my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 3-D Television without glasses or 3-D cinema with glasses?

Author Topic: 3-D Television without glasses or 3-D cinema with glasses? Ramon Lamarca Marques Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Edgware, England, UK Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-12-2007 03:03 PM                     If it is true what Philips say on their website: http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/Why3D/Index.html (pay special attention to the reference to the Hollywood blockbusters 3-D films being seen at home in 3-D, exclusive product anyone?) what are all the recently converted cinemas going to do? The 3-D technology without glasses does not work with traditional cinema screens.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-12-2007 05:25 PM                     There are no movies available on DVD or any other format where you can see the movie in full color and in 3D without the use of glasses.  |  IP: Logged Ramon Lamarca Marques Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Edgware, England, UK Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-12-2007 05:33 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson There are no movies available on DVD or any other format where you can see the movie in full color and in 3D without the use of glasses. Not yet, but if the 3-D TV without glasses is a success, there will be plenty of material. Just doing a bit of googling on 3-D TV without glasses there is plenty of material. I read somewhere that Spielbierg was looking into this for cinemas, but of course, cinemas would need a big TV screen to show films this way. I just thought about starting this topic because many theatres have had the 2k projectors sold because of 3-D as exclusive content. Well, it does not look like it is going to be exclusive for a long while.  |  IP: Logged Phillip Grace Expert Film Handler Posts: 164 From: ACMI. Melbourne. Australia. Registered: Mar 2004 posted 06-13-2007 12:52 AM                     There was a Russian system of 3-D projection which used a rastar screen to code the left eye and right eye images and which did not require the audience to wear special glasses. It worked over a small field of view but could be screened to large audiences. The screen was set quite high in the auditorium, and was small-appearing, in which respect it would be similar to T.V. viewing conditions in the average home. Probably not campatible with the large screen cinema experience.  |  IP: Logged Matthew Jaro Film Handler Posts: 74 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-13-2007 09:26 AM                        One problem with the technology is the trade-off between resolution and depth. The degradation of resolution is considerable. This is an extract from the article by Philips: A characteristic of all 3D displays is the tradeoff between pixel resolution and depth. In a scene viewed in 3D, pixels that in 2D would have contributed to high resolution are used instead to show depth. If the lenticular sheet were placed vertically atop the LCD, then horizontal resolution would drop by a factor equal to the number of views. (A nine-view vertical lenticular display, for example, would cause a nine-fold decrease in horizontal resolution and an unbalanced, elongated pixel shape.) A sheet of slanted lenticules, by contrast, distributes the resolution loss in the vertical and horizontal planes. (A nine-view slanted lenticular sheet, for example, causes only a threefold decrease in both vertical and horizontal resolution and, moreover, maintains a more balanced pixel shape.) The result is a clearer, more lifelike image. The slanting allows for the interspersing of odd and even views. Interspersing is necessary because of the gaps between each pixel on the LCD. Without interspersing, the gaps between the pixels would be magnified along with the images. Because of interspersing, observers perceive a viewing zone without gaps.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-13-2007 10:44 AM                     quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques Not yet, but if the 3-D TV without glasses is a success, there will be plenty of material. Very few movies have been produced in 3D. Even with new technology like RealD and the system Dolby intends to release there's still very few movies planned for 3D production. There's lots of problems in taking a movie already shot in normal 2D and trying to fake it into 3D. No piece of home electronics gear is going to be taking existing 2D movies and somehow converting them into 3D in some sort of automatic fashion at the push of a button. There's too many fundamental problems in 2D film and video imagery that makes the task very difficult or just plain impossible. For instance, wasn't there supposed to be a 30th anniversary release of Star Wars with everything converted into 3D? I wonder what happened with that. My guess is that the project was too labor intensive and costly to finish -and the finished result was probably not as good as what George Lucas would have expected. I know I wasn't very impressed with the post processed 3D on Superman Returns. Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas was a more successful 3D conversion project since nearly all the movie's imagery had well focused, deep depth of field and very little, if any, motion blur. Not quite so difficult to isolate that edge detail and float objects onto other image layers to create artificial right-eye and left-eye shots. Still, the conversion process demands a lot of human input for the trick to work. Adobe's newest version of Photoshop ("CS3") has some of the most highly sophisticated image analyzing technology you'll find anywhere. Its new "quick selection" and "refine edge" tools can make quick work out of some routine image editing jobs. But those tools are still not anywhere near perfect. They get lost in areas where the edge of an object gets blurred from a change in depth of field. Simple factors like that are what makes the concept of auto converting a 2D movie into 3D extremely difficult or impossible.  |  IP: Logged Ramon Lamarca Marques Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Edgware, England, UK Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-13-2007 01:08 PM                     What will happen with 3-D TV without glasses is of course hypothetical. What I was trying to convey is that the digital advocates have been mainly lying trying to convince everybody that before digital 3-D there was only anaglyphic red and green 3-D that gave everybody headaches. As you all know, this is a big lie, polarized 3-D goes back to the early 50s if not earlier. And good dual interlocked polarized 3-D is great. Actually, what I do not like and refuse to see is the fake 3-D, which is like the colorization of films by Turner. My point is that with 3-D TV with or without glasses as quite a likely possibility in the near future, the world of home cinema will be even better than now, and in the meantime the cinema industry has invested a lot of money in 2k projectors that frankly add nothing or very little to the cinema going experience. I know that there is not that much product in 3-D but if the system without glasses is a success, I am sure they will create it, if there is a market, there will be a product. The paradox will then be that TV will be a step ahead of cinemas. At least they have more than a prototype for 3-D TV without glasses currently and this cannot be said of cinemas. Unless there is a huge overhaul of the cinema exhibition industry, the future looks even gloomier.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-13-2007 04:01 PM                        I don't quite understand this concept of reduced resolution due to the lenticular angleing of the eye images. quote: Matthew Jaro A characteristic of all 3D displays is the tradeoff between pixel resolution and depth. In a scene viewed in 3D, pixels that in 2D would have contributed to high resolution are used instead to show depth. If the lenticular sheet were placed vertically atop the LCD, then horizontal resolution would drop by a factor equal to the number of views. Why would that be true? Isn't this the process where two images are process in a way that slices them into very small strips which are then layed alternately next to one another, and then the lenticular lens is placed over this image and each one of the plastic lenses reflects that appropriate image back to the corresponding eye? This has been around since I was a kid. We all have see them either as novelty items, post cards, posters, album covers, etc., or used in 3D photography -- I have a Nimzlo camera, which I uses this process, and none of the 3D images that I have seen which use this lenticular lens process look like the resolution is significently deminished. I think the lenses can somewhat distort the image, but held at just the right angel, they look pretty good -- without measurment, I won't say there is not some resolution degredation, but to the unaided eye, the images in 3D look just fine. In fact, I am looking as I write this at few lenticular picture that I took and had processed, and they seem no less clear than similar 2D 3x4s. Seems you could easily put a lenticular lens over any display monitor and if a processor were used to slice and lay the left eye/right eye strips alternatly side by side in real time, this should work quite well if the lens sheet were properly applied to the display screen. I have a 3D lenticular lens poster that LucasFilm put out for the release of Return of the Jedi VHS. It is about 14x20, so manufacturing large size, plastic lenticular lens sheets doesn't seem to be a particularly difficult issue. Seems this would be a very viable technique which already exists and which could easily be applied to displays for home use. And there you have it -- 3D AND without glasses for the kids in the den. I have already posted the EXISTING equipment that anyone can buy today right of the shelf that allows any DVD that is so processes with alternating left eye/right eye content to be immediately viewable in full 3D with a small processor the size of a Mars Bar and LCD glasses. Now it becomes apparant that by applying the sliced image method and the appropriate lenticular lens to 3D content, it may make it possible to have 3D movies WITHOUT glasses available for the home market, thus making all that hoopla about why exihibitors should install digital simply because they will be able to show 3D movies that will ONLY be available in their theatres and NEVER at home, just more of that digevangelism dogpoo.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.