|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sony and RealD team up. WTH?
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 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 ...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic