This is topic Real D & Dolby 3-D - What is the difference? in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000287

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-12-2008, 06:00 PM:
 
Hawaii now has three theatres capable of showing digital 3-D movies. The first one at Regal's Dole Cannery 18 in Honolulu is equipped with a Real D projection system. The two others are Consolidated Theatres operated by Reading International and they just put in Dolby 3-D for Walt Disney film, BOLT. One installation is at the Ward Centre 16 in Honolulu and the other is on Maui at the Kaahumanu Theatres in Kahului. I have seen several 3-D films at the Dole Cannery already but I have never seen any in Dolby 3-D. The Dole Cannery ads for the film states that there is an additional $2.50 charge for the glasses. Consolidated does not indicate that there is an extra charge for their glasses. Is this due to the fact that they might be using reusable glasses? Regarding the two process, what are the difference and is one better than the other? With the exception of JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH in Real D which I thought was projected too dark, I like Real D. I am planning to see BOLT next week at the Ward Centre in 3-D and would like to know in advance what to expect.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2008, 07:03 PM:
 
..another Beta vs VHS war, basically - both did the same but different ways of doing the playback.

Real D:

1-Silver screen..you're gonna have to sit in the middle to enjoy the movie do to the high contrast presentations.
2-Toss away plastic glasses
3-A leased system with royalties to Real D for usage

Dolby 3D:

1-Uses existing screen
2-Glasses that must be returned at the boxoffice for cleaning.
3-Theatre owner owns the system - no lease involved.

..the basics of the systems.. prob is more where others can chime in with the details.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-12-2008, 08:13 PM:
 
There was a big difference between BETA & VHS formats. When they were first introduced, I used both formats eventually settling with the top of the line Sony Extended Definition BETA and JVC's Super VHS machines in my home theatre system and I have found BETA was a much superior system with sharper picture and contrast on my special Sony Profeel 25 inch monitor.

I am pretty sure there is a noticeable difference between Real D and Dolby 3-D and my gut feeling tell me the Dolby system is much better than Real D after reading the product description at the Dolby site.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2008, 08:48 PM:
 
At least with the Dolby, you can see 3D anywhere in the house, whereas with the silver screen, it's like the olden days of 3D - gotta sit in the middle due to the high contrast of the silver screen.

Sorry, didn't mean to do the video war comparision as in quality, just they played back on the same TV screen. We know that Beta walked all over VHS in terms of quality.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-12-2008, 09:21 PM:
 
I've never had a problem watching Reel-D, even from extreme angles. The polarization process for Reel-D is circular, so the standard 45 degrees from the center of the screen rule that applies for linear polarization does not apply here. On both systems all seats see 3D and there is little to no ghosting, even if you tilt your head.

[ 12-12-2008, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Mike Olpin ]
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-12-2008, 09:32 PM:
 
Well, the systems are similar in the intent and quite different in the execution. The aim of both systems is to project two full color images on the screen so that only one of them can be seen by one eye and the other by the other eye.

In both systems, the projector quickly alternates the projected picture between the left and right eye images, at 144 times per second. To the bare human eye, this looks like both images are on the screen "at the same time" (or close enough to fool the brain).

But the real-3D system uses polarized light to make the selection as to which image goes to each eye. The image coming out of the projector's lens intended for one eye (say the right eye) goes through a linear polarizer placed in front of the lens and then a very thin liquid cristal plate that is made to become a quater-wave retarder. When the plate is in a "relaxed" state, the light leaving the plate is polarized in a circular rotation direction that is opposite to that produced when the liquid cristal material in the plate is aligned (which adds another half-rotation), which happens when a high enough voltage is applied to each side of the plate.

Texas instrument DLP based projectors have a signal in their imaging electronic board that is perfectly tuned to the rate the images are formed in the micromirrors. You can use this signal to perfectly sync a colored wheel in home projectors to alternate a red-blue-green images on the screen at up to 144 times per second and produce that way an image that to the naked bare eye looks in color from just one micromirror device.

In TI digital cinema projectors (and some home projectors), this is not needed as 3 micromirror devices produce each color image (red-green-blue) at the same time. But this same synch signal is used by the real-3d active light polarizer to change the direction of the rotation of the light polarization 144 times per second, matching left-and-right images.

To preserve the polarization of the light after it bounces (off the screen), a metalic screen is needed. The light then reaches the eyes of the audience after going through their 3D glasses. The glasses are composed with each lens having a circular polarizing filter of opposite rotations. The result is that one filter blocks the incorrect image for one eye while allowing the correct one to go through. 144th of a second later, the other image arrives to the other eye in the opposite-rotation polarization state.

In the Dolby system (developed by Infitec), the projector is fitted with a circular filter wheel which rotates in front of the formed image in sync with the pictures in the micromirror devices, which also alternate quickly between the right and left images. But this rotating filter actually allows only a specific and narrow band of the green, red and blue light to shine through, blocking the rest of the color spectrum. When the image for the other eye is formed, the filter rotates and allows a different but equally narrow band of red-green-and-blue.

The lenses fitted on the audience glasses have similar filters that only allow a narrow set (band) of green/red/blue to go through, different bands on each eye.

As a result, each eye sees a slight different shade of all three colors, which when combined, produces a "full" color image. The image on screen is color corrected to compensate (as much as possible) for this slightly-different-per-eye color palette, but the brain combines disparities in color far better than most people think. It's actually difference in luminance on each eye that the brain has a real tough time dealing with.

Because the Dolby system uses colors instead of polarized light, there are no issues with orientation or with the screen having to be metallic, etc.

In a way Dolby system is similar to anaglyph (blue/red 3D glasses) in that color is used to separate the left and right eye images, but unlike anaglyph, all 3 primary colors are allowed to go through each lenses. You can read more about it here: http://www.infitec.net/infitec_english.pdf

None of these systems are perfect, of course. They each have their issues and they both don't present the images for the left and right eyes at exactly the same time, but 144th of a second apart is not really noticiable.

They both exhibit a degree of crosstalk (showing the wrong image to the wrong eye, which is seen as "ghosting" or double image), but this can be small enough to be almost neglible if done right. The Dolby system has some limitations on the color palette that can be rendered plus a slight rivalry between the colors of each eye (but absolutely nowhere near the problem of red/blue anaglyph glasses). The brain can easily adapt to that. The necessary use of a metallic (silver) screen on the Real 3D system brings some problems endemic to such screens: their inherited directionability and color spectrum, which makes brightness and color appear to change quickly depending on what angle you are looking at the screen. A curved screen (or a lenticular one) can help disperse the light a bit more evenly across, but at the expense of its own set of problems. The angle of the viewer with the screen also plays a role on how aligned the polarization of the light arrives with respect to the glasses' filters. But this is far less of an issue with circular polarization as used in Real-3D than it is with linear polarization, mostly used in the past for film-based 3D systems.

The main problem with the Real-3D system is greed: the manufacturers want a cut (royalties) for what is a very simple and cheap liquid crystal plate. You would not, I repeat, would not EVER EVER EVER imagine what is the total cost of manufacture of a plate system like the Real-3D z-screen. EVER. (Hint: it's a really really low two figure number).

The main problem with the Dolby 3D system is greed-and-cost: the filters used for their glasses are somewhat expensive to manufacture and Dolby/Infitec want to make a high profit selling them for good $$$. If Dolby would price their glasses at $6 (and one day they may), they'll own the market.

There are other 3D systems available for e-cinema, such as those using active glasses, which are glasses with batteries and liquid crystal shutters that turn black/transparent quickly in sync with a signal "broadcasted" in the theater in sync with the left/right images on the projector. The glasses completely block all the light in one eye while the image for the other is on the screen. No especial screen is needed for this system nor is anything needed in front of the projection lens. Only an electronic interface is hooked to the projector to "broadcast" (infrared or radio) a signal to the auditorium to which the glasses synch to know when to turn one eye "black" and the other transparent, and viceversa. Problem with this system: cost of glasses (although can be as low as $20), batteries (although a $1 battery can last over a week of constant use), plus your usual ghostings (if the glasses are not quick enough to go from full-black to full-transparent when the image on the screen changes, momentanealy allowing the wrong image to be seen by the wrong eye). If you can not manufacture shutters that switch fast enough, you can trade ghosting for flicker (not good either). Also, the glasses can obviously not be overly small (i.e. cardboard glasses) or cheap or lightweight as they need to house the button battery, the synch receiver (infrared or radio antenna), drive electronics and the liquid crystal shutter panels.

There is another system similar to Real-3D but with a rotating polarizing filter wheel instead of a static electronically activated liquid crystal plate, all the rest being the same (in practical terms) as the Real 3D.

And of course, you can also use dual projectors with either a simple polarizing filter (linear or circular, your choice) in front of each one or an Infitec color filter for the Dolby glasses. The advantages of dual systems being: double the light output, no royalties, cheap add-on (simple passive filters), simultaneous images for both eyes, more efficient separation (i.e. better polarizers than a LC plate), etc. Main disavantages: cost of two projectors instead of one and not perfect "registration" (keystoning, lens aberrations, etc) and not 100.00% perfect even illumination (two light sources, two incident angles, two different lenses, etc).

And we won't even talk about anaglyph (red/blue) systems. Although they don't need a special screen or lens or electronics or almost anything, each eye can only receive an image that is all mostly in one color, not to mention each eye gets a different color. The headache trying to fuse such different images coming from each eye can be epic for a lot of people, not to mention the resulting image having really wacked out color palette and uneven brightness. To make matters worse, the separation of the filters is usually not too good and a lot of ghosting is usually present. The only good thing about it is that nothing but $0.10 glasses are needed. No screen, no lens, no nothing. It can sort of work for a black and white film if done right, but that's not the case today.

If you ask me which way to go, I'd say dual projection. A system can be designed to allow one of the two projectors to move around to other screens when not needed for 3D, or to be used as back up, etc.

Expensive at first, but perhaps worth it in the long run. If a projector goes down, the other can continue carrying 2D shows.

But not really feasible until manufacturers stop asking for $100k for a projector that should cost $30k at most.

So what is left? Dolby is good enough. Now, if they would only lower the price of those glasses.

[ 12-14-2008, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-12-2008, 09:47 PM:
 
I've only seen the real d 3D set up myself and watched "Journey To the Centre of the Earth". Personally I thought it looked very impressive, granted that I saw it in a typical multiplex cinema with a common hight wall to wall screen.

I sat in the front left of the auditorium and had no issue with the quality of the effect nor brightness on screen, then again that actual cinema design does not allow you to sit way off center! The last 3D process I had seen (well worked with) was Imax 15/70mm 3D which also used a silver screen. I was surprised that there was not a very big difference in overall effect, obviously the Imax screen was bigger!

As for Dolby well nobody markets themselves better! When I visit their web site I even tend to forget that they are less than best to DTS with digital cinema sound! I look forward to seeing whether the difference is more media spin or science?

Claude, did you sit off center in the cinema or did the cinema feature a huge screen? My gut reaction is that IMAX digital 3D or MARK. G [TM] 3D with 2 projectors may be noticeably better but I suspect that it will more be the case of auditorium design and installation quality that defines the better experience more than brand.

edited for spelling

[ 12-13-2008, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-12-2008, 10:53 PM:
 
Comparing theses systems isn't at all like comparing apples and oranges... The Dolby system is clearly(pun intended!)far superior to Real-D. Not only is the color space perfect but you can sit anywhere in the theater and experience the same quality 3-D image you can even walk right up to the screen itself. You can't achieve perfect color space or get the same 3-D effect with Real-D because of the required silver screen and its inherent directionality. The Dolby glasses are also IMHO far more comfortable to wear.

quote: Mike Olpin

---

The polarization process for Reel-D is circular, so the standard 45 degrees from the center of the screen rule that applies for linear polarization does not apply here.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

He said it's neither true circular nor linear... but more like eliptical polarizatioion.

---

[pedantic mode]Circular is elliptical... just the two focal points happen to be on top of each other.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-12-2008, 11:22 PM:
 
Yeah, I guess it has always been called circular polarization, but it all depends at what you are looking at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

They are all forms of elliptical polarization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_polarization

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

BTW: In an assembled circular polarization filter there are both linear and circular filters that are stacked and sandwiched in between sheets of 2mm AR optical glass!! Linear filters of course just have the one linear filter material sandwiched.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Well, not exactly: circular polarizers often have a linear polarizer and a WAVE RETARDER (quarter wave) sandwiched in the substrates. Adding the retarder to the polarizer is what makes the wave "rotate" and change the polarization from linear to circular.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

To the bare human eye, this looks like both images are on the screen "at the same time" (or close enough to fool the brain).

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

They each have their issues and they both don't present the images for the left and right eyes at exactly the same time, but 144th of a second apart is not really noticiable.

---

quote: Mike Olpin

---

I've never had a problem watching Reel-D, even from extreme angles. The polarization process for Reel-D is circular, so the standard 45 degrees from the center of the screen rule that applies for linear polarization does not apply here.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Although most people can't tell the difference because they are unfamiliar with what two images being on the screen in perfect sync look like compared to two images that are not in sync.

---

Thank TI for the 144hz delay. With home 3D field sequential systems, this temporal disparity is a whooping 1/60th of a second for the "frame" (field) and "nobody complains" .

I can also detect the temporal disparity at 144hz, so no doubts it contributes to "headaches", but it's reasonable and unnoticeable to most people. The practical limit of human perception (for this type of application, not for absolute black/bright white contrast) would be a bit less than 1/200th of second, so it's almost there.

So with 3D DLP digital cinema we have:

-Our eyes being used as a d/a converter to interpret pulses of flickering bright light into shades of color.

-Our brains screwed with by presenting our eyes for 144th of a second with an image that is behind in time from the one in the other eye (never mind an image that is totally different from the other eye everytime there is a scene change in the movie).

-Our eye muscles excersised by providing them with commands to focus in one place and converge in another.

-Reduced brigthness (compared to 2D presentations).

-Reduced resolution on older (by just a few months) TI chipsets (the ones that couldn't hold the full 2K resolution at full 144hz refresh rates).

-Increased compression artifacts/reduced image quality (3D images at 2K 48fps are more compressed by the DCI specification; 0.65MB max per frame compared to 1.3MB per 2K 2D 24fps frame).

-Reduced (halved) color resolution per image. 48fps 2K 3D frames are subsampled 4:2:2 compared to 4:4:4 for a 24fps 4K 2D frame.

-Reduced color depth: 10bits agains 12bits for 2D 2K.

Etc, etc. We won't go into silver screen issues or ghosting (noticeable in some high-contrast scenes), or colometry issues (Dolby).

3-D is a bit "weird" by itself to most people (to the non-3D-fan). It already carries inherent shortcomings such as the focus/convergence eye "excersise" and the "unconfortable" (and not $$ free) 3D glasses.

If the industry starts piling up dissadvantages to 3D presentations on an already not-too-impressive 2K digital system .... well, I wonder if 3D will once again dissapear into a "fad" while execs scratch their heads wondering why it happened.

3D needs to be done "perfect" or "not at all", as even "perfect" 3D has shortcomings and detractors (i.e. customers with eye problems or stereopsis perception issues+nobody really likes wearing stupid glasses, even less if they are not free).

And, as it stands right now, a 3D picture is usually (in a bold, not-100% precise way):

-Of reduced resolution (once resized for common height or common width screen to the appropiate aspect ratio).

-Of 1/2 the amount of chroma resolution and reduced color palette (10 bits 4:2:2 subsampling)

-Of twice the compression (2.35 bits per pixel against 4.71 bits per pixel of 2D 2K 24fps content).

-Of 1/3 the brightness (as low as 3.5fl).

-Presented at different times for each eye (1/144 second apart).

-Screwed colors due to silver screen or Dolby bandpass filters. Perhaps even uneven illumination if we sit at an extreme angle from the center of the screen.

And then, add each format or inherent shortcomings (ghosting, cheap glasses aberrations/dirt/scratches/etc, focus/convergence, higher ticket expense, 10% of customers who don't like 3D).

And you thought that 2D digital cinema was expensive and not too good. Doesn't it start to look good now with 3D being even more expensive and "worse" still? Even my home projector and LCD TV start looking *really* good ...

I don't doubt that it's good enough for most people, but eventually audiences will realize they don't quite enjoy their theater presentations that much when compared to their 60" LED LCD TV at home ... not to mention fast-upcoming technologies for even more breathtaking TV's of huge sizes and affordable prices lined up for the next 2 years.

[ 12-20-2008, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-14-2008, 05:30 PM:
 
We just hung a new Harkness 2.2 gain screen in a customers Dolby 3-D house and it made a drastic improvement in brightness and color snap. I highly reccommend it. Thye are now at about 6.7 fl!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-14-2008, 07:09 PM:
 
I hope they start "timing" digital 3D movies for that brightness level instead of the 3.5 to 5.5 fl they are "timed" now. Otherwise, instead of an improved image it would actually look worse (washed out) on anything above 5.5fl.

Then again, forcing early theaters with 3.5fl levels to do something about it. More $$$$ to spend on gain screens or "bigger" lamps. There is always the great solution of using two projectors, with the small disadvantage of costing "twice" as much

Theater owners must just love digital

Probably Avatar 3D will be the first timed for something more suitable like 5 to 7 fl. Which, once again, would look crappy in 3.5 to 4.9 fl theaters ... I don't object strongly to a brighness level of around 6fl, as like it was mentioned here, your eyes adjust after a while to the low light level and produce a reasonable image. But below 5fl is certainly not acceptable in my book.

Oh well. Let's just settle for the Dolby thing on the brightest new-generation projector (for the full frame resolution at 48fps) you can find and a gain screen (although I wouldn't usually go over 1.6 gain depending on the geometry of the theater) and shoot for 6-7fl. Aditionally, dual dual-sdi (as oppossed to current single dual-sdi) frame server would also get rid of the 4:2:2 subsampling for 3D, as it's a limitation of the SDI transport system and not the server, the projector or the DCI specifications. Don't worry, soon Dolby and Doremi will be happy to add another dual-sdi card to your server for a "small" upgrade price.

Now, if Dolby would just make the glasses at an affordable price point ... Certain markets can not tolerate kids stealing/breaking/vandalizing $20 glasses on $5 tickets, of which, of course, >60% goes to distributors/taxes/etc. $10 glasses, maybe, as $1 or $2 can be added to the ticket price to recoupe the losses.

Dolby just found themselves a nice permanent revenue stream. Some 10+ glasses a month to each theater with their system. Nice.

And theater owners just found out another permanent expense attached to the "higher revenue" from 3D movies.

Then again, we have to factor in the savings in digital from splicing tape
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-14-2008, 08:23 PM:
 
2.2 gain? Yeah Right...please post a PSA chart on that one. I've been working with a Harkness Pearlux140 that has about the worst uniformity I've ever seen. The only way you are going to get uniform brightness on that is to have a pretty intense curve on it and then will likely get a washout from self-illumination.

As to Dolby making a killing on the glasses...nope, not likely...they are expensive to make. Do the cost analysis on a pair at $27.50 each. They are rated for 500 or so uses...factor in the cost of cleaning, some early replacement due to damage and theft and you still come down to something that is pretty cheap per show. Factor in an upcharge for 3D and you stand a much better opportunity to actually make money, at the theatre level, on 3D than with Real-D...whom is your partner...sharing in all revenue, with the studio.

As to Dolby's colorimity...I dunno...once you go digital, you have a funky colorspace...with a chromaticity meter, one can tell if it is a DLP or film projector just by looking at the spectrum....forgetting about the 3D entirely. With Dolby's system, each eye is calibrated independantly for white-point and the three colors...so even with Dolby 3D, the color space is well defined. The Dolby glasses are expensive due to those precise filters that are in them.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-14-2008, 08:51 PM:
 
I thought Dolby had lowered their list price to $19 for the glasses. So you can figure what the profit was when they listed for $28, unless you believe they obtained a manufacturing cost reduction advantage of 30% in a few months.

Regardless, don't think all markets can happily add $2/$3 surcharge for the 3D shows.

Some markets have $5 tickets. The most they can get away with is $1 or $2 at most.

Factor the taxes taken out from that and that sooner rather than later the studios are gonna want their 60% of that surcharge too (many already do).

Factor the additional equipment for the glasses (anti-theft, glasses collection personel, cleaning equipment) and added consumibles (water, cleaning solution, washer electricity, spare parts).

And place yourself in some markets where kids are inherently brats willing to destroy/scratch/burn/graffiti anything they can get their hands on just for the sake of it. And consider most 3D movies are "kids" movies, not responsable adults-geared ones.

And soon you'll see your "added 3D revenues" coming from your (few) 3D films can not justify losing $20 (not counting shipping and other charges) over a $7 ($5+$2 surcharge) ticket of which you only get to keep $3 gross profit if you are lucky. A single lost pair of glasses means you loose all the gross profit from about 7 patrons. Actually, what you do is transfer part of your profits to Dolby and the glasses manufacturer .

I know Infitec filters are not cheap to manufacture. But I also (wildly) estimate the glasses can be made for about $10 at current production levels and as low as $4 once volume picks up.

So Dolby and its partner is making a very nice profit on the glasses, thought not "killer".

On the other side, paper glasses for Real 3D can be made in volumen for under $0.15 and re-useable plastic ones of half-decent quality for under $1.

Just like movie theaters and popcorn/soda sales, 3D has always been a business where the hidden killer profit was the sale of (millions of) glasses.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-14-2008, 08:55 PM:
 
The radius on the screen is 125%... uniformity is far better than silver screens of the same size I've recently measured. 7fl is not bright enough to induce x-reflection.

Actually at this location, which is a medium sized Wyoming city, they grossed 45k so far on Bolt running in 3-D...not counting concession revenues... not too shabby. They have a $2.00 3-D surcharge.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-15-2008, 09:38 AM:
 
I thought Dolby recommended a 1.8 gain screen? Why was the 2.2 needed? - Matt
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-15-2008, 01:13 PM:
 
Dolby reccomends a minimum 1.8 gain screen... the 2.2 just provides more light back at ya! The 2.2 Harkness is a relatively new surface...

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-16-2008, 05:38 AM:
 
Although full of your usual journalistic errors, this video could be cool to some:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2007/11/26/screening.room.3d.cinema.blkb.cnn
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-16-2008, 10:37 AM:
 
Speaking of Journalistic errors...

Okay...the list price in USS for the Dolby glasses is $27.50, not $19.00...if you want to "believe" something...look at the Dolby price sheet.

So lets use list...$27.50...at 500 uses, excluding cleaning and other overhead costs...it costs the theatre 5.5 cents/show for Dolby 3D. Lets say you loose half before 500 shows (and to allow for cleaning and such)...so that doubles to 11-cents/show. Even a modest $1 upcharge will profit the theatre far more, percentage wise than the film itself. In many markets, the upcharge is $2/show...now you are getting into tidy profits. Much more so than with Real-D, who is taking a sizable percentage of the upcharge.

Is Dolby Making a profit? Yeah...whats your point? It isn't like xenon lamp manufacturers are not making a profit selling your stuff that wears out too. Dolby should try to make a profit...otherwise, they will go out of business. Based on the dealer discounts no the glasses...I doubt that the glasses are high-profit items in unit sales...they are not on the same discount structure as the rest of their equipment.

Dolby's recommendation for a gain screen is strictly to get the CENTER screen brightness number up. One needs 5-times the light for 3D (anybody's 3D) as they do for 2D. In short, you need your 2D picture to have the light output of 30-70fL to be in the 3-5fL range for 3D. Note, this only helps you in the center of the screen...you WILL have hot spotting effects. Gain screens require curvatures to focus their light back (which brings about geometric distortions). An ideal screen for Dolby 3D remains matte-white (1.0). You just need the light to do it. I believe the Dolby Screening Room (in San Fran) is a matte white.

7fL means nothing with regards to cross-reflections...there isn't a threshold there. The key is the long radius...odds are, you could curve the screen much more, even out the light and still avoid wash-out.

Regarding the Perlux 220...

The fiction:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

uniformity is far better than silver screens of the same size

---

The reality: Harkness PDF on their screens for 3D

The Harkness Spectral 240 3D (Silver) starts with a 2.4 gain (0-degrees off direct ray)...and drops to 1/2 as much light at about 22-degrees for an "accpetable cone" of light of 44-degrees. The Perlux 220 starts at 2.2 gain at 0-degrees and drops to 1/2 as much light at 24-degrees or about a 48-degree cone...WOW what a difference! Compare that to a Perlux 180...you get a 66-degree cone. A Perlux 140...100-degree cone. A matte-white...effectively a 180-degree cone.

You can't get around the physics of the light...look at your PSA readings..about all you get for a Perlux 220 over a Silver screen is better color...light uniformity still sucks and a radius that is 1.25x Throw is not going to even it out that much though it will move it in the right direction. If your radius was closer to 80% of your throw, you'd get things much more uniform...but one would need to know the throw, screen size, theatre dims and all that to get it optimal...and you'd still likely only cover about 2/3rds of the available seats well. If you are just looking to give that high light reading in the middle, then I guess any high-gain will do...shoot, put in a mirror! It will get a VERY high light reading...in one spot.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-16-2008, 12:19 PM:
 
Yeap. US list $27.50 for Dolby 3D glasses indeed. Down from $39 a couple of months back. My mistake.

Even more to the point, though

Don't forget that the $1/$2 upcharge has also to be shared between the studio (say 50-60%) and the goverment (say 5-17% tax). Then we factor in cleaning expenses. All of the sudden, your estimate of worse case scenario (and I believe it can even worse than that, but half the estimated life is a generous assumption) of 0.11 cents per show start to approximate the surcharge gross "profit" ($1-17%-60%=$0.23 ... add cleaning and equipment cost, there ... your 3D "extra gross profits" are gone).

And no, I don't second guess your estimate as to how much it may cost Dolby to have the glasses manufactured. Your guess is as good as mine. Mine is under $10/pair at current levels, but of course I don't know what I'm talking about since I've never made 3D glasses (well, I've made a few millions, but they were not multi frequency bandpass filters and that's beyond the point anyway) so it could be way off, I admit. It may indeed be close to $20 (after dealer discount and Dolby's profit) if you choose to favour that figure. Or we both may be way off and it's close to $5. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

And I agree with all your points about gain screens. It's generally tough to get something above say 1.3 to fully work to your advantage w/o shortcomings. Not to mention something about 1.6 or so. Of course, it all depends on the architecture of the theater (angle and distance of the booth to the center of the screen, length vs width of the auditorium, seating placement, screen curvature/aligment, etc, etc).

But a very high (above 2.0) gain screen is usually going to bring some nasty issues to the table indeed. Not necessarily, but usually will.

[ 12-16-2008, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-16-2008, 01:19 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

but half the estimated life is a generous assumption

---

No, From experience since the debut of the system, the estimated life of the glasses is a conservative one. Nearing the 500 washes mark, our glasses show no signs of wear or degredation to the lenses. We are also able to compare to new glasses and no diffrence in 3D performance can be found. I looked for specific issues such as crosstalk and clarity with no affect from the wash cycles. Hard water spots are present on some glasses, but are easily removed with microfiber and lens cleaner.

The expense of washing the glasses, as well as the labor are very low. Our Dishwasher consumes roughly 10 cents in chemicals to wash 36 glasses.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-16-2008, 01:25 PM:
 
Yes, that's what I meant. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

What I meant is that factoring they will only last half their rated cycles, due to loss/breakage/scratching/etc is a "generous" example of a worse case scenario. One would normally expect not to lose that many (50%) of the glasses before their effective life is over.

So although I do believe in some markets the "loss" rate can be even worse than that, I don't object at all to using half the rated life as an example of worse case scenario. I know glasses not vandalized will probably outlast their full rated life as well.

Again, I'm not saying that Dolby is making an absurd "killing" on the 3D glasses or that most theaters are going to be losing kazillions on 3D shows.

I'm saying that part of your extra 3D profits are going to go to a deserving partner: your glasses supplier

And I'm saying that if Dolby glasses retailed for far cheaper, their only disadvantage as a 3D system that can be recommended to everyone would dissapear.

My only theatrical customer just refuses to hand out $28 glasses to 12 year old kids that paid $6 (out of which he gets less than $3) to get in. Because he knows that, at 23 cents extra profit from the surcharge, he is gonna have to hand out that pair of glasses over 120 times (to also cover washing, etc) to 120 kids before he can pay that pair off and even dream to start making a profit.

And he doesn't believe the glasses will survive that much.

I don't agree with him, but I also don't blame his distrust with the glasses being such an expensive item.

Now, if the glasses were something like say $15, then it's much easier to reason it. And at something like $10, they will totally own the 3D theatrical market.
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-16-2008, 02:32 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

So although I do believe in some markets the "loss" rate can be even worse than that, I don't object at all to using half the rated life as an example of worse case scenario. I know glasses not vandalized will probably outlast their full rated life as well.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Much more so than with Real-D, who is taking a sizable percentage of the upcharge.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Factor in an upcharge for 3D and you stand a much better opportunity to actually make money, at the theatre level, on 3D than with Real-D...whom is your partner...sharing in all revenue, with the studio.

---

quote: Mike Olpin

---

So, If I understand right, the only things I would need are
-Dolby 3D rack mount unit of some kind
-Spinning wheel
-Glasses
-Glasses Cleaner

Outside of that there are no other charges to the theatre?

---

Correct... there are no other charges... you own the gear, you won't be paying any on going royalties! Too bad you already have the server because the price on buying a Dolby Server with 3-D system recently dropped consoderably if bought as an entire setup. The pricing on the Server/Showstore combo also recently fell something like 4 grand just a few weeks ago. Your list above is correct and the DFC-100 controler and filter wheel come as a complete package with the appropriate mounting hardware for your model projector... assuming they have one for your projector. Check with your dealer regarding the projector you have. If you are going to run on something like a 40 foot wide screen which is about the max. width that Dolby reccomends then expect to be running a 6kw lamp for your 3-d shows. Change back to a smaller lamp for 2-D stuff or if you're combining 2-D/3-D on the same day place a ND filter in for 2-D to waste the light and project at the correct fl.

Depending on the crime rate in your area you may want to consider detectors at the doorways/theater entry area to catch would be glasses thieves... keep in mind though that it would take alot of stolen glasses to offset the cost of the detectors. The strip that sets off the detectors is built into every pair of glasses.

Also, do some SMART shopping around for the washer... Check out a few restaurant supply places and so on. It can be done for way under the $4500 price of the reccomended washing machine. Also, don't be swayed by the term washing machine it uses a very minimal amount of water and only takes 3 min per batch to do. There are three different wash chemicals you need and they come in 5 gal. pails and cost something like $300.00 for the set of pails, but last a very long time. The stainless holders for the Dolby glasses I believe will have to come from just one source and Dolby or your dealer will let you know where to order them... also get the short side benches for the washer machine. Its seems formadible at first but when its all installed things really do go quite smoothly.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-16-2008, 11:33 PM:
 
I also dislike the look of most silver screens. Besides the inherent colormetry of the surface (which could be color corrected for if the distributor of the film wanted), the high gain of the reflective surface makes the colors shift quite a bit across the screen and the hot spot quite noticiable. Usually more so in large screens as your eyes scan the whole area left-right top-bottom.

With certain non-reflective but retro-reflective high-gain screens (like non-crushed pearls or beaded), some of these issues are not so evident. As your eyes, placed at whatever angle you are measuring the brightness, scan a large screen ... the difference in light reaching your eyes at different effective angles from the same position is not nearly as large as with purely reflective (i.e. silver) screens, as the light is not being "equally reflective as the angle of incidence apparently changes" but the light is being "equally reflected TOWARDS THE LIGHT SOURCE" (i.e. projection booth) as your eyes scan the screen surface at a "variating angle" (i.e. while in the same physical position with respect to the screen and the light source in the booth but changing the direction to which your eyes are moving to scan the whole screen).

Is like if the high gain retroreflective screens were made of many tiny mirrors, just like a silver one, but with the difference that all the mirrors "move" independently to always point to the light source, while in the purely reflective (silver) screen the mirrors remained static flat, like one single giant mirror, with the light always reflected to the opposite angle of incidence with respect to the center, not with respect to each "tiny mirror" spreaded across the screen surface.

So no wonder some high gain screens "look much better" than others even though the gain curve specs "doesn't lie" and they both have "mirrors" of the same "gain" and you can't cheat physics.

Also explains why they seem to reject ambient light or be more inmune to self-reflection (when curved) than others. This is because the light is not equally relected to a cone pointed to the same angle of incidence with respect to the center, but to a cone pointed to the same angle of incidence with respect to every single part of the screen, similar to the way traffic signs reflects right back to the source (the car) the light from the headlamps, but doesn't spread it over an angle like a mirror (or a flat metallic surface like a silver screen) would do.

The traffic signs also work pretty well during the day because they do not reflect the light of the sun directly to the driver's face when in the "correct angle" like it would happen to a reflective piece of metal. The traffic sign reflects the light from the sun back to the sun no matter what angle it is at. Otherwise it would blind the drivers on a sunny day if it was just plain reflective and you looked at it from the "right" angle.

So curved retroreflective screens shoot self-reflected light back to the point it originated (the screen), not to the eyes of the audience, so it doesn't wash out the image and reduce the contrast (that much).

In theory, that is, since in practice they are retroreflective+difused, of course, otherwise only the guy in the projection booth will be able to receive the light back at him and watch the film

I'm not aware of any metallic (polarizing preserving) retro-reflective screen or if such a thing can even be manufactured. All the ones I've seen (many) have been purely reflective, lenticular at best, and thus the light changes greatly with the angle your eyes are looking at different parts of it from the same position, usually more evident the larger the screen is, of course.

I have only seen non-depolarizing surfaces that I really like for 3D for retro projection. For front projection, there are better and worse screens but they all have the "silver curse"

Plenty of non-silver high gain retroreflective+diffusing screen surfaces available, of course. And reflective ones as well.

While I often try to avoid surfaces of over 1.3 gain, I can see how a very high gain (2.2+) could be manufactured as retroreflective and still show reduced artifacts compared to a highly reflective but not nearly as much gain (say 1.4) one, thus, depending on the geometry of the whole thing, making a 1.4 look on the average worse (more hotspotted, very compromised angles, very uneven) than a 2.2 in a different configuration (different size, different booth position/angle/lens' focal length, different curvature, etc).

But the rule of thumb would indicate that something with a lot of gain is going to bring serious issues on the table that need to be properly dealt with.

I have no practical experience with Harkness 2.2 other than having a sample somewhere, but the correct potential application for it hasn't shown up yet in my case. As per Mark's good review, I'll make sure I test it for Dolby 3D shall the need ever occurr. Back in the 80's 3D craze we used many Tecknicote ones I think they were, but mainly for a price consideration. Also some german ones, but I forgot the manufacturer now. And plenty of Harkness too, of course. Only installed one Stewart (the price on those things are ... well, you know), but have seen a few. Always curious about the Hurleys since I saw the sample, but have never seen one installed nor the chance to install one has come up. It's good to know that has some seams issues.

[ 12-17-2008, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-17-2008, 08:56 AM:
 
Mike,

What you need from your dealer is a Cat. No. 960Z-BAR-1 if it is a DP90, DP100, or DP3000. Normally the DP1200-DP2000 kits are obtained through Barco, as I recall...you can definitely order the projectors from Barco with the kits pre-installed.

If you have a DP100, depending on vintage, you may also need a new cooling plate with 90-degree pipes (To clear the new apparatus).

All of the Dolby 3D kits are the same (Cat 960Z) with the same price...the suffix determines what mounting system/cables are included for the specific projector. If Dolby has a different kit for the DP1200-DP2000 (and I'm sure they do)...it will end in BAR-2 or BAR-3 or something like that...that is how they handled the Christie kits (there are three Christie kits now, depending on projector and vintage).

The LIST price is $26K for any of the kits...street prices are often substantially lower. As Mark said, Dolby current has a sale going on through the end of February 2009 when 3D is bought with the server that will knock thousands off.

The Glasses are Cat 834Z and currently list for $27.50. Don't expect much if any discount on those.

For the special rack to hold the glasses in the cleaner...this is who Dolby is referring people to:
MARLIN STEEL WIRE PRODUCTS
CALL# 410 644-7456 FAX# 410 644-7457
Sales@Marlinwire.com www.Marlinwire.com

The part number is:
DOL780 PT#00780002

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-17-2008, 09:31 AM:
 
Thanks -

It's a DP100. Does the Dolby unit mount inside the projector or in front of it? We already have a swing away anamorphic lens attachment. Would it interfere with it?

26K is about twice what I had hoped it would be - but I'll pass along the figure.

Anyone know about the availability of films for this system? We cannot open day and date current 3D films, so the availability of repertory 3D is the deal breaker.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2008, 09:50 AM:
 
Mike,

Don't quote your heirearchy list prices... Call a few different dealers and get a realistic quote to give them.. No one sells this stuff at list price!!!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2008, 11:00 AM:
 
What is the startup cost for Real-D? Is it in the ballpark of Dolby or is it cheaper?

Assuming that the image and 3D quality are comparable (I have not seen Dolby, but have been impressed with Real-D), I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would put in Real-D with its annual license fee. Dolby seems like a real win, especially for a venue that would run a mix of 2D and 3D material, since it avoids the silver screen issue. Are expensive re-usable glasses really that much of a pain to deal with? Will Real-D sell a system outright, or is it a license-only deal?

Does the 2-projector 3D DLP system work just like a 2-projector 3D 35mm film system (i.e. linear polarizers and disposable cardboard glasses)? Or does it use Imax-style reusable glasses (which, presumably, have the same inventory and cleaning issues as the Dolby system)?
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-17-2008, 11:49 AM:
 
The Real-D startup cost varies on the particular deal but there are deals out there where the only cost to install Real-D is the silver screen intallation (if you already have a 2K D-Cinema system intalled). Then, Real-D gets a percentage of the upcharge in return for supplying the glasses.

We had Dolby 3D in one location and replaced it with Real-D because the issues with recovering/cleaning the glasses (not to mention lost and broken ones) were too much of a pain for the staff. In a megaplex you have more staff that can handle the tasks but in a smaller complex, we had to put on additional staff just for glasses control and cleaning even on days that weren't that busy.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-17-2008, 12:52 PM:
 
Dual projection systems would indeed be similar to dual film systems. Many of the steps are similar to using a Real 3D system. You simply:

-Buy a couple of polarizing filters, your choice of linear or circular (anywhere between $50 and whatever you want to pay, perhaps a few hundred). Circular would be slightly more expensive. Find a way to keep them aligned and in place in front of the lenses. Depending on some factors, you may need to replace them after a couple of years of use if you want to preserve the quality and polarization properties (the light from the projector burns/degrades them -- they absorb constanly around 65% of the light output). Some formulations allow for operation free of degradation of many (>10) years even with high wattage lamps, but it easier and cheaper just to go with the regular ones and replace them every couple of years.

-Install a silver screen. These are also usually recommended to be changed after 10 years or so of use. Dust accumulating in the front helps depolarize the light and create extra ghosting. Unfortunately, most silver screens are delicate and can not really be cleaned (only very gently dry mopped). Some manufacturer's silver screen materials can be more effectively cleaned.

-Buy polarized glasses. Your choice of paper or reuseable. There is a small but "significant" difference in price from linear polarized to circular polarized. You would of course need to get the kind that matches your projection lenses. Paper ones should be under aprox. $0.60 each. How much under would depend on the quantity you purchase, etc, but they can go for very very low $$$. Minimun would pbbly be something like $0.10 for huge quantities of linear plain ones.

Re-useable plastic ones should be under $4, also quite a lot less at large quantities. These, of course, you would have to collect and clean to be able to reuse them. Hard to go below about $1.25 for the cheapest linear.

You could also speak to Dolby and have them sell you a set of static filters for your projectors. They have openly stated they were in the process of supporting dual projection systems. With the filters in front of the projectors, no silver screen would be needed and you could start buying Dolby 3D glasses at around $27 like everybody else. Glasses for their system can only be bought from them. It's a propietary system and therefore there won't ever be competing manufacturers etc to lower the price. Whatever price Dolby sets would be the one you get (minus perhaps some slight dealer discount offer).

At that price, you would want to make sure you invest in collecting them and cleaning them for re-use

If you go the Dolby route (for dual projection too), I think a Dolby server is necessary, although Doremi has reached an agreement with Dolby to support the format as well in their servers.

Not sure if Dolby is 100% ready to support dual projection systems at this point, but certainly have expressed the desire to support it and probably will as soon as the first customer asks for it and they can get around any possible firmware update to the servers that may be needed.

With dual projection systems you don't need to pay any royalties to anyone, of course, and you own your own equipment. You'll just enter the business of 3D glasses resale. Buy them for $0.25, sell them for $1. Keep the profit.

Main handicap is cost. Most servers already support dual projection 3D, but you of course need two projectors and associated twice the lamp and electricity cost. On the plus side, it's usually easy to obtain the maximun 5.5fl level recommended for digital 3D at this moment, so your customers shouldn't complain of the movie being too dark.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-17-2008, 01:12 PM:
 
Mike...most defintely talk to your dealer. I only will use List price in an open forum...those that have a relationship with a dealer can figure out what the difference (percentage wise) between list and "street." That is why I cautioned on the glasses...they will NOT follow the usual discount.

As to where the Dolby 3D mechanism mounts...it is INSIDE the projector, between the light source and the integrating rod. It is a spinning disc mounted on an articulated arm such that it is only in the light path when 3D is called for on a channel/macro. One of the reasons for all of the different kits is to have suitable mounts (and cable paths) for the various projectors.

As to the 3D quality...nothing I've seen has come close to Dolby's system. The colors look right, there is no ghosting and it works regardless of seating position. Real-D is a vast improvement over traditional linear systems but it does not, in my opinion, compare favorably to Dolby 3D.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2008, 01:21 PM:
 
There is no doubt that any system one can own is a win win situation over a re-newing lease situation, especially at the low cost of owning the Dolby 3-D system, especially where the lease terms for Real-D can and will likely change. You also forgot to mention how much your revenues were above the morm for a 3-D showing. Typically it should be 3 to 7 times the norm for the same 2-D movie and as your theater owners opted to have some sort of 3-D installed it is obviously pretty profitable. Our Dolby 3-D customers just don't have that sort of trouble with the glasses although it also may be more linked to how high the crime rate is in a given area. And if they did the profits are up so high from the 3-D films that the cost of a few dozen replacement glasses every 90 days wouldn't matter at all.

Julio, You could use static filters for Dolby but even the smallish ones we use to do calibration are VERY expensive. I believe that Dolby is still in the use the filter wheel mode even in stacked situations, they are a "for profit" company after all.


Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2008, 01:31 PM:
 
Interesting. So, would the Dolby filters and glasses work for film 3D, too? Assuming that the cost would be less than that of a silver screen, that might open some interesting possibilities for doing over/under, side-by-side, or 2-strip 3D.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-17-2008, 01:37 PM:
 
I never doubted that Dolby would price any static filters they may offer for sale in the future to customers doing dual-projection at exactly the same price of their filter wheel kit minus precisely their cost of the mounting hardware Also, I don't know if their filters can stand the continuous luminous flux, so perhaps they have to actually make a rotational filter, but a "special" non-alternating one for dual projectors (I hope they are not so pig-headed to force a 144hz temporal disparity when there is no need whatsoever on dual systems and I know they can easily make filter discs of each eyes' band).

About making the Dolby (Infitec) 3D system work with film ... of course it could be made to work. But the film, say a theoretical over/under, would have to be "color corrected" (processed) to work better with the system (i.e. a print would have to be striked only for say "over/under Dolby"). A set of filters and a "mirror box" (or some sort of combining optics) would be needed in front of the projection.

And you'll have the same problems with alignment and uneven illumination you had with over/under 3D of the 80's The only thing you would be doing is trading the cost/pain/problems of a Silver screen for the cost/pain/problems of very expensive glasses.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-17-2008, 03:11 PM:
 
Actually, I'm looking into doing dual-strip 3D projection via Dolby. I have a couple of theatres with white screens and 3D capability plus Digital projection. Mounting 3D filters in each projector for such an event would be VASTLY preferable to mounting a Silver screen just for a screening or two. And nobody is interested in showing the day-to-day films on a silver screen.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-17-2008, 04:08 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

If you go the Dolby route (for dual projection too), I think a Dolby server is necessary, although Doremi has reached an agreement with Dolby to support the format as well in their servers.

---

Doremi has the capability now to support Dolby 3D. Any server running 5.2.22 SP1 or better will support the DFC-100.

Steve, If you are running dual strip 3D through the Infitec filters, how are you color-correcting? Is the film being struck with the proper color, or are you making field modifications. Or is color correction even required?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-17-2008, 05:09 PM:
 
Color correction is the least of my concerns at this point...if need be that could be done as well, though. Who is color correcting release prints? They aren't uniform from reel to reel!

Steve
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2008, 06:02 PM:
 
The color correction would be a show-stopper for use outside of special venues if it required new prints. But if the Dolby system could be used with existing prints, it would make 2-strip exhibition much cheaper and more practical for occasional use by eliminating the silver screen requirement. For the sort of theatre that might show 2-strip a few times per year, the issues with collecting and cleaning the glasses would be minimal.

I'm not naive enough to assume that 2-strip prints might be made of new releases, but there are good prints of House of Wax, Dial M, Kiss Me Kate, and other older titles that people would want to see presented properly.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-17-2008, 08:18 PM:
 
Thats just it...providing the color was "acceptable"...it would...the benefits would far outweigh other factors. Occasionally putting up a silver screen is a MUCH bigger hassle than occasionally having to deal with the glasses.

Most lamphouses/consoles have a spot for a heat filter...that is where the Dolby filters can go or even a bracket fabricated in front of that, if you need the heat filter (probably not a bad idea since you want to protect the expensive Dolby filters.

This sort of thing would mean that special venues could run 3D just as they run their regular programming...no big deal...just insert the filters, verify alignment and show...and just as fast, back to 2D mode. And given the amount of 3D shows in the venues I'm thinking about...the 500 uses would be a VERY long time!

Steve
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-17-2008, 09:46 PM:
 
Steve I'm curious is this a 2 projector system or a single projector? We are talking digital 3d here right?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2008, 10:14 PM:
 
He would have to use the Dolby Server... For Dolby 3-D the color correction in 3-D is all done in the Show Player on the color coefficients page... it is not done in the projector... this could happen assuming he is using actual calibrated Dolby filters, the algorithms are specific to those filters!! He would probably also have to make a bulb change or use a ND filter to go from 2-D to 3-D since there isn't a single lamp made that can vary that much... In fact Christie doesn't reccomend even touching, rotating, or switching back and forth lamps once a large wattage lamp is installed and running.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-18-2008, 08:35 AM:
 
I don't imagine the color correction would be much of an issue on the film unless I'm missing something. Your brain mixes the colors from the two images together pretty easily. When we saw Gog at the first 3D fest, one eye was as pink as pink could be, and the other had probably > 90% of its color. The result when viewed through both eyes was an image that looked slightly faded. So I don't think it will be much of an issue. Especially if you're showing older movies. Your audience would expect the color to be slightly off anyway if it came to that. But then again, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Mad Magician, Revenge Of The Creature, It Came From Outer Space, ... they're all black and white. So I wonder how that would look.

I'd be very curious to hear how Dolby 3D works out for you Steve if you decide to try it.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-18-2008, 10:09 AM:
 
Well, indeed the brain is very forgiving to stereo color disparities (differences in color per eye) and it's hardly is a problem as long as the luminance levels are kept the same (which hardly ever happens in anaglyph system, hence the headaches and difficulty of fusing the images).

Look at this graph.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7522/infiteccolor1cg5.jpg

Dolby 3D has a reduced color space, but reasonable.

Also, each eye has a different colorspace.

But everything inside the red triangle in the map i.e. can be displayed fine on both eyes while each subimage being properly blocked by the proper eye.

But of course you need to "move" (color correct) each image independently to make it fit in there as best as possible.

I don't know how much people would object to not color corrected images. For once, same colors (those outside the gamut) would look washed out (they would basically be sharply cut off by the filters). Then, the remaining ones would seem to "flicker" a bit (as each eye would be seeing them differently).

Uncorrected white would not look white.

Certainly not the kind of thing you want in a festival neccesarily, but perhaps doable.

Two "identical" (stereo pair) black and white pictures .... hummm ... I wonder how that would look. I have never actually seen a black a white image through an infitec system.

Where do you get that much stereo black and white material? Most movies in the 50's were color. Sure a few black and white too, but not that many.

And we won't mention that about +80% of the light is lost.

But at least there won't be buttery popcorn to leave fingerprints on the $28 glasses

Dolby has the advantage of the best extintion ratio, though (least ghosting). It's "roughly":

-Better than 250:1 for linear polarized (as long as you keep your head perfectly aligned with the screen). You lose >66% of the light. Of course having to use a silver screen, with gains of over 2.0, it also means that you get most of that light back. Kind of. Most sensitive to orientation of all systems (i.e. those not sitting centered from the screen may start seeing more ghosting). It uses the cheapest glasses and filters.

-Better than 100:1 for circular polarized (like Real-3D, you can rotate your head around). Worse extinction of all systems (largest ghosting or "double images"). You lose >70% of the light. Not so sensitive on orientation. Glasses and filters are a bit more expensive than linear.

-Better than 1000:1 for Dolby 3D. Move your head around all you want. Least ghosting by far. You lose >80% of the light. The color space is somewhat reduced and changed, but very generous and unnoticeable when color corrected. The glasses and filters cost an arm and a leg. Not sensitive to orientation or any such issues. Unless you use a gain screen to get some increase in brightness. But even then, the angle doesn't affect the extinction, only your usual potential problem with hotspotting and the like that happens with high gain screens.

Infitec had been selling their filters for home projectors for about $100 pair for a while before they made the deal with Dolby 3D for digital cinema. Several vendors sold an external color-correction box. The Infitec glasses have always been over $40 a pair, even $60 at some point. (Dolby just lowered theirs from $38 to $27).
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-18-2008, 11:39 AM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

He would have to use the Dolby Server...

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

You lose >80% of the light

---

quote: Jack Ondracek

---

OK... how bout this?

Is there any particular reason, aside from screen gain and the cost of glasses, why Dolby 3D wouldn't work at a drive-in?

---

I think it should work fine. But it would be hard to get reasonable light levels. Perhaps stacking 4 projectors. But I don't know if any servers support quadruple projection. A very high gain screen in a drive-in may not be very effective, as it probably needs to cover a wide angle area.

Here is part of a flyer by Barco when they were selling the infitec system. The active version (basically like what Dolby 3D has now) only allowed 7% of the light to reach the eyes. Or, rather, 7% of the perceived brightness that the same projector/screen would've been capable of if it didn't use the 3D system.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1339/infitecbarcohr5.jpg

Efficiency in dual systems seems to be higher now, possibly due to the blanking interval in active systems:

http://www.barco.com/entertainment/en/stereoscopic/lumens.asp

Real-3D may not work fine due to a number of issues. Real D themselves admit that their system is not recommended (doesn't work well enough) for images over 60 feet wide (due to the limited angle to which the zscreen works). Not sure with their newer XL model.

On very large screens, I think a larger zscreen would be needed and placed a bit farther from the lens, but not much. Anything above about 15º and the zscreen start to not effectively rotate the polarization in the corners of the image.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-19-2008, 08:32 PM:
 
Well, I'm mainly concerned about the screen. Silvering something like that is hardly practical.

Barco specifies their light levels with gain screens. I don't remember how much, but I don't think it was all that excessive.

So, yah... I'm pretty sure my main screen would need more than one projector. It's 86 feet. My smaller ones are 60. I was mainly wondering if anyone saw a problem with the concept.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-19-2008, 09:52 PM:
 
Well, you can silver (or purchase) a silver screen that size, that's not a problem. See all the IMAX 3D screens installed ... all of them silver, of course. And such screen with dual linear polarized projection would yield the highest brightness for 3D systems as it stands.

It would also work quite well (better extinction than circular), but there are the issues with the directionability and gain. People way off center would start to see more ghosting, which doesn't happen on Dolby, plus everybody needs to keep their heads leveled with the screen. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some windshields depolarized the light a bit. And those outside the preferred cone of gain from the silver screen would also see a darker picture.

So Dolby would be best and no problems on having it work. Except that right now it would need the light of 4 projectors plus a gain screen to reach really good levels.

A set of Barco DP-3000 (7Kw lamp) with passive Dolby 3D should give you on a 1.0 gain between 3 and 5 fl on your 60'. For your 86' it would be between 1.5fl and 2.4fl. A bit less on Christie's CP2000-SB (6Kw) or NEC's NC2500S (6Kw).

The margin of error in my calculation is because I don't know the exact claimed light loss of passive (dual) Dolby 3D, so I calculated the best theoretical possible and the worse I have measured from passive Infitec.

On a 2.0 gain screen, you get twice that much for those within the cone of preferred illumination, of course.

So with a 1.8 gain slightly (perhaps 5%) curved screen and two projectors and a passive Dolby system (if Dolby properly supports it, which they should have no problems doing if they so wished), I think it's doable for the bare minimun supported 3D light level (3.5ft) on 85 feet screens on a pair of 7Kw lamp.

Barely

If you want to do it right, would need to use 4 projectors (28kw of xenon ... ... at least it's better than Imax's 15kw x 2 for some of their polarized+silver 3D sites). Not sure 4 projectors operation is properly supported in the industry . Yet. But technically should be a no brainer.

In spite of what the industry might say, there have been open complains from patrons of too-low light levels with 3D films. I personally think that anything below 5fl shouldn't be considered acceptable. Certainly not 3.5fl. I'm fine with 6fl for 3D. Current 3D films are "timed" to resolve all the contrast they can from 3.5fl to 5.5fl light levels.

[ 12-20-2008, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-19-2008, 10:35 PM:
 
I have a question is there a specific reason that no 3d films have ever been scope? Is the ratio to wide for the eye or for the camera to use the 3d? I mean if I was making a 3d I would want the widest picture I could get!

Or has a film been in both scope and 3d?
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-20-2008, 01:07 AM:
 

quote: Ron Funderburg

---

I have a question is there a specific reason that no 3d films have ever been scope?

---

The most recent Scope 3D film that I've seen was Beowulf. Avatar will be Scope as well.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-20-2008, 01:42 AM:
 
Monster House was scope
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2008, 01:47 AM:
 
I forgot to mention that low gain polarization preserving materials also exist for front projection, so there could be an use there for drive-ins.

http://www.dalite.com/whats_hot/index.php?wID=176

Well, doing films in Scope, as we all know, adds its own set of production problems. But no real reason why they are not more common in 3D other than it's probably a bit more expensive and Scope lenses (if filmed true scope as oppossed to spherical, say Super 35) could render some additional artifacts on 3D. Nothing like a showstopper, though. And, of course, a non-issue on CGI animated films.

In the projection side of things, scope has its own set of problems.

TI DLP's for digital cinema are 2048x1080. They render a 1.85 (flat) ratio picture at 1998x1080, so only a bit of the chip surface is lost in this format (2.5%). Therefore, almost all the light available is reflected out to the lens.

But to fit a Scope picture, the best you can do is constant height, at 2048x871 pixels, where roughly 19% of the chip's area is not used, and therefore its resolution and light is lost.

Actually, the real best you can do is an anamorphic image, which would yield 100% of the chip area (resolution and light, but DCI doesn't like it). You would need of course an anamorphic lens (or adapter) on your projector, which would suck a bit more light than a spheric one, neglecting a bit of the brightness advantage, but still worth it for very large Scope screens.

Here are some of the numbers:

2048x1080=100% resolution and light (scope, anamorphic)
2048x871=81% - scope contant height
1612x871=63.5% - flat constant height
1998x850=76.8% - scope constant width
1998x1080=97.5% - flat constant width

Note that if you zoom in or out you can change some of the results (i.e. fitting a larger image into a smaller screen, using the best of both worlds), but you get the picture. A zoom lens or a focal length adapter would usually also suck up more light than a fixed prime.

Not related, but am I the only one enjoying the trailer for the Bloody Valentine 3D movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsRbqpiqkKU

LOL. It's 3D of the 80's all over again. Crappy horror movies galore (any1 remembers this year's Scar 3D's anymore?). Except that now, CGI kid's movies join the batch. If Avatar 3D bombs next year, I say 3D is almost the 80's all over again. Soon we'll see re-issues on digital cinema of Jaws 3D and Friday the 13th. Except in brand new expensive HD projectors

[ 12-20-2008, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-20-2008, 03:23 PM:
 
So Beowulf was in 3D (at those digital theaters that can do that)! Were their others? I don't remember them if their were but their could have been.

I was just curious why not, 3D (film or other wise) is expensive and you would just think if you went to that expense you would do it in scope because wider is better!
 

---

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 12-20-2008, 05:32 PM:
 

quote: Ron Funderburg

---

is there a specific reason that no 3d films have ever been scope?

---

Weren't most of the 3-D movies during the 1980s done in scope? My recollection is that JAWS 3-D and SPACEHUNTER (and a couple others whose titles I can't think of) were in scope.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-20-2008, 09:28 PM:
 
In my opinion, the best 3-D films were made in the 50's in dual film projection with HOUSE OF WAX being among the best. Although I did see KISS ME KATE, HONDO and DIAL M FOR MURDER in theatres, these pictures did not play in 3-D in Hawaii because people at that time seem to have lost interest in the format and that was unfortunate. As far as I can remember, all 3-D films during in the fifties were flat and none were in scope. CinemaScope was just being introduced at this time and the Liberty Theatre in Honolulu was set up as the first of two venues in the city to show dual projection 3-D with a brand new flat silver screen.

So far, as good as Real D is and perhaps Dolby 3-D, I do not think the effect of the modern digital process is as realistic as dual film projection 3-D was in the early fifties.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2008, 09:44 PM:
 
Yes, the over/under process of the '80s basically necessitated "scope" aspect ratios. In fact, Drive-In prints were printed as Scope prints.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2008, 10:34 PM:
 
Any1 said 80's over/under?

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6595/screenshot02rp9.jpg

[Hint: it's Sony's new over/under lens for their digital cinema projector single-projector 3D system, where half the pixels would be used for each image. ]

At least the whole chip is used and each image is a "better aspect ratio" full 2k 4:4:4 12 bits instead of 4:2:2 10bits in current TI DLP 3D (either Reald or Dolby ). And no 144hz temporal disparities, for those that are bothered by it, as either Reald or Dolby.

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=1211

[ 12-21-2008, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-21-2008, 01:35 AM:
 
THAT is something I'd like to see.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-21-2008, 03:06 AM:
 

quote: Julie Lucero

---

SPACEHUNTER

---

"Spacehunter" looked on the screen as if it was in Scope, but it was actually shown through a flat lens.

The frame had a dbl image (top image was left eye and the bottom image was the right eye) that was shown through a split flat lens that put the two images slightly side by side and you used polarized glasses.

If the operator didn't watch his framing, it was easy to thread this 180* out and it still looked okey on the screen. But then to view this off-frame presentation correctly, you would have to wear the glasses upside down. Otherwise, you definitely felt your eyeballs being yanked out of your head.

The leaders were definitely marked for frame and if this print was built up on any transport (the cinema I watched this in had the Cine 4x Towers), the framelines were a bit heavier than the split line in the frame..and the note in the cans specifically noted this special condition.

Otherwise, this was an excellent 3D film presentation when using the polarized glasses. Anaglyph is just something to get used to since it alters the color and lowers the brightness.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-21-2008, 06:35 AM:
 
Yeah, virtually all 3D films of the 80's were shot in what is called the over/under format, in which you took a normal 35mm full frame and splitted it in half, printing one image on the top half and another in the bottom.

Looked like this:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1070/historyformatsjj3.gif

They weren't filmed in Scope, but in the 3D systems used at the time that produced that result (stereovision, spacevision, etc). You could almost call it (incorrectly) 48fps 2-perf 35mm

When projected through a 3D lens (or a spherical lens+3D adapter), the aspect ratio on the screen was similar to 2.40 scope.

There were a couple of films around that era that were exceptions. I remember projecting a risqué american one that was side/side anamorphic (Stewardesses) and another swedish on that was over/under but cropped to something like 1.66:1 (Champagnegalopp). I remember I kept a frame of it somewhere from a splice.

I remember Spacehunter. I don't recall exactly what was the problem with it but I remember it having the worst ghosting of all the ones we showed in that round. I think it was shot with a dual system and then converted to the over/under, but the aligment or perhaps the interaxial weren't all there.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-21-2008, 08:58 AM:
 
I've wondered about temporal problems with the over/under format similar to the ones found with single projector digital 3D since the mechanical 35mm shutter blade opens up one frame before opening the other. I've never actually seen anything in the over/under format, so I can't say if it's a problem or not.

Also, what is that over/under frame from?
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-21-2008, 09:33 AM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Also, what is that over/under frame from?

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I remember projecting a risqué american one that was side/side anamorphic (Stewardesses)

---

I also ran "the Stewardesses" in 1972 as a relief operator since this one theatre had teenagers doing booth and were underage for to run an "X" rated film. (side note: "the Stewardesses is being released on DVD come the middle of next month..)

But, this side-by-side anamorphic process was interesting in itself: Using Dichromic mirrors in our Peerlesses, the prime lens was split in the middle per each image with a common attachment to expand the image to a 1.33:1 image on the screen-which the side masking tabs had to be adjusted in to present such an image size, and using polarized glasses with our silver screen.

-monte
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-24-2008, 09:07 AM:
 
IIRC I projected that one with an integrated Scope lens and a Polarator prismatic adapter turned 90º from its normal position for over/under.

I don't recall needing masking for that one, but when we did, we used soft masking taping cardboard on the projection booth window.

Fun 3D 80's, indeed

I hope Jeff releases the Stewardesses on blu-ray field-sequential or side-by-side. That would be a first
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-24-2008, 12:12 PM:
 
There are established panning or tilting speed limit charts based on camera shutters moving across or up/down (depending on camera) during exposure. Double or barrel shutter on some projectors would exhibit different results, which our "slow" eyes and brain easily ignore.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2008, 12:55 PM:
 
Richard,

Do those same rules apply to shooting 3-D digitally???
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-24-2008, 04:45 PM:
 
Depends on the imager and processing. Seen lately on 2D Digital stuff rubbery motion artifacts on pans....On the Red some annoying "grain" that is not ramdom but progressively buzzing from one point to another. A recent HD transfer from 3 perf anamorphic ratio...still very familiar and filmic.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-25-2008, 05:00 AM:
 

quote: Richard Fowler

---

Double or barrel shutter on some projectors would exhibit different results, which our "slow" eyes and brain easily ignore.

---

Yeap. That's why I explicitely said "fan-blade type shutters"

Limiting the pan speed etc during filming helps cover up the problem, but still doesn't solve it when an object is moving in the frame fast enough to become noticeable. Motion blur takes cares of covering most of the "faulty" (skewed) images.

In digital, it depends on the camera technology used. With 3-CCD based techonology, there is no rolling shutter effect whatsoever, as they can be thought of as having a Global Shutter.

With CMOS based imaginering, there is. How much, depends on the read-reset times. It can be made quite fast, and therefore only a fraction of what mechanical movie cameras are capable of achieving (i.e. much less noticeable in digital is possible and appearing in new CMOS cameras, but many cameras exists where the effect is more pronounced).
 

---

Posted by Ryan Navaroli (Member # 3477) on 01-14-2009, 05:28 PM:
 
We are set to install 3 Reel D houses by the end of February. I am not sure how locked this in this is as decisions were all rushed by upper management. After reading through some of the above on this post I had a few questions.

1) How do the Real D silver screens look when presenting a 2D digital print?

2) Someone said they wanted to see a cost of $6 for Dolby glasses. What are they currently priced at? Anyone operating Dolby have a rough estimate of number of lost glasses?

3) Are all the same 3D movies available from both set ups?

4) Any idea which has greater market share at present time (I'm guessing Real D with less initial cost)? Predictions on future market share or if one will win out format war and make obsolete the competitor?

5) I believe we are installing Christie 2000CP ZXs or something like that. Any thoughts on these? Are they compatible with both systesms?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2009, 07:04 PM:
 
1) How do the Real D silver screens look when presenting a 2D digital print?

> You'll have higher contrast but VERY directional light. In theory color shouldn't look any different because you can pull the color space as needed with the projector but I've always felt something looks funny about color on a silver screen. They also have extremely short lives.

2) Someone said they wanted to see a cost of $6 for Dolby glasses. What are they currently priced at? Anyone operating Dolby have a rough estimate of number of lost glasses?

> Some claim they get the Real-D glasses for free but the location DOES PAY for them one way or another. Real-D does theor best to hide the actual cost. Dolby's...Well under 30.00 per pair right now. Unfortunately your higher ups don't know how to do math because the "Per Use" cost of the Dolby Glasses is about 10 cents per use including handling, washing, etc, etc. Remember, Dolby rates them for 450 cycles!!

3) Are all the same 3D movies available from both set ups?

>Yes, so far but the advantage of Dolby 3-D is the print DOES NOT need to be Ghost Busted although a Ghost Busted print also plays fine on Dolby where as a non-Ghost Busted print won't play fine on Real-D.

4) Any idea which has greater market share at present time (I'm guessing Real D with less initial cost)? Predictions on future market share or if one will win out format war and make obsolete the competitor?

>Real-D but that is slowly changing and I believe over the next two years the market will even out. There are MORE advantages to using the Dolby 3-D system.

5) I believe we are installing Christie CP-2000 ZXs or something like that. Any thoughts on these? Are they compatible with both systesms?

>Yes, The ZX is compatable with any existing "Digital" 3-D system built so far. Its also one of the most reliable projectors you can buy and one of the most light efficient in existance even though it uses the 1.2" DMD chips.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Navaroli (Member # 3477) on 01-14-2009, 10:20 PM:
 
What exactly is ghost busted? Just ghosting correction?

Is ghost busted something performed by the distributor or by the theater.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2009, 10:26 PM:
 

quote: Ryan Navaroli

---

Just ghosting correction?

---

Exactly. I'm not sure if the Distributer does it or if Real-D does the processing... But probably one or the other. There is no ghost issue with Dolby.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ryan Navaroli (Member # 3477) on 01-14-2009, 10:37 PM:
 
Thanks for your help. 3D at our theater kind of came out of the blue. We had talked about it for a while but it wasn't financially feasible until one magic day when my boss told me we got the money to do 3D. He's not the most research oriented individual and pretty much went off the advice of our equipment supplier. After weighing the facts I really hope I can convince him to go Dolby and that it isn't to late contractually. It really seems like If you add a similar surcharge to the 3d presentations that a Real D theater would add you will pay for the equipment after not so long and then profit more.

I guess I thought of one more operations question too.

With Real D they tax you a certain amount for the leasing of equipment and glasses. So you add $2 or so into your ticket price to cover this. $1 - Real D the other $1 split on terms I presume.

Is it possible with either, more likely with Dolby I presume, but to charge your standard admission price and then tender a separate item for glasses rental?

I.E.
$7 Adult Ticket
$1.50 Glasses Rental
$80.00 Awesome Combo
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-14-2009, 11:58 PM:
 
..and it's funny on hearing of Real D installs - silver screens, locked in leases..et.al. .. and all I can think of is how the imagery would look if they went Dolby 3D:

Yet more questions: Running Real D, esp on a silver screen, do you need a higher wattage of bulb, AND if shooting 35mm on that same silver screen, would there be any change in fL due to this screen change compared to a high 1.2 + gain matte white screen?

thx-Monte
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-15-2009, 01:09 AM:
 
Both systems, Real-D and Dolby, "suck up" a lot of light. At least 70%. On some setups, as much as 85%.

That means it would roughly leave you with an image that is 1/4 as bright as your projector/setup would otherwise normally do 2D.

As a result, all the light you can get from those systems is of help.

One way to get more light to the audience is by getting a high gain screen. If you use a high gain screen, both 2D and 3D images would appear "twice as bright" (i.e.) to those sitting in the preferred cone of illumination for the screen.

As a result, you can lower the lamp output for 2D. But with 3D, even a high gain screen would still need a boost. Remember you only got (roughly) less than 1/4 of the needed light. If you double that up with a high gain screen, you are still 1/2 short. Only half way through to the same 2D level.

Since Real D basically needs a silver screen, and these are usually of very high gain, there is no "way" around it anyway. But yes, Real D benefits from high watt lamps for 3D as much as from a gain screen, so usually both are needed (and resulting light levels are still under 6fl in many cases).

Say you are currently using a 3000w lamp with a 35mm (or digital) projector. If you change your screen from matte white to a silver 2.4 gain screen, all of the sudden you could start using (roughly) a 1500w lamp to obtain the same light level for the select group of individuals sitting in the screen's "preferred cone". If your theaters is very wide, this could be a problem, as audience sitting on the front corners could start seeing a seriously dimmed image.

That's why a silver screen is said to be very directional. It helps convey a brighter image to those sitting in front of it at the expense of a darker image those sitting "on the sides" at wide angles.

Dolby 3D doesn't require a silver screen, and could use a regular matte (or low gain) one. But since it also requires some sort of brightness boosting to obtain good light levels, besides a brighter projector's lamp, a high gain screen (silver or not) may be the most effective way to obtain it.

Color on silver screens preferred cone of illumination can be fine, but if you are sitting close to the screen the colors may seem to dull-out as you look at the corners of the screen as the angle increases. Some silver formulation also have a different gain figures for different light wavelenghts (different colors). This can be compensated by color correcting the digital projector, though.

Real-D decided that their business model was going to obtain a stream revenue from movie theaters by charging them yearly contract prices and percentages on 3D tickets (surcharges) in return for installing/mantaining the Zscreen and supplying glasses.

Bill of material COST of paper glasses from Real-D are about 1 cent each. Manufacturing COST would depend on whoever is manufacturing them's operation effeciency. Regardless, it is always below 25cents per pair, possibly 10cents after everybody is accounted for. Remember manufacturing COSTS don't really mean much. You have to account for transportation, warehousing, taxes, profits, etc.

Dolby doesn't charge a percentage royalty or yearly "lease". But they do charge (dearly) for their glasses. Their manufacturing cost is far (far-far) more expensive, and they retail for about $28 each to theaters. As a result, they can not be given away or anything like that. A system has to be put in place to recover them from the audience, clean them, and reuse them.

Still, the cost of replacing broken/lost/scratched/whatever glasses is significant, and Dolby's business model is to obtain a regular stream of income by selling these glasses.

RealD could also do the same if they wanted. Charge a couple thousand for the 3D adapter and sell glasses at 40cents each and profit from that. I'm not sure why they didn't go that way. I guess they were afraid soon they'll have competition on the price of the glasses from cheaper manufacturers. By using their "royalties" contract, the glasses are "free" (pre-paid) to the theater and therefore it doesn't make sense the theater owner would look at another (cheaper) glasses' supplier.

Similar systems to RealD could come up in the market, though, as the technology is in no way exclusive to them. A similar system with a rotating disc (instead of a LC plate) was said to be marketed for theater usage. But the market is not too large and I doubt many people would be interested in a couple thousand 3D screens and a couple of 3D movies per year in a market with already 3 or 4 strong players (RealD, Dolby, Masterimage, Xpand).

Xpand system doesn't need any special screens or any modification to the projectors whatsoever. A simple interface box connects to your projector and a transmitter broadcasts a signal in the auditorium. Their active glasses select the appropiate image for each eye. Light loss is similar to other systems. The dissadvantage, as in Dolby's case, is the cost and life of the glasses. When Xpand's glasses batteries die, it's time to purchase a new pair. Collecting them and washing them for reuse is also a good idea if you don't want to go bankrupt.

Masterimage has also an Infitec (Dolby) copy-cat product, but I haven't seen it and I don't know if it carries a price advantage (probably). Perhaps they are just also reselling Infitec's products like Dolby is.

Real D's system is the worse in crosstalk. It means is the most likely to produce double images (ghosting). As a result, they want to pre-process the films to KILL THE CONTRAST on those parts of the image where the parallax (I guess you could call it the 3D) is too large *and* the foreground and background contrast is too large (i.e. a foreground flashlight in a dark, distant background).

So their "ghostbusting" pre-process is but another image-quality-killer for the already not-so-hot digital 3D images of today.

Remember the 3D reality of today compared with 2D:
-increased JPEG2K compression
-half the color resolution 4:2:2 sampling, reduced color depth 10bits
-reduced resolution on projectors older than a few months (TI chipset not able to cope with full 2K 48fps)
-reduced light levels with dim 4fl images
-144hz "flicker"
-High gain screen's "artifacts"
-and now, "ghostbusted prints" with contrast wiped out in "hot" 3D areas ...

And, of course, a tiny bit of image "quality" is loss when the images go through a system like real-d's zcreen (unlike dolby's, where the filter goes BEFORE the imager, not in front of it, although Dolby adds reduced colorspace to their lists of cons) and ALL systems always suffer somewhat when the image goes through (doubious quality) glasses. But that's just minute compared to all the rest.

Don't we just all love 3D

It's digital, so we know it's perfect.

[ 01-15-2009, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-15-2009, 08:35 AM:
 
Mark is not entirely correct on his color...Silver screens muck up the whole color environment. While the color space is indeed set such that you know 4 points of the space (the pure red,green, blue and the middle...white)...with silver screens, you have a very non-linear decay, depending on angle...the net result is often an over-saturated looking image. There is no getting around its metallic look.

Monte...a matte-white screen, by definition is 1.0 gain, period. Anything else calling itself a matte-white, isn't. Typical pearlescent screens are in the 1.4-1.8 gain range. Typical cinema "white" screens, that I've measured are in the 0.9-1.2 gain. Very few screen manufacturers actually hit their published gain on the money. Stewart being an exception to the rule...when I measure Stewarts, they are what they claim to be and some of the prettiest images are on them...but they cost too damn much (4-5 times a cinema screen) and are more fragile than a cinema screen.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-18-2009, 08:25 PM:
 

quote: Ryan Navaroli

---

After weighing the facts I really hope I can convince him to go Dolby and that it isn't to late contractually.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

As a result, you can lower the lamp output for 2D.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Everything HAS TO BE in exactly the same place for it to work properly again.

---

Sort of blows the notion of rotating your bulbs, doesn't it?

...though that's the way most every bulb I've used seems to work at my place... leave it alone until it decides it's done.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-20-2009, 08:27 AM:
 

quote: Jack Ondracek

---

Sort of blows the notion of rotating your bulbs, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Both systems, Real-D and Dolby, "suck up" a lot of light. At least 70%. On some setups, as much as 85%.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Turning the lamp down can cause the crater formed on the anode to change shape and cause the lamp to become unstable rendering it usless

---

This seems to pose a considerable engineering and design challenge (i.e. accommodating the extremes in light levels required to accommodate both 3-D and 2-D).

Anybody know of design approaches that are being tried at the moment or is that confidential?

I'm thinking of things like dual lightsources, or approaches to increase the light efficiency of 3-D display to narrow the divide vis-a-vis 2-D. The stacked machine option seems a very expensive way of going about things at present, and continuing to have to physically change out lamps is probably not desirable either.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-24-2009, 02:39 PM:
 
As an infrequent movie theatre patron, I have now seen movies in both Real D and Dolby 3-D and found them to be almost identical as far as achieving good 3-D. When some films are projected dark and I have to pay almost forty percent more for the privilege seeing them in that process, I think I will have to be very selective with 3-D films from now on. With the exception of the Hannah Montana concert film and BOLT, I think I had seen all of the digital 3-D films. I have noticed that most of the digital 3-D films so far has been animated with the exception of MBV and JTTCOTE and all of the upcoming ones in the next couple of months are also animated. Why is that? I have found with the exception of Pixar's films, animated films are very boring because they tend to appeal to children.

-Claude

-
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-24-2009, 05:22 PM:
 
I agree Claude! The quality and over population of the types of 3-D films is not a good thing. I don't believe there are alot of cameras available for shooting 3-D they way they normally shoot 2-D films. That may be why there is a shortage of live action stuff.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-24-2009, 06:30 PM:
 
I read that so many of the new 3D films are computer animated because it is much easier to control the various aspects of 3D in a virtual world (DOF, convergence, interocular) and get the proper results when compared to live action.

Like you Claude, I do prefer to see live action 3D, but am interested in the upcoming "Monsters vs. Aliens."
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 01-24-2009, 07:44 PM:
 
Has anyone noticed the Coraline trailer? The content looks great. It is obviously a stop-motion animated movie, that was shot in 3D. It seems to have some of the most "natural" depth I've seen from a 3D movie since IMAX stuff.

Laika, the animation studio behind the movie is right here in Portland.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-24-2009, 08:54 PM:
 
Sooner or later, the general public is going to tire of this glut of 3D animated films. If they don't start producing live-action films with GOOD stories, I think the interest in 3D will wane. The novelty factor can only last so long -- just look at the 50s 3D history.

I really believe that a big problem is that 3D lends itself to very few genres -- SciFi, Horror, not much else. Would the adult population want to sit thru a 2 hour drama or comedy in 3D? The answer is far from a definative "yes." Plus production of a live action 3D film is more expensive than shooting 2D, and especially given the present paultry number of 3D screens available in the bigger picture of a wide opening.

As for reducing light for 2D when you've pumped up your light source to compensate for 3D presentation, why not do what was done when the same problem existed with 70mm vs. 35mm. There also was the need to stop down light output so the 35mm wasn't too bright -- forget about the light source and just put a O-ring stop in front of the lens. I know they do this at the CineStudio and it worked very well. I suppose you could just leave a polariod filter in place and let it suck up light just the same way it does when projecting 3D. Aren't they pretty much just neutral density filters?
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-24-2009, 08:55 PM:
 
That trailer looked like crap to me at the AMC Cherry Hill when Joe & I went to see My Bloody Valentine. I don't know what it was but the eyes looked horribly out of whack - way more so than RealD normally looks to me. The movie however looked like normal out of whack RealD. So I don't know what the deal was with that trailer.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2009, 12:59 PM:
 
The teaser trailer looks great in Dolby 3-D... have not seen it in Real-D.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-25-2009, 01:03 PM:
 
I went with a lady friend yesterday to see BRIDE WARS and saw the trailer for MONSTERS VS ALIENS and I told myself why would anyone except a child would want to see this? The trailer tag at the end indicated it was going to be shown in regular digital 3-D theatres as well as IMAX. I guess I will have to see it at the Dole Cannery 18 in Honolulu because it will be the first film to play there with their brand new IMAX 3-D system and I am curious about how good the 3-D will be and to see the difference between the original 70mm format and the scaled down version.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-25-2009, 01:33 PM:
 
Well I'll be 29 in just over a month and I thought the new trailer for Monsters vs Aliens looked good. Guess I still have that inner-child or something.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-25-2009, 01:54 PM:
 
Chris,

As a 69 year old person,I consider a 29 year old is still a child

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2009, 02:32 PM:
 
I can't wait to see it. It'll be a big film too!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-06-2009, 03:53 AM:
 
Has anyone here installed a Dolby 3D system on a Doremi player yet?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-06-2009, 08:25 AM:
 
Dolby 3D only works with Dolby Digital Cinema equipment. AFAIK, you can't install it on other brands of d-cinema equipment.

OTOH, RealD works with a variety of d-cinema systems, including Dolby Digital Cinema.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-06-2009, 08:56 AM:
 
Hmmm...I certainly have not done Dolby-3D on a Doremi. Their cut sheet does not claim it will support it. My guess is that one issue will be color. The Dolby Show Player DSP100 provides color correction for EACH eye in Dolby 3D mode. Does the Doremi server do that? Can it do that?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mike Babb (Member # 1379) on 03-06-2009, 09:01 AM:
 
There was a press release a few months ago that said they have licensed it from Dolby, haven't seen it up and running though.
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 03-06-2009, 12:34 PM:
 
I have installed Dolby3D on the Doremi Server. Currently their control and color correction software is being "worked on" Doremi's latest release had an issue with the color correction values, but this was resolved by fudging the numbers a bit within the calibration screen using modified values supplied by Doremi.

Overall, the operation is the same between servers. Control of the DFC-100 via ethernet still does not work, but Doremi should have that resolved with the latest release. Currently I'm using relay outputs to enable / disable the filter wheel.

Steve, Older generation Doremi servers do not have the ability to color-correct Dolby 3D, but the units with the "DCI" dolphin card can. The newer dolphin card is indicated by the use of a DVI connector for GPIO (doremi supplies a DVI to 25pin dsub adaptor). Also the newer cards have the HDSDI connectors and GPIO on the same slot. Older versions had the original dolphin board with HDSDI in/out connectors and the GPIO in a separate expansion slot. The newer card can be present in the older model chassis (the black one with two doors)

Out of curiousity, I tested playback of Dolby3D content on an old model Doremi. It will play back, but without color correction.
 

---

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 03-31-2009, 06:38 PM:
 
Saw the first 15 or so minutes of MvA in Dolby 3D and wasn't all that impressed. The glasses felt awkward fitted over my prescription glasses and the 3D was distracting and "unnatural" IMHO. In a week or so I'll be able to compare it to RealD. Hopefully the disposable glasses fit better, and I'd like to see some real-life 3D content instead of just animation to see if the 3D is more "transparent."
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-31-2009, 07:27 PM:
 
Real-D seems to be trouncing Dolby Digital as far as installations go from what I personally see. I saw Coraline in Real-D and the 3D effect sucked unwiped anus and I was in the middle of the auditorium. The "D" in Real-D stands for "dogshit". I have not seen Dolby Digital (but I hear it on my DVDs OMG LOL).

And what is this I hear about the standard only needing to be 4.5 Footlamberts with the glasses on? That is perhaps the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. I would be ashamed to run Real-D because I'd know I was giving the audience a crappy presentation with standards like that (not to mention the required silver screen).

Where is DTS with their 3D system?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-31-2009, 08:28 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Where is DTS with their 3D system?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

And what is this I hear about the standard only needing to be 4.5 Footlamberts with the glasses on?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

It would not surprise me if the DTS-DCinema folks change their name.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The DTS of cinema is not completely separated from the DTS of consumer

---

quote:

---

DTS Digital Cinema and masterImage USA, Inc. have reached an agreement by which the masterImage MI-2100 3D Digital Cinema System will be offered for sale through the DTS dealer network.

This agreement leverages DTS Digital Cinema's visibility into ongoing and upcoming 3D installations and the decision of masterImage to utilize the DTS Digital Cinema dealer network to penetrate the worldwide cinema marketplace.

The MI-2100 will be offered by DTS dealers as a stand-alone solution as well as by way of a package deal.

"We are excited to be able to offer such a robust system to our dealers, resellers and service groups as we continue to expand in the digital cinema market,” said Jason Vreeman, Vice President of Global Sales, DTS Digital Cinema. “This commitment to the masterImage system comes in response to the demands of our customer base which is looking to enter the 3D arena with a high end presentation at a reasonable price".

---

quote:

---

Barco, a global leader in digital cinema projection technology, is pleased to announce that its projectors play a vital role in Dolby's latest dual 3D digital cinema offering. The solution, consisting of a dual-stack Barco projector and Dolby's dedicated 3D technology, more than doubles the light output, offering perfect image quality and light output for large auditoriums.

This 3D cinema solution will be marketed by Dolby as Dolby® 3D for large screens, and includes a twin Barco projector setup. The solution offers ideal light efficiency for screens ranging from 41 to 70 feet wide. The Dolby 3D large screen solution is currently available and compatible with all of Barco's digital cinema twin projector offerings, including the ultra-bright DP-3000 flagship projectors.

“Dolby realizes that exhibitors need the flexibility to provide a premium 3D experience in their largest and smallest auditoriums, and with this announcement, Dolby is well positioned to be able to support exhibitors' various needs,” stated Page Haun, Senior Director of Cinema Marketing, Dolby Laboratories. “We are delighted to have worked with Barco on developing this new 3D technology, resulting in a dedicated solution that renders 3D in large auditoriums with realistic colors and a pristine image quality.”

---

quote:

---

Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB), announced today at ShoWest 2009 that exhibitors will now have the ability to play back content using Dolby® 3D Digital Cinema to provide a premium viewing experience in their largest auditoriums.

By implementing Dolby 3D for large screens, exhibitors can project Dolby 3D onto screens ranging from 41 to 70 feet. The new Dolby 3D large-screen solution is compatible with all of Barco’s digital cinema twin-projector offerings, including the ultra-bright DP-3000 flagship projectors.

“This is a milestone for Dolby 3D projection capabilities, as screen size has to date been limited to accommodate a range of up to 40–42 feet,” stated Page Haun, Senior Director, Cinema Marketing, Dolby Laboratories. “Dolby realizes that exhibitors need the flexibility to provide 3D in their largest and smallest auditoriums, and with this announcement, Dolby is now able to support exhibitors’ various needs.”

"Exhibitors have told us they want 3D without compromise. No excuses, no compromises, simply the right amount of light and a consistently beautiful image for screen sizes reaching all the way up to 70 feet," said Wim Buyens, Vice President Digital Cinema for Barco's Media and Entertainment Division. “With Barco's twin-projector offering and Dolby 3D for large screens, exhibitors can now move 3D audiences into their largest auditoriums to maximize 3D revenues."

---

• The Dolby glasses cost something like $30 per pair.
• They are distributed prior to each showing and collected after the showing. This requires additional man power.
• The theatre must maintain two sets of glasses for each auditorium because they need to be cleaned before being redistributed. Again this requires more man power.
• Even with staff standing outside the auditorium collecting glasses, the theatres are losing several pairs from each showing.

quote: Steve Guttag

---

It would not surprise me if the DTS-DCinema folks change their name.

---

quote:

---

I can absolutely guarantee you they will have to in the next several years!!

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Why would they change their name? Does DTS have a horrible reputation that they need to distance themselves from?

---

quote:

---

DTS Digital Cinema announced today that it will begin operating under the trade name Datasat Digital Entertainment from April 1, 2009. The company is a market leader in providing digital cinema technology to motion picture exhibitors and distributors. Founded in1993 the company was the first to provide 5.1 digital surround sound to the film industry. The company will maintain the DTS Digital Cinema brand name for all cinema related products and services.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As for cleaning them...it doesn't require more man power as they get cleaned once the theatre is in

---

I don't understand what that means. At minimum, doesn't someone have to collect the "dirty" glasses, take them to where the washer is, load them in the washer, then unload them and take them back to where they're distributed to the customers? With potentially several hundred pairs to clean per show. This all seems like labor above and beyond just handing out a pair of Real-D glasses to each customer at the box office (new, wrapped). How can there possily be no additional labor? I guess you're saying the cleaning takes place when the current show has begun so the people doing the cleaning would not otherwise be engaged in any other useful activity? All this work with glasses seems like "new" work that wouldn't exist otherwise. Either you take staff away from auditorium cleaning, concessions, or somewhere, so they can clean the glasses, or you add 1 or 2 extra people to clean the glasses so you're not short on staff somewhere else.

Sanitary wipes: There's a lawsuit waiting to happen! You're a parent taking your 3 kids and a bunch of their friends to a 3D movie. You stop at concessions and buy kids meals etc. then go to your auditorium. Now each kid is eating and drinking and excited about the movie and the parent has been handed a batch of dirty glasses and some wipes and in the middle of this chaos you the sole adult in the group are now responsible for making sure the 3D glasses are "safe" for all the kids to handle? You don't even know for sure that the glasses were properly cleaned by any of the recent previous users. Holy crap, I don't like that idea at all.

I dunno, seems like Dolby 3D would have to be hella-better than Real-D to make it worth all the hassle to theater owners.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2009, 08:14 PM:
 
David,

You had it right on the first part...the labor is already present at the theatre...less time to "lean."

As to cleaning them, they are loaded into a tray and then the cleaner does the work...it isn't all that difficult.

As to cost to the theatre...Dolby is increasingly becoming the cheaper means...with the free-ride coming to an end on the polarized system.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2009, 10:53 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Why would they change their name? Does DTS have a horrible reputation that they need to distance themselves from?

---

quote:

---

DTS Digital Cinema announced today that it will begin operating under the trade name Datasat Digital Entertainment

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I had the 50 gallon drum size popcporn and two four quart diets

---

Nice try with the diet sodas, but the popcorn still won that battle.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-08-2009, 07:30 AM:
 
I was wondering if anyone would catch that 4 quart line...
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-08-2009, 10:39 AM:
 
Of course we caught the line, we would expect nothing less from you.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-08-2009, 08:56 PM:
 
I donno Sam... That must mean you've been spending alot of time or is that a lot of time on Film Tech???

Mark
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-08-2009, 11:02 PM:
 
Am I missing something? Is there another meaning besides the obvious, as in an inside joke?

I was pointing out that you are calling attention to yourself as in "look how clever I am and this will go over most people's heads".

I apologize if incorrect.

Maybe you are right, I have been spending too much time on the site. It's contagious.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2009, 11:21 PM:
 
Well I guess I am "most people" because I don't get what the hell you guys are talking about. Enlighten me, eh?
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-09-2009, 12:35 AM:
 
It was a non-sequitur to me as well why I was speculating and figured Mark would be along any time now.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 04-13-2009, 06:52 PM:
 
We're installing 2 Real-D systems at the end of the month. I pretty much gathered from prior posts (didn't read them all) that the Christie CP2000 ZX is an excellent machine. Our servers though, I didn't see any mention of in the few pages I read. They are GDC SA-2100A's. Has anyone here installed and/or used this server?
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 04-14-2009, 10:23 PM:
 
While resarching something totally unrelated to this topic,
I happened to come across this interesting 3D system patent
from 1922. It uses two projectors and a hand held ( ! ) device
with the shutters in each device synchronized by selsyn motors.

No polarizers. This device relied entirely on shutter
action to get the left & right images to the respective
eye-balls. I could not find any reference indicating that
this system was ever put into practial use.
(Especially when you consider that the viewing device
was hand held and must have weighed a couple of pounds)

If you look closely, you can see that there was a handy-dandy
hook on the back of each seat for hanging the viewing-shutter
device when not in use, or perhaps for when your arm got too
tired to hold it up in front of your face anymore.

The wiring diagram makes each seat look like an electric chair!

Fig 1: GENERAL DIAGRAM (Look: No Platters! & Real Carbon Arcs!!)


Fig 2: HAND-HELD VIEWING DEVICE-
Looks like a Simplex shutter on a stick!


Check out US Patent #1,506,524 for more info.
(and also check out some of the other interseting
devices cited in this patent application. )
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-15-2009, 05:18 AM:
 
Jim, that system was used to show one feature, called "M.A.R.S"

The feature still exists in 2D form, and from the stills I've seen, it might have been rather trippy in 3D.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-15-2009, 06:51 AM:
 
Nah...it looks like a Master Image.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-15-2009, 07:47 AM:
 
Yeah, that system was used a couple of times. The theater had it mounted on a flexible arm so that audiences could position it to their liking and not have to hand-hold it

It was short lived, of course. Mostly experimental.

Today the equivalent to that system is the XpanD shutter glasses. Same principle. It can be used with just one projector, there is no polarizing optics (in the projector) and the glasses act like an alternating shutter.

Because the glasses use liquid crystals to perform the shutter action, the glasses do polarize the light upon entry. But this is a by-product of the technology used, not a requirement.

The screen, of course, doesn't need to be silver or anything.

The glasses and projector synchonize the shutter action with a signal broadcasted into the auditorium (usually an infrared signal) instead of a wire. Such are the advances of modern technology

At home, some ancient videogame system in the 80's used a similar concept to quickly rotate a color wheel in front of the eyes and provide a color-sequential system from the black and white display. On top of sequential color, it offered sequential 3D!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectrex
[link is to wikipedia article on the 80's home videogame system Vectrex, which used a rotating wheel peripheral to produce 3D and color effects]

quote:

---

The 3-D imager spins a disk which is half black and half colored bands that radiate from the centre (usually red, green and blue) between the viewer's eyes and the vectrex screen. The Vectrex is synchronized to the rotation of the disk (or vice versa) and draws vectors corresponding to a particular color and/or a particular eye. Therefore only one eye will see the vectrex screen and its associated images (or color) at any one time while the other will see nothing.

A single object that does not lie on the plane of the monitor (i.e., in front of or into the monitor) is drawn at least twice to provide information for each eye. The distance between the duplicate images and whether the right eye image or the left eye image is drawn first will determine where the object will appear to "be" in 3-D space. The 3-D illusion is also enhanced by adjusting the brightness of the object (dimming objects in the background). Spinning the disk at a high enough speed will fool the viewer's eyes/brain into thinking that the multiple images it is seeing are two different views of the same object. This creates the impression of 3-D and color.

---

As you can see from that 1922 patent, and other prior ones, human kind has been researching and developing 3D imaging solutions for over 100 years now. It was actually in 1922 when the first feature motion picture was made (Power of love).

As you know, the first 3D footage was shot about a week after the first camera itself was invented
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-16-2009, 07:23 PM:
 
In regards to this discussion on the 3-D systems:

I have now seen "Monsters vs. Aliens" in 3-D at two different theatre locations. First, at the Bowtie Annapolis Mall in auditorium #10 and yesterday at the Regal People's Plaza Theatre in Newark, Delaware in Theatre #14.

The "Tru-3D" at People's Plaza blew away what I saw at the Bowtie in Annapolis. This got me to wondering what the hell the difference was between the two systems.

Both Theatres needed to focus their Xenon Bulbs better, but the light output was the same (seemed a bit dim). Both had silver screens.

Regal People's Plaza:
A 3 year old NEC projector

Bowtie Annapolis Mall:
Master Image Wheel (brand new?)
Christie Lamphouse

Why would I get such a dramatic difference in my experience?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-16-2009, 07:47 PM:
 
Actually the poor light distribution you saw was more likely due to poorly designed(improperly curved)silver screen install.

The Christie projectors have auto lamp alignment that works far better then one could attempt to adjust it manually. The NEC I can't speak for... DP-100's are manual alignment through the use of a meter on the TPC. If the Christie projector is newish... made in the last year or so... then it's capable of putting out far more light than it's NEC or BARCO equivelent.SOme of the older Christies have Thyristor rectifiers that are less then desrible as they tend to produce artifacts of their own in certain typoes of images.

Both systems should be at least as good as each other... the Master Image can very definately produce far brighter images then either Dolby or Real-D. You failed to mention the 3-D system in use at the other location too...

I just installed 2 more Dolby 3-D systems this week. One on a CP-2000SB with 6ks lamp and one on a CP-2000 SB that uses the CDXL30-SD lamp. Different size screens diffrent situations but both ended up at about 4.3 fl and both looked darn good.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-16-2009, 08:24 PM:
 
I assume since it is a regal the other location was Real-D since I think that's all they use.

Don't all the large chains use Real-D exclusively?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-16-2009, 08:28 PM:
 
I would say they would due to the fact of staff not having to "babysit" the patrons in getting those glasses back of the Dolby 3D format.

Plus, kiddies love keeping the 3D glasses as additional toys for their toybox.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-16-2009, 08:41 PM:
 
Except Fox is going to start charging for the glasses starting with Ice Age unless they've backed down on it...so add that little cost to the whole shebang.

As to Christie's auto lamp focus...it is good but one can often pick up a smidge more if they finish it by hand.

As to the quality differences...like with film...you are at the mercy of the installer and how it is maintained too. The best system can look like crap if poorly installed or kept up.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-16-2009, 09:40 PM:
 
I predict that Fox will back down since Regal told them they will just run it in 2D if they won't pay for the glasses. Of course they'll just raise the percentage to make up for it but hey, that's the exhibition business.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-16-2009, 10:28 PM:
 

quote:

---

s to Christie's auto lamp focus...it is good but one can often pick up a smidge more if they finish it by hand.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Regal told them they will just run it in 2D if they won't pay for the glasses.

---