Page 7 of 21

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:23 am
by Chairman Kaga
thanks for the Cameron info that helps. I really wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:35 am
by stereosforgeeks
Peven wrote:bottom line, guys, for us who don't have a background in this stuff, how many years, ballpark, before we see 3-D players and the TV's that can handle it?


Id say high end sets in 2010 earliest.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:37 am
by tapehead
It's worth noting that Cameron is also talking about a camera which shoots for this 'stereoscopic' format, but Harry references him saying there is 'home viewing technology is developed and is sitting waiting for content'.

My understanding of the glasses you wear in 3D Imax is that they isolate the image for each eye sequentially (if you've been you may have noticed that fluttering effect in your field of vision until your eyes adjust), and the '3d' effect is created literally by the different perspective of the the images recorded - the dual camera system combining together in the eyes of the viewer - reproducing our real life 3d perspective of the world, but but with all the mobility, movement, editing and 'cinematic language' of a film.

It seemed to me that reproduce this on a monitor, with content not shot this way, a left and right version of the image would need to be produced from the original material, and I presume, if the original content was 50p or 60p, the 3d version would have to run at 100p or 120p, to allow for the alternating left and right isolation of the screen image by the glasses. Actually I can imagine, depending on how the images are encoded and displayed on the screen, it might need to be much, much higher, but I don't really know.

I suppose it is a 'hologram' but if you're in the room without the glasses on, you can't see it.

That's why I made that guess at the frame rates above, and hopefully that makes a little more sense...

Otherwise I might just have just won myself a braintwister award...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:53 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
tapehead wrote:My understanding of the glasses you wear in 3D Imax is that they isolate the image for each eye sequentially (if you've been you may have noticed that fluttering effect in your field of vision until your eyes adjust), and the '3d' effect is created literally by the different perspective of the the images recorded - the dual camera system combining together in the eyes of the viewer - reproducing our real life 3d perspective of the world, but but with all the mobility, movement, editing and 'cinematic language' of a film.


The 3D IMAX, she is a nothing more than a the standard stereoscopic projection from a the '50s using a the polarized lenses onna the larger film format, eh?

Iffa the Dino, he understands a your use of a the term "sequentially," it seems as iffa your are implying that a the left-eye image is a shown, anna then a the right-eye, anna then a the left, etc. back-anna-forth anna the brain uses a the "persistence of a the vision" a to blend a the images together inna'to a the one, eh?

But inna the case of a the IMAX 3D, both of a the left- anna right-eye images, they uppa onna the screen at a the same a time, eh? Hence a the "ghosting" you get with a the cheap polarized plastic lenses, no? Anna this is alla at a the standard FPS of a the IMAX film format, eh?

Inna the case of a the Real 3D, which is a the digital 3D projection, then a yes, the images, they ARE a shown a sequentially, eh? One after a the 'nother, anna that a the LCD filter, she is a placed inna front of a the projector lens, anna she is the thing that effectively does a the polarization, eh? Anna so's a your eyes, they are only ever seeing a one image at a the time, eh? Anna so's a there's no ghosting effects, eh? Combine that with a the fact that a the lenses, they are a the circularly polarized anna you gotta the very nice 3D effect with a your head tilted at a any angle, no? Anna the framerate of a the digital system, she is a much a higher, eh? Onna account of a the sequential nature of a the images... 5X (120fps) higher, I believe, eh? But donna quote a the Dino onna that...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:03 pm
by tapehead
Nice - just one thing;
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:The 3D IMAX, she is a nothing more than a the standard stereoscopic projection from a the '50s using a the polarized lenses onna the larger film format, eh?


Is this actually a statement, or a question? It seems to contradict the rest, which was a damn fine explanation.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:07 pm
by Fried Gold
As far as I can remember, {and I can't find the references I'm looking for to back this up so some of this may be pseudo-science}, the problem with framerates comes into play when you're using:

- big screen technology
- funky polarising stereoscopic glasses

When a screen the size of those used for Imax is being watched, the parts of the screen in your peripheral vision look like they flicker. (you can try this out at home kids - look away from a TV and try to notice it in your peripheral vision.) This is also affected by the polarisation technique removing frames from your view.

So, I suppose, increased picture frequencies would eliminate these effects. But I would think the initial filming (or animation) would have to take place in the same higher framerate. Althought I'd have thought that the 60p that current HD uses would be good enough for home screens (that may be what those articles are suggesting).

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:18 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
tapehead wrote:Nice - just one thing;
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:The 3D IMAX, she is a nothing more than a the standard stereoscopic projection from a the '50s using a the polarized lenses onna the larger film format, eh?


Is this actually a statement, or a question? It seems to contradict the rest, which was a damn fine explanation.


It was a the goddamn statement, eh? It's a like a you donna understand a the goddamn English, no?

Anna I donna see how a the statement, she contradicts a the rest, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:25 pm
by tapehead
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
tapehead wrote:Ni ce - just one thing;
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:The 3D IMAX, she is a nothing more than a the standard stereoscopic projection from a the '50s using a the polarized lenses onna the larger film format, eh?


Is this actually a statement, or a question? It seems to contradict the rest, which was a damn fine explanation.


It was a the goddamn statement, eh? It's a like a you donna understand a the goddamn English, no?

Anna I donna see how a the statement, she contradicts a the rest, eh?

I've never seen the old- school 3D at Imax (we don't have that here, just the digital projection, as I described) so I guess the confusion on that point was mine. Sorry dude, no offence intended.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:31 pm
by Peven
holographic tv/projectors, guys. when?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:35 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
tapehead wrote:I've never seen the old- school 3D at Imax (we don't have that here, just the digital projection, as I described)


Ah... the Dino, he now understands, eh? I was a referring to a the standard IMAX 3D, not a the digital form, which is, still, a little bit a different from a the (inna my opinion) superior Real 3D digital 3D system, eh?

IMAX wrote:IMAX 3D Technology

IMAX 3D technology is the most advanced 3D film technology in the world and is based on human vision. When you look at an object, each of your eyes sees a slightly different view. Through a process called "stereopsis" your brain brings the two views together into a single three dimensional image.


IMAX 3D cameras incorporate two identical lenses that are precisely spaced to match the distance between your eyes. This interocular distance allows each lens to "see" both left and right views exactly as your eyes would see them. This helps to facilitate realistic 3D images once projected.

During shooting, the images register on two separate rolls of 15/70 film that run through the camera at the same time and speed. IMAX 3D cameras weigh a hefty 240 pounds.


The IMAX 3D projector uses Rolling Loop technology to run two separate rolls of film simultaneously past twin projection lenses. To enable the 3D effect, the lenses are carefully aligned to project both left and right eye views onto the giant screen.

To see images in 3D, the audience wears either polarized glasses or a headset that includes electronic liquid-crystal shutter (E3D) glasses. While they have different technologies, both types of 3D glasses work with the IMAX 3D projector to provide stunning 3D images.


To enable the 3D effect, polarized glasses worn by the audience are precisely matched with the polarizing filters of the projector's twin lenses. While the lenses superimpose separate left and right eye views onto the screen, the glasses make sure that each eye sees the appropriate image, allowing your brain to create a single 3D image.


Instead of superimposing images, two sets of shutters within the 3D projector switch back and forth at 96 times per second, to project alternate left and right eye images on the screen. During the presentation, E3D glasses sense a signal from the projector. In response to this signal, the left and right eye shutters in the glasses alternately open and close in conjunction with the projector shutters to make sure each eye sees the appropriate image, ultimately creating the 3D effect.


As a you can a see, with a the digital 3D IMAX system, the glasses a themselves, they gotta to be "shuttered" as a well as a the shutter onna the projector lens itself, no? Which puts a the moving parts onna the goddamn glasses, making a them more expensive anna fragile, eh? With a the Real 3D system, the projector shutter, she acts as a the polarizing filter, allowing a the glasses to have a the no moving parts, making them a much a more cheap a to produce, no? Anna the circularly polarized lenses, they are a much a more comfortable to a the brain, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:37 pm
by tapehead
Actually, I think I may just have been confused regards what you meant by 'polarised' lenses, but you've cleared it up with those wiki quotes anyway. I should have been more specific in my description of the shutter system the glasses use in the first place, rather than referring to it as 'sequential'.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:41 pm
by Peven
the 3-D at Disney's Philharmagic is awsome, best i have ever seen. no eye discomfort whatsoever and the images really do seem to be 3-dimensional, right there in your face. when i first saw it a few years back it was one of those rare cases as an adult that i felt a sense of wonder, like being a kid again.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:51 pm
by Fried Gold
I don't think I've ever had to where shutter glasses with Imax 3D, it's always been the simple polarising filter glasses.

I've never seen a Real D projection, but I'm told that a lot of people get Virtual-Boy fever when watching them. And there's also some kind of diffraction fringing issue with the projector types used with it.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:58 pm
by tapehead
Fried Gold wrote: Virtual-Boy fever


headaches?

epileptic fits?

edit: oic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Virtual_Boy

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:02 pm
by Fried Gold
tapehead wrote:
Fried Gold wrote: Virtual-Boy fever


headaches?

epileptic fits?

Headaches, eye strain, nausea, vertigo etc etc

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:23 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Fried Gold wrote:I've never seen a Real D projection, but I'm told that a lot of people get Virtual-Boy fever when watching them.


Inna my experience, those criticisms were valid for a the traditional 3D systems of a the past, anna virtually eliminated with a the Real 3D system, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:25 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Anna we're prolly getting alla off-a-topic with a this a 3D discussion, eh?

We DO sort of have a the 3D thread, although it's inna the EFBR, eh?

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:52 pm
by wonkabar
Acer goes Blu

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:52 pm
by TheBaxter
$99 HD-DVD players at Wal-Mart/Best Buy

now THIS is the kind of thing that might actually end this stupid format war.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:02 pm
by Fievel
TheBaxter wrote:$99 HD-DVD players at Wal-Mart/Best Buy

now THIS is the kind of thing that might actually end this stupid format war.


Great.. now what's next?
Paul W.S. Anderson DVD collections to be given away free to show who's the better Paul Anderson!?!?!?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:06 pm
by stereosforgeeks
TheBaxter wrote:$99 HD-DVD players at Wal-Mart/Best Buy

now THIS is the kind of thing that might actually end this stupid format war.


I still don't think it's going to help.

From what Ive been reading lately most studious that produce in both formats are getting fed up with making them in both formats.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:21 pm
by TheBaxter
stereosforgeeks wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:$99 HD-DVD players at Wal-Mart/Best Buy

now THIS is the kind of thing that might actually end this stupid format war.


I still don't think it's going to help.

From what Ive been reading lately most studious that produce in both formats are getting fed up with making them in both formats.


i think EVERYONE's getting fed up with making them in both formats. we just have to get them all to agree on which format to stop making them in.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:26 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Yeah exactly! I just want to be able to buy things in HD! I won't until things are settled.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:28 pm
by Fried Gold
Considering most people can't honestly tell the difference, only having to pay $99 for an HD disc player might sway them.

Only audiophile's care about high-end, high-price kit.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:32 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Fried Gold wrote:Considering most people can't honestly tell the difference, only having to pay $99 for an HD disc player might sway them.

Only audiophile's care about high-end, high-price kit.


Who has HD TVs right now? The geeks. The people that are willing to spend the money on something good. Atleast that's the majority of owners at the moment. With prices dropping it will soon be everybody where that would make a difference but I don't think the consumer base is "the masses" at the moment.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:38 pm
by Fried Gold
I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the main high street electronics stores the only TVs you can buy now are flat-panel HD-ready sets.

So lots of HD sets have been bought by the general public.

However, HD sources aren't that widespread yet. There's limited HD satellite/cable services and a tiny bit of HD disc players.

Given the choice, people will go for the cheaper set so they finally have something to show off their TV with.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:42 pm
by godzillasushi
Directv just came out with a major amount of HD channels to go alongside regular ones.

While most shows aren't in HD yet, the programming seems to be going that way.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:43 pm
by stereosforgeeks
I haven't been into a bestbuy in awhile but most families I know arent willing to invest in new TVs at the moment.

Most of my friends, however, do have HD sets and either an PS3 or HD addon for the 360. We are young single guys with expendable cash though.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:45 pm
by Deathlok2001
Ah, I have a 46' HDTV, PVR, & 5.1 SS setup. It is the ONLY way to watch dvds, TV, Sports ( Football & hockey is freakin amazing in HD!) and play
xbox 360 games. I LOVE Halo 3 on the big screen!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:05 pm
by Deathlok2001
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9809950-7.html


I didn't realize they were in such dire straits...

and this:

More Xbox 360 HD-DVD drives sold than all Blu Ray stand alone players combined...

http://kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/whos-go...you-318176. php

Wow interesting stuff...

I do not like how SONY forces you to use proprietary add on with their products. For example, you have to use SONY memory sticks in their digital cameras.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:08 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Deathlok2001 wrote:http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9809950-7.html


I didn't realize they were in such dire straits...

and this:

More Xbox 360 HD-DVD drives sold than all Blu Ray stand alone players combined...

http://kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/whos-go...you-318176. php

Wow interesting stuff...

I do not like how SONY forces you to use proprietary add on with their products. For example, you have to use SONY memory sticks in their digital cameras.


BluRay is far from proprietary. It was made in conjunction with a bunch of other companies.

Both sides are being rediculous about this whole thing. It's time to just unite and propel a common next gen forward.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:12 pm
by Fried Gold
Deathlok2001 wrote:Ah, I have a 46' HDTV, PVR, & 5.1 SS setup. It is the ONLY way to watch dvds, TV, Sports ( Football & hockey is freakin amazing in HD!) and play
xbox 360 games.


The ONLY way?



Rental chains have been doing badly for a long while. More people are buying more DVDs - why pay out £3 on a rental for two nights when you can buy it outright for £5? The #2 chain in the UK "Choices" is closing this year. It tried to diversify a bit but it couldn't compete with declining rentals and online prices.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:19 pm
by Deathlok2001
The ONLY way as I wrote it meaning watching them on a HDTV.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:25 pm
by Fievel
Deathlok2001 wrote:The ONLY way as I wrote it meaning watching them on a HDTV.


Someone obviously hasn't upgraded to the Cerebrovision 5000 Cerebral Implant System.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:29 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Fievel wrote:
Deathlok2001 wrote:The ONLY way as I wrote it meaning watching them on a HDTV.


Someone obviously hasn't upgraded to the Cerebrovision 5000 Cerebral Implant System.


Mines in the mail. Howd you know?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:24 pm
by Fried Gold
Deathlok2001 wrote:The ONLY way as I wrote it meaning watching them on a HDTV.

Yeah, but sadly not everyone has the room to house a 46-foot screen like you...

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:06 pm
by Deathlok2001
Death to blu-ray!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 pm
by Fievel
Deathlok2001 wrote:Death to blu-ray!


Why?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:42 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Fievel wrote:
Deathlok2001 wrote:Death to blu-ray!


Why?


Hes just angry and hates Sony. Seems to be enough these days even though it is the technologically superior format, which actually means crap i know.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:21 am
by Deathlok2001
How is blu-ray superior to HD dvd? HD DVD is 1080i & blu ray is 1080p

I dislike SONY, so if I had to pick one of these 2 formats, I would go HD DVD all the way baby!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:24 am
by stereosforgeeks
both can do 1080p. BluRay just can hold more data which can translate into less compressed data and better picture quality. Also, it has added security features, which doesnt mean that much really as it will be cracked.

Why the Sony hate, by the way?

I actually worked for them and was about to be downsized before I quit and I don't hate them as much as you seem to.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:24 am
by Tyrone_Shoelaces
Save your money until next year's holiday shopping season. The shut-off of standard broadcasting will be mere months away so the manufacturers will be tripping over themselves to get you to buy a new giant new TV with all the HD bells and whistles. I imagine there will be some spectacular deals and I wouldn't be surprised if they threw in the HD disc player of your choice just for walking through the door.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:29 am
by stereosforgeeks
HD and the switch off have nothing to do with eachother.

The switchoff means that all channels have to be broadcast digitally. Which means a cable box or converter. NOt that they are only broadcasting HD.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:03 am
by SilentBobX
This is the year I have to go with HDTV, mostly cause my own tv is 15 yrs old and I'm acting pre-emptively before it falls apart or explodes and sends shards of shrapnel into my face while I'm watching something(exaggeration, yes).

I'm sure that alot of Black Friday deals will throw in a particular player or set of HD/Blu ray dvds of choice also(For those Britishlanders and people who don't know, Black Friday is the day after the American Holiday of Thanksgiving where people celebrate being thankful the day after buy going into stores at 3 am to begin the Xmas shopping season crushed against an insane amount of people looking for incredible bargains on everything imaginable)

I've pretty much settled on the 42 in. Vizio LCD HDTV, perfect for my humble needs. I had read about walfart's 50 in. plasma hdtv being on sale but I'm not sold on plasma, since I was told the plasma bulb burns out after a few years.

But I will say this: I'm not jumping into the hd/blu ray scene unless I get a free player or the medium goes to it and regular dvd becomes obsolete and unattainable. I just don't see the difference really between any 3 except for maybe a little more brightness. But that's just me.

Mahalo

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:24 am
by vicious_bastard
Deathlok2001 wrote:How is blu-ray superior to HD dvd? HD DVD is 1080i & blu ray is 1080p


Umm, progressive scan is superior, that they have the same resolution is irrelevant. I won't be buying anything anytime soon but I would plump for Blu-ray as the future looks brighter for the technology - they have multi-layer discs in development which dwarf and are much easier to manufacture than HD-DVDs - 8 layers and 200gb.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:53 pm
by Fried Gold
How many pixels do you really need?

If you’re looking for a new telly then you'll obviously have noticed some of the “AMAZING DEALSâ€

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:04 pm
by stereosforgeeks
For a size under 50" you can't tell at all between 1080i/720p or 1080p

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:17 pm
by Deathlok2001
Many of SONYS products in the past forced the consumer to use
proprietary products. For example, on SONYS digital cameras, you have to use SONYS memory sticks ( which cost more). You can use a non SONY memory stick, but it will have a higher prob of failure. WTF?

I like choice!

Stupid SONY!


DEATH TO blu-ray ! ( and I say that with a lump in my throat as I am a MAC evangelist! So I might have to change my feelings towards blu-ray as APPLE is embracing this tech.)

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:19 pm
by TheBaxter
it's amusing that somebody who's so opposed to proprietary technologies would be an Apple/Mac evangelist.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:23 pm
by vicious_bastard
TheBaxter wrote:it's amusing that somebody who's so opposed to proprietary technologies would be an Apple/Mac evangelist.


Heheh. Beat me to it.

Fried Gold wrote:I also doubt that there’s anything really worth watching that truly warrants full HD resolution.


Porn?