DIRECTV, the world's most popular television service, and Panasonic, a world leader in HDTV and digital electronics, announced today a strategic relationship that, for the first time, will bring 3D TV, the next frontier of television entertainment, to the largest audience nationwide. Beginning in June 2010, millions of DIRECTV HD customers will receive a free software upgrade enabling them to have access to three dedicated 3D channels through their 3D television sets, such as Panasonic's VIERA Full HD 3D TVs.
I just don't have any interest in 3d at home right now and I certainly wouldn't spend anything extra for it. But I can see how the techno-geeks will eat this up.
I have seen it in 3 3D technologies, Dolby 3D, IMAX 3D, and Real 3D. I have to say after the first 2, Real 3D was a disappointment, and I certainly hope that the new technologies will outperform it.
Real 3D, or the combo of how it was projected and filtered by the glasses all of: dim the image, color shifted it (making it dull), and the frame rate or ? made the action choppy and harder to watch.
If certain of the new projection technologies do the above, I think the industry will find it struggling. Sort of like the psychoacoutic effects of harmonic distortion, I think people will just naturally, even if unknowingly shy away from using it.
If not, count me in as soon as my wife lets me off the leash again! (having just bought 2 new 60" sets).
In my reading of the first article, Dolby 3D was considered distinctly better. In the second article RealD 3D got the nod. I am suspect I saw RealD 3D on a normal screen - not the silver screen required. It was just too off to match the review that it was given. Being obsessed, I may try and see a different showing of it.
They mentioned the IMAX being more forward of the screen and in close ups, it was a bit overwhelming. But it was a bit more engaging and spacious, I do aggree the image is not as sharp.
I saw the Dolby 3D at the Arclight Hollywood, regular screen. Their quality is always top notch, and they are considered to be among the best in the world. And it was great - visually and of course audibly.
Mentioned in one of the articles was XpandD. I read up on the XpanD system, and I am going to try and see that this weekend. It is a shutter glass system that is also designed for home use. I would be curious to see how good it can look. The Arclight Dome where it is being used, is typically the best of the best. Though the Dome's audio has been critized for being too deep to keep the sound perfectly synced.
I have to mention that the articles beat on the comfort of the 3D glasses. I have not had a problem, I wear normal size glasses, have an average size head. I noticed that in the IMAX 3D they appeared to have at least 3 sizes of glasses for small, medium and large heads. I could imagine that a theater could put an idiot at the rack and they just start at one end, going to the other giving the glasses out at random. Then a large person could get the kid's size and have a real problem.
I like 3d, but I don't like it so much more than Blu-Ray that I would invest in a new TV set and worry about wearing glasses to watch a movie. If I had a really large screen then I might consider the trouble for a special movie like Avatar, but in general it just wouldn't be worth the effort and expense to me.
I have now seen 5 variants of Avatar 3D. On Saturday I saw the XpanD in the Arclight Dome, and I have to say, I was horribly disappointed. Except for a narrow zone where closeups came forward of the screen - the ENTIRE movie was out of alignment, and thus appeared to be out of focus. I almost walked out - but wanted to also see the motion flow - which was good. I tried to talk to staff there, but even the manager I talked to had not even seen their own regular-screen Dolby 3D - which I consider to be the reference - and had no clue what they should expect to see.
I was told to ask for the projection manager so if I can get through, I will let you know the results. I am suspect it is the Emperor's new clothes - that is they talk a big game with the Dome, but cannot compensate for the overly curved screen. I would think that a proper compensation would have the image appear flat on the screen but both the preview titles and textual-graphic imagery in Avatar were bent (and double imaged).
The XpandD glasses - thus color, motion flow and brightness seemed very good. If that is a sign of what we might see in the home, I am very impressed. They are substantial, nicely made, and look good enough to buy for home use.
The other variant I saw, was what I would call long throw IMAX. That is, a somewhat conventional theater with a larger screen. Short throw IMAX being a 'real' IMAX theater with the very steep stadium seating (~4x3 size?)
When I saw the Short throw variant, the frames were bigger, better vistas, color was good. But it was slightly over bright and slightly less crisp. Not quite out of focus, but not quite dead-on either. Glasses nice, comfortable and came in 3 sizes (at least).
When I saw the Long throw variant, the frames were tall and wide (closer to 16x9), but imagery truncated a bit left or right. It appeared to be a bit of a pan and scan. BUT, every other aspect was spectacularly dead on. Color bright and saturated, absolutely perfect alignment and focus, seemingly perfect brightness. In this case the glasses were very flimsy, and very basic, slightly uncomfortable, but in the end, worked beautifully and were easy to forget about.
In all cases, minor dirt and scratches seemed to be un-noticeable - a nice feature given they are handled fairly badly by at least the customers.
DirecTv can't get their HD DVRs working correctly, now they're gonna try 3D? That should be interesting. You'd think they would concentrate on training their employees, getting what equipment they have at present into near perfect working condition, then expand to a new technology.
Back off subject - but I heard from the Arclight Cinema projection manager. There was a singular alignment issue for the showing I saw. They have a leading edge system with unique challenges. And then there is the overly curved screen.
But, for those who care, XpanD (shutter glasses) is a very good system - maybe the best many say. I can't wait to confirm that with another viewing.
I'm an early adopter, and have been since I was a kid and that was a very long time ago.
However, even liking gadgets, I viewed the early 3D movies as a gimmick that required glasses to view. From the viewers even the best of these sound like a gimmick and nothing I'd be interested in, particularly if I have to wear glasses to view the image. From the descriptions I think I'd rather see Avatar on a regular screen. I'd like to see the 3D version as a comparison, but I'm afraid I'd be one of those who wouldn't stay for the ending.
You know....we walk around seeing 3D, all day every day (my apologies to those who have lost one or more eyes, or who have monovision lasik). You can watch your TV as you wish, most of which is trivial, or buy a TV with a really black black, and revel in the apparent additional depth.
No one is asking anyone to walk around with "sun glasses" which will mostly de-3d their real world. No one is going to break anyone's arm ...well outside of a retail outlet of poor ethics.... to buy anything what-so-ever.
But when I see a work of crafted art like Avatar, I (and very many others) might very well put on the glasses (over my present ones) and enjoy a different, beautiful artform.
Roger, to see Avatar is to see a new reference in the use of 3D. My basic thesis of video art is that there are as many ways to enjoy a movie as there are classes of Academy Awards (and more). If the story is engaging, like a book, you do not need any more than a tiny screen in black and white. And I only say that as video relies on the visual and does not generally complete the story in verbage. Before than that, radio shows engaged a generation or two, and always is the written word.
So yes, Avatar in 2D is as loved as in 3D. But there are scenes eg. a snow like falling/floating of particles that come out into the audience that have a unique engaging quality, and as limited as that one scence is, sometimes it is just those short moments that gives what greatness we find in the medium. One of my favorites is Helen Hunt, in As Good as It Gets. One scene where she pours her heart out, garnered an Academy Award.
And in a movie like Avatar, with a lot of big vistas shots, they are net in 2D anyway. In fact in the real world given the nature of our vision, we only really see in 2D all those things that are rather distant. It is a craft to make this technology work, and James with Avatar has brought us the best. And it is NOT the 3D of Red and Blue glasses of old.
Roger, I look forward to seeing Avatar in pristine HD via Blu-ray to my 124" 2.35 screen. I recommend to anybody interested in 3D and the state of 3D art to go have this experience.
Well, I would probably wait until I can go to a projector as this point. That based on assumptions of being able to sync a spinning Dolby 3D 'shifter' wheel, a polarizer wheel, or used with shutter glasses.
On Dolby 3D: It uses the "Wavelength Multiplex Visualization" system. It shifts the 3 primary colors from the projector just a little bit up and down for each eye.
In projection it can be implemented rather easily by the synchronication of the left/right frames with a spinning color shifter wheel. In a theater the white paper example shows a double projector with shift filters for each side. In a single projector alternating frame system, it is a spinning wheel. Thus, I am thinking a Dolby 3D front projector system for the home would be a reasonable assumption for the future.
The coating on the glasses, a set of very narrow filters each allowing only the primaries through - left side slightly tuned different from right side - could be put on perscription lenses, as well as the typical theater glasses. The only 'calibration' issue would be that the projectors 3 source colors match the filters on the lenses.
An advantage Dolby 3D would have in the projector situation is that the glasses' lenses are tuned to the 3 basic colors (with the shifts). Ambient light not in the spectrum will be filtered giving a better contrast.
This all is similar to the polarizing systems, but has the advantage on the ability to use normal glasses (depending on cost to get them coated). The downside is some people might notice one eye notices more red, the other more green. Normally a wash, but in some cases, like DLP rainbow, it may be noticeable. TBD!
