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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » IMAX Linear Polarization (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: IMAX Linear Polarization Chase Pickett Expert Film Handler Posts: 142 From: Irving, Texas, USA Registered: Nov 2010 posted 12-14-2010 12:53 PM                     Does anyone know why the IMAX Digital systems use linear polarization rather than Circular polarization? It seems to me a better experience comes from circular rather than linear but there has to be a reason that IMAX uses linear, and I would like to know if anyone knows that reason.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-14-2010 02:31 PM                     Cross talk is less with linear than it is with circular  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 12-14-2010 02:33 PM                     I am under the impression that IMAX offers linear, circlular and shutter glasses for 3D. Its been 10 years since I touched an IMAX projector but our location had both linear polorization and shutter glasses, one could use either glasses for the same screening. After I left I heard that they stopped using the shutter glasses probably over maintainence issues. Ie the cheif projectionist no longer wanted to climb the 8 story tall screen to ajust the transmitteror perhaps the cleaning of the very expensive glasses, changing the batteries became too much ? The cheaper thow away linear glasses did provide a notably brighter image too. Ghosting was a big issue if you tilted your head. I was told that that location now uses circlular glasses now.  |  IP: Logged Chase Pickett Expert Film Handler Posts: 142 From: Irving, Texas, USA Registered: Nov 2010 posted 12-14-2010 04:11 PM                     I guess I just haven't been to any IMAX screens which utilize shutter glasses or circular. The 6 or so that I have been to all utilized the linear which always annoyed me because keeping your head straight is a hard thing to do for 2 hours or so. I'm glad to hear they do use circular in some cases. But as Gordon put it cross talk is more noticeable with circular but I find it a better trade off.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-14-2010 05:20 PM                     quote: Cameron Glendinning Ie the cheif projectionist no longer wanted to climb the 8 story tall screen to ajust the transmitteror perhaps the cleaning of the very expensive glasses, changing the batteries became too much ? Nope. The luvvies cleaning the glasses and re-charging the batteries decided it was not necessary to lock the battery into place (read: easier to take the battery off again to re-charge) so the batteries went missing over time as the punters could souvenir an IMAX branded battery with ease. That's when the transmitter was switched off.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2010 09:58 PM                     That they use old polarization junk from the 50'is is simply retarted anbd assinine! Tilt your head more then 2.8 degrees either way and the cross talk is worse then Circular Polarization is. In reality they do it because the glasses are uber cheap to buy. C.P. glasses actually have linear AND C.P. filters in them and cost about three times the price per unit. Mark  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 12-15-2010 10:06 PM                     For your IMAX that is showing movies other then your standard IMAX Doc, Mark is correct. Price becomes a huge factor in what glasses/system the theatre runs. The shutter glasses get very expensive, as well as diffrent versions of the standard set. Most theatres don't have room in their budget to splurge on pricey glasses that are expensive to replace when some one wants a trinket with IMAX on it much like John said with the battery.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-16-2010 04:46 AM                     Isn't that what these new 3D HDTV's use to present 3D, is with linear polarization and shutter glasses that costs almost 200 bucks for the emitter and glasses to add on to the unit?  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 12-16-2010 10:43 AM                     Depending on brand, I saw that the 3D TV glasses range from a low of ~$90 up to ~$150.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-16-2010 06:09 PM                     Lenny Lipton has something to say about using linear vs. circular glases. It is true that LP IMAX glases are more tilt-sensitive. Yet most peole say IMAX still delivers the best 3D performance. LP vs. CP has a separation efficiency faktor of 10. So even with some head tilting, the stereo separation is better than with CP. The limiting factor, though, is still the screen. But starting at 1000:1 is still better than with 100:1 Seems that, due to the large IMAX screens, IMAX also has the largest glases of them all to allow a large viewing angle. The necessity for head movements on large IMAX screens to follow the action maybe a bad idea for LP glases - but obviously few people seem to complain. The larger size also attributes to the price, so... Also, at the time original IMAX 3D was deployed, Ghostbusting was beyond the scope of postproduction options. There is a digital (non IMAX) two-projector screen in germany using IMAX glases, and thus, LP Filters. Seems to be no problem. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-16-2010 08:20 PM                     I actually did tests running stacked digital projectors, an audience of over 200 people, and custom CP and linear filters at Zion Canyon on their 80 foot screen. Every one found the linear glasses extremely annoying and no one saw any difference visually between CP or Linear as far as the 3-D effect itself was concerned. The most interesting observation of that test was that about 3 or 4 people could not even see a 3-d image!! I can just imagine if the rest of the world used linear filtration for Digital just 3-D how many people would be complaining. Mark  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-17-2010 04:53 PM                     How does that comply with the general IMAX 3D performance perception? - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-17-2010 07:21 PM                     Anything Imax is poison to Mark, so take his opinions regarding them with a few pounds of salt.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-18-2010 09:04 AM                     Guys... Tell that to the ex-Imax people that left and designed the Master Image Unit that uses CP. Also do not forget that CP filters have a linear element AND a quarter wave element in them... @ Carston... The audience always has the final say... Mark  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-18-2010 12:27 PM                     Tell them what, Mark? I know some of the ex-Imax people at master Image and to the best of my knowledge the design was set when they joined. You may know differently but I can't see how it matters. We've never met: I respect your immense experience and knowledge of film production and presentation. For some reason you dislike Imax and criticize everything they do. Anyone reading your posts will recognize that. Chase (I think I met him in Latvia or Estonia?) has been a member here since November 2010 and may not be aware of this bias. CP works fine but I'd like to see a filter wheel - or LC polarization switcher - that can work with linear polarization: maybe the reason CP is used with Real-D and Master Image is because of this impossibility? For dual lens 3D, LP is an option. The crosstalk increases rapidly with head tilt... but the audience naturally "gets it" and don't tilt their heads. Working with a real IMAX 15/70 screen the light efficiency is a major issue. Even with two 15kW lamps image brightness with two LP filters in the light path to one's eye is borderline and losing more light to CP - the glasses and filter CP polarizers have an additional light loss from the 1/4 wave plate layer after the LP layer - so a few people incapable of holding their heads up is not so important. Crosstalk is undeniably less than CP with LP (when the LP polarization axes are correctly aligned). OK, audience experience: IMAX 15/70 3D reaction, in my experience, has been "WOW!!!" and never been "I hate how the 3D goes bad when I tilt my head". The number of "Ouch I got a headache from it" responses seems the same for all polarized systems and a bit less with XPAND or Dolby 3D. The Imax shutter glasses were introduced for Imax Dome 3D ("SOLIDO") in 1990. LP would not work in a dome where the audience will be gazing all around and subsequently tilting their heads. A silver dome screen would also be a big disaster because of cross-illumination and contrast loss (obliteration?). To use a matte screen the only solution was LC shutter glasses. The shutter glasses were originally extended to IMAX 15/70 3D to add the near-field "3D sound" system Imax/Sonics tried out, the glasses had tiny speakers in their temples. The shutter glasses are also inherently LP glasses, and the LP axis happened to be at 45 degrees from vertical. The left and right lenses are identical with one flipped to make a pair. This makes them also "normal" 45/135 LP glasses. Some flat screen Imax 3D systems (NYC Lincoln Square for one) with the LC glasses added LP filters at the projector to reduce crostalk. I don't know if this is still done. My opinion is that dual projector systems where both eyes are projected simultaneously are a bit less brain-annoying than alternate eye projection but that the main headache inducer is the false 3D itself, the eyes and brain get upset that closer objects are unnaturally at the same focus plane as distant objects. 3D producers seem to have realized this and don't put many objects far out of the screen and present a "window" 3D with most action occurring behind the screen plane.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.