had to do to produce a decent 3D image under those circumstances.
 

---

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 04-23-2003, 11:02 PM:
 
Adam is so correct. All LCD projectors that I am aware of use internal polarizers which render them unusable for polarized 3D projection. They can be used with the shutter glasses system though. You need a DLP or ILP or conventional CRT system to do polarized video projection. I've done it in an industrial situation using 2 Sony Graphics grade CRT projectors on an 8ft silver screen with stunning results.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-24-2003, 03:29 AM:
 
Since I have received numerous email requests, I'll just post this here:

Imax does not sell their 3D glasses to anyone other than Imax theaters. And theaters have to order them in large quantities, so I'm afraid I can't order anyone a pair or two at cost. Sorry! Try Ebay. (Really! I swear! I see them on there quite often being sold by people who stole them from theaters.) Don't forget the 3M polarizing filters to match the glasses ... those run about $400 per eye.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-24-2003, 03:31 AM:
 
Wanna post WHY people have been asking for them?

Speaking of eBay.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-24-2003, 03:39 AM:
 
Hmm ... not one of those three films was produced by Imax, nor was the 3D video system. Imagine that ... a misleading auction on Ebay!

Anyway, I won't get into what people want to do with the glasses, but since I work for Imax (specifically, a theater that Imax owns), I just don't think it's anything I want to get involved with. No hard feelings.

Hey ... how about that Ghosts of the Abyss in 3D! Maybe I'll go see it in 35mm over/under this weekend to compare.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-25-2003, 11:39 AM:
 
Why? Well, it was mentioned here that the IMAX 3D glasses are of a higher quality and provide a better 3D effect than the cheap flimsy glasses. It was also mentioned that theater owners usually take the cheap route and buy the cheap glasses. So, if someone is interested in seeing IMAX 3D on a regular basis, why not have your own glasses if they'll work better? In fact, you should suggest that IMAX SHOULD sell the glasses at the theaters, or on the web site. Some people (admittedly probably few, but some) would buy them.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-25-2003, 12:17 PM:
 
Oh, well since you put it that way, I'll mention that some 3D glasses polarize light on a 90-degree axis to the horizon while others are on a 45-degree axis. It would really suck to have spent that kind of money only to find out that you have to hold your head sideways the entire show. And since they're using cheap glasses, they probably don't have anyone in the booth who knows which way their system polarizes.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 04-28-2003, 12:27 PM:
 
Adam is right about polarization orientation. The only time you will find a 0-90 degree -| is in certain Imax theatres. For the most part all other 3D presentations are in a 45 degree \/ orientation (\ is left eye and / is the right eye). If you owned a pair of the 45 degree glasses you could in fact view most polarized 3D movies, including GOTA in 35mm.

In the near future I would like to post pictures of my 3D glasses collection on this site. I am quite proud of it as it contains over 120 pairs of 3D glasses from around the world. I even have some Russian prototypes that are actually so well made, it is a shame they never came to fruition.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-28-2003, 12:55 PM:
 
Manny started a 3d glasses photos thread here when you're ready to upload those photos!
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-30-2003, 03:22 PM:
 
Are those the only two possibilities, or could they also be |- or /\ ?

And what are those settings called? Do they have names?

Thanks again,
Mark
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-30-2003, 03:38 PM:
 
I look forward to the photo postings of glasses.
 

---