|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: 3D Screen Paint
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Lee
Film Handler
Posts: 99
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 10-06-2003 02:48 PM
Before this gets blown out of proportion, let me state the following:
- For light to maintain an acceptable level of polarization on reflection, the surface must be metallic (aluminum, silver or magnesium).
- Making, spraying, or even attempting to make a decent 3D coating will take about 10 years off your life.
- The only lenticular 3D screen available is from MDI in Quebec and has been available for the last year. (Gord, I must show you a sample next week when I am in town) As you know a lenticular surface prevents hotspotting and also results in higher polarization performance. I won't plug MDI's product on this site but will discuss technical issues from this point.
Greg, if you can find a better performing 3D screen I will fly to Washington myself and install it for you.
Paul, no one sells 3D screen paint to my knowledge. Please feel free to dabble around with store bought aluminum paints. Make sure the paint is a "non-leafing" type of aluminum, otherwise the gain will be too high and will not work well.
Good Luck
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Lee
Film Handler
Posts: 99
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 10-07-2003 11:56 AM
Paul, what I really meant to say is that trying to produce an acceptable 3D screen surface is an extremely difficult and exasperating task. There are so many factors involved in getting metallic paints to behave in order to get a surface that has the performance you require, aesthetic appearance, and absence of defects (stripping, lacquer blush, etc.). The ten years I mentioned was due in part to the stress and endless attempts over the years. As mentioned by others, these paints are not the most healthy substances to be around during application. Masks should be worn at all times when applying metallic paints, water-based or not. Imax screens up to a certain size are manufactured and painted at MDI with a propriatary paint. After a certain size, the screen is painted on site by Imax personel with a robotic paint rig.
John, in my 18 years of dealing with aspects of 3D projection, there have been a few attempts at standardizing a test for 3D screen performance. The method you briefly outlined is the way myself and others use. Off-axis polarization performance is also checked as well. Just remember that an LS-100 Minolta spotmeter is the best toll for the job for two reasons. This meter has the resolution at the lower end to give you the extinction readings you require and also the meter is not polarization sensitive as other meters are (any lightmeter that uses a beamsplitter or a mirror to reflect the incoming light to the meter's photocell has the potential to give you false readings when used in conjunction with a polarizer).
As far as an acceptable contrast ratio, or signal to noise for a 3D screen, its subjective at best. There are screens out there at 50:1, 80:1 and so on. It is my experience that 150:1 is what you should be shooting for. At this level, combined with efficient and aligned polarizers, aligned on-screen images, balanced light sources, equal print densitys, and a filmaker who knows what he is doing, eye strain and ghost images are virtually eliminated. No simple task.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Joseph
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 131
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 10-08-2003 11:12 PM
Well, we had a least two secret weapons:
Dan Symmes, who's been playing with 3-D since "Stewardesses" days, was there to help us set up, and was there for every show, headphones ready, to speak to the booth staff.
And we had Paul Rayton and crew in the booth. I can't stress enough how important it is to have qualified personnel doing this. In addition, we had someone (a second projectionist) watching the screen at all times.
The 3-D films of the 1950s sometimes had slight framing issues from shot to shot. If one camera was slightly loaded "off", then every time we cut to a scene like that, we're slightly out of frame. So that had to be watched constantly.
And we rehearsed, both sound and picture, numerous times.
Jeff
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|