quote:

---

Disney has created a new 3-D process they call the REAL D Cinema system.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the pic was shot in the relatively primitive anaglyphic process, which requires the audience to watch action through cardboard glasses outfitted with red and green filters, rather than the virtually transparent Polaroid filters developed for recent 3-D pix.

---

 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-05-2005, 05:02 PM:
 
I'm sure Real D appreciates being considered a "Disney Process".

Pretty bad...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-05-2005, 05:39 PM:
 
The advertisements do say "Disney Digital 3D", so Real D can't complain too much since they permitted it.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 11-05-2005, 05:50 PM:
 
The misconception is that Disney created the REAL D process to show Chicken Little. That's like saying Warner Brothers invented IMAX to show Polar Express in 3D.

On another note, this is my 200th post. Joe Redifer was right. I need to get a life.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-05-2005, 06:17 PM:
 
That's no different than Disney calling their DVDs "Disney DVDs" as if there is something special about them.

I'm surprised they didn't come up with some cute name for the computer animation technique, like "Disney-Mation" or something, to differentiate it from that antiquated Pixar process.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2005, 07:18 PM:
 
Hmm.

The movie poster says "Disney Digital 3-D."

But then it says "Exclusively in Dolby Digital Cinema."

And then there's the "Real D" brand mark at the bottom of the poster.

I think that's just freakin' retarded. Three different brand names for what is effectively one process. Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS logos on a movie poster can be confusing for a lot of people (especially in those rare cases where the THX logo is thrown in), but at least there is some logic there.

I can see some justification for both Dolby and Real D brand names being applied since both have some involvement in the hardware -but then companies like Barco or Texas Instruments would be equally justified in having their names thrown on the poster as well.

But "Disney Digital 3D"? I think that's just a crock.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-05-2005, 09:59 PM:
 
It is about god damn time we have a real D. The alphabet is finally complete.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2005, 10:22 PM:
 
Real D? As if that was a great thing? If I got a real D back in school it pissed me off!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-05-2005, 10:27 PM:
 
I was always happy when I got D's back in high school. It was the best I could hope for except for mechanical/architectural drawing where I defeated the teacher and art, which does not count.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-06-2005, 02:50 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The movie poster says "Disney Digital 3-D."

But then it says "Exclusively in Dolby Digital Cinema."

And then there's the "Real D" brand mark at the bottom of the poster.

I think that's just freakin' retarded. Three different brand names for what is effectively one process.

---

Yep. You have one brand responsible for rendering the data, one brand responsible for sending the data to the projector, and yet another brand responsible for filtering the data emitted from the projector. Pretty easy to explain on a poster with a few logos.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2005, 06:20 AM:
 
They have to have different companies to do each one of those minor tasks? I wouldn't be surprised if what Wolff said was actually true. Damn they must really be incompetant.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-06-2005, 06:55 AM:
 
Its because of rights to specific parts of the process being owned by different companies. So its not incompetance, it's money reasons.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-06-2005, 09:47 AM:
 
By that logic, Texas Instruments should demand the DLP logo be displayed (and perhaps whatever they might have cooked up to brand their 2K system). My understanding is Barco is the main company providing the actual projection hardware, so their logo should be displayed too.

But what exactly did Disney provide hardware wise? My impression is they simply paid money to get the ball rolling. IMHO, there's more justification for Disney to have their "Disney Enhanced Home Theater Mix" thingie on certain DVDs than "Disney Digital 3D" in this case. It makes me think they'll come up with some silly "digital" thing for the DVD when it will still be the same old DVD-V flavored ones and zeroes.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2005, 03:45 PM:
 
Wolff are you saying that a single company can hold the rights to "passing the data to the projector"? Do you realize how stupid that is? A single company can't figure out how to do it, so they need to license the technology? That's like saying I need to use BTV to capture my video, Final Cut Pro to edit it, some other program to export it, and a completely different program mad eby some other vendor to play it. But in reality Final Cut Pro can do ALL of that, and it is made by a single company. It can render the data and it can send it to the DV deck. Wow. Those Digital Video companies for the movie theaters are sure inefficient. What's next, a different company who makes the volume knob because Dolby doesn't have the rights to increase volume in sound processors?
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-06-2005, 04:32 PM:
 
That's not what I'm saying at all, Joseph. I'm just trying to point out that companies like Real D own rights to a part of the process. In this case, being able to show 3D content IN 3D. Thus, you can make a 3D movie (like Disney did) and call it whatever you want (Disney Digital 3D), but in order to SHOW it in 3D, you have to pay Real D to do that.

And Bobby is right, there should be at least 2 more logos on there since both TI and Barco are involved. Five total logos... Gotta love it! Oh wait, you have some Christie projectors as an alternative setup at some locations, so that should be added in for a total of 6 now. Heck, might as well throw in the makers of the screen too.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 11-06-2005, 09:12 PM:
 
Christie's the primary supplier. They should have the larger logo, with a smaller Barco logo beneath. And TI should have both the TI and DLP Cinema logos. And let's not forget the fine folks who made the silver screens!
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 11-06-2005, 09:34 PM:
 
But one of the things that you need for 3D, like Chix Little, is a dual stream server. QuVis has one. The content was coded in the MXF intermediate DCI Spec format. So, the Dolby server probably wasn't a requirement.
 

---

Posted by Daniel Fuentz (Member # 1684) on 11-07-2005, 09:23 AM:
 
Well, Christie does (Or did, I havent been to the movies at a Regal in a long time) have their logo on the end of The Twenty... I am sure thousands of people have rushed from the theater to buy a Christie projector because of that mention!
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 11-07-2005, 11:53 AM:
 
QuVIS dual stream servers are being used on the four Mexican engagements.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-10-2005, 12:38 AM:
 
So...for those of you who have seen a 3-D presentation of "Chicken Little," how many company trailers/snipes were shown before the movie?
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-22-2006, 12:16 PM:
 
Here's another one from CNNMoney.com about IMAX's potential buyers:

quote:

---

In addition to owning a movie studio, Sony is also a major manufacturer of consumer electronics. So IMAX could be attractive to Sony from an intellectual property standpoint as the company could possibly use some of IMAX's technology in its television business

---

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman

---

Let's see if I'm reading this right. IMAX technology = 15 perf 70mm film. TV = digital. Brilliant.

---

If Sony did use 15-perf 70mm film for their televisions, that would be great image quality!
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-22-2006, 01:55 PM:
 

quote:

---

If Sony did use 15-perf 70mm film for their televisions, that would be great image quality!

---