Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sony and RealD team up. WTH?

This is topic Sony and RealD team up. WTH? 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=000321

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-27-2009, 03:11 PM:

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=1328

quote:
Sony Electronics and RealD are working together to provide exhibitors with 3D digital cinema systems that combine a single Sony 4K projector and its new 3D dual lens adapter with RealD technology, including a specially designed optical filter tuned for the projector, resulting in the ability to deliver crisp 3D images to screens up to 55 feet in width.

Sony and RealD have also entered into a separate agreement that gives RealD the exclusive right to purchase and distribute Sony’s 3D lens technology for use with polarized filter systems in Sony digital cinema projection system 3D deployments in the United States, Canada and Europe. In addition to the Sony 3D adapter, RealD will provide hardware and software, including its Cinema System and 3D EQ “Ghostbuster” technology, for 3D playback on Sony 4K digital cinema systems worldwide.

“The relationship between Sony and RealD will make it easy to install a 2D Sony projection system that then can be easily upgraded to 3D, with RealD’s award-winning technology,” said Gary Johns, vice president of Sony Electronics’ Digital Cinema Systems Division. “By working with RealD, we’ll be able to provide both a practical and an elegant 3D solution.”

Oh, well.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 02-27-2009, 03:31 PM:

Sony demonstrated a 3D solution at ShowEast - since all 3D content is in 2K they simply stack the L/R eyes on the 4K chip and use a special double lens to converge the images. At the show they were touting it as a RealD 3D solution, this press release sounds like they worked out the fine details of the deal between them and RealD.

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 02-27-2009, 10:49 PM:

I find it quite strange that Sony needs to fold under the RealD brand. I suppose anything to get acceptance as a serious d-cinema technology supplier.

However, I find it offensive when old and well established 3D techniques are branded and put under a licensing system. (RealD work under licensing deals so I imagine this would follow the same trend)
This duel lens is a through back to old 2-perf 3D systems with 35mm film.
Same thing but using a 4K imager.

How can this be licensed? can you simply not get this typical image split lens and some polarizing filters and do it yourself. Nothing stopping you.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-28-2009, 02:01 AM:

It's pretty obvious RealD was born with the philosophy of being a monopoly wanting to make a "free 50 cents" out of every single person that watches a 3D movie (in theaters) in the world.

Thankfully there are competitors like Master Image, XpanD, Dolby or dual projection that, from my point of view, offer better deals than pushy-greedy-RealD.

RealD probably approached Sony and convinced them that they would deal with all the glasses, the filters, and the "issues" (i.e. training, consulting, service) that Sony knows it doesn't want to deal with, since I don't think Sony are serious about their Dcinema business either and only has these 4K projectors out because "they can" and because they want close to $100K for the thing at huge profit margins.

It would interesting to know under what terms RealD supplies these lenses ...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-02-2009, 10:08 AM:

quote: Julio Roberto
It's pretty obvious RealD was born with the philosophy of being a monopoly wanting to make a "free 50 cents" out of every single person that watches a 3D movie (in theaters) in the world.

Thankfully there are competitors like Master Image, XpanD, Dolby or dual projection that, from my point of view, offer better deals than pushy-greedy-RealD.

And how! The problem is that there are movie execs(mainly Disney)that are part owners in Real-D. So you have greed piled on top of yet more greed. I e n believe Christie may have a stake in Real-D because of the way they dropped the whole dual projector 3-D thing. Dual projector is so far superior to single and the differences in image quality are staggering.

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-02-2009, 10:32 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
the differences in image quality are staggering.

Probably because the images are actually in sync? And for other reasons as well like 2x the light.

Sorry, I just have to point out the out-of-sync issue with single projector 3D options like ReadD every chance I get.

Oh, and Sony is hooking up with RealD??

Oh well, RIP RealD.

[Razz]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-18-2009, 11:08 AM:

Does the Sony over/under 3D solution use anamorphics (or other lens tricks) to use half of the imager for each eye or are they just using 1/4 of the imager for each eye?

If they are just using 1/4 the imager then how can they get anything near the proper light levels on screen. This would immediately cut the available light in half and then the filters and glasses will cut into it even further.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-18-2009, 11:25 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
This duel lens is a through back to old 2-perf 3D systems with 35mm film.
Same thing but using a 4K imager. How can this be licensed?

A company can CLAIM licensing rights all they want, same as film companies can CLAIM copyright ownership on stuff that clearly has been in the Public Domain, by slapping a copyright insignia on it. The resolution only comes when someone has a strong enough financial incentive to challenge it in court; that rarely happens. Usually in the case of those bogus copyright claims made by the big conglomerates, no one has the money to fight long, costly court battles.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-18-2009, 11:31 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Does the Sony over/under 3D solution use anamorphics (or other lens tricks) to use half of the imager for each eye or are they just using 1/4 of the imager for each eye?

Sony is using half the 4K imager for each eye (the DCI spec for 3D maxes out at 2K anyway).

Sony 3D Technology Demonstration (118MB video)

smaller 49MB version

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-18-2009, 11:38 AM:

quote: Julio Roberto
It's pretty obvious RealD was born with the philosophy of being a monopoly wanting to make a "free 50 cents" out of every single person that watches a 3D movie (in theaters) in the world.

This is a naive statement at best. Just because Sony and Real-D made a licensing deal doesn't mean that Real-D are greedy bastards who will eat the children of those who dare not pay.

It could very well be that Sony created a product that uses stuff patented by Real-D since Sony didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-18-2009, 11:58 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
Sony is using half the 4K imager for each eye (the DCI spec for 3D maxes out at 2K anyway).

Sony 3D Technology Demonstration (118MB video)

smaller 49MB version

That presentation (which is very simplified) doesn't show that. It just shows 2, 2k images (one for each eye).

The reason I'm asking my question is that the 4k chip is actually the size of 4, 2k images. If they are just showing 2, pixel for pixel, 2k images for each eye then 1/2 the chip is not being used at all for 3D. I would assume that the area of the chip used directly corrolates with the brigtness available.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-19-2009, 06:38 AM:

Hopefully they did it right and they are using half the imager per eye. Regardless, even if they used 1/4 per eye, which is sufficient for full 2K resolution per eye, which is the limit for 3D movies, it wouldn't need cropping for Scope 3D, so they would at least have an advantage there.

Even if they didn't, they are saving the 7% (or more) blanking interval.

So the other systems half the light output (50% to each eye). All systems do this: dual projection/Imax, RealD, XpanD, Master Image. Sony does the same if they did it right. Otherwise is 25% to each eye, except in Scope, where I see no reason to crop if they decided not to use anamorphics.

Then, all other systems, halve the light further due to polarization (exception being RealD when using newer XL z-screen), even XpanD (polarization occurss in the glasses), or even less than half with systems like Dolby. Dual projection and Imax don't quite escape this additional "halving" of the light. But Sony's projector light output is already pre-polarized. When designed right, the filter can preserve as much as 85% of the light output, so it only decreases it by 15% or so.

Then, XpanD, RealD, Master Image or Dolby suffer an additional blanking interval to allow for reaction time for their systems. This ranges from 7% to 10% of additional light loss. Imax, dual-projection, or Sony don't need this penalty.

And then, most other systems crop the image with 3D Scope. Sony wouldn't need to do this in theory if they went the cheap route and are not using anamorphics. They can keep constant height, use the same spherical lens, and simply use a larger area of the imager than 25% per eye if they cheaped out. Would improve Scope resolution and light level.

But who knows what they did. I would like to know if anyone finds out.