Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process? - Page 2

post #31 of 53
7/9/08 at 6:37pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I saw Journey To The Center of The Earth in 3-D last night. They had previews of two 3-D animated films that will be released this fall. I think one of them was Bolt but I don't remember the other title. Journey looked great in 3-D and it was a free preview.
Reply
post #32 of 53
7/10/08 at 5:20am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL
I saw Journey To The Center of The Earth in 3-D last night. They had previews of two 3-D animated films that will be released this fall. I think one of them was Bolt but I don't remember the other title. Journey looked great in 3-D and it was a free preview.
There's one about some puppies (or some cute animal) going up into space. It looked about as tolerable as the resent Chipmunks movie looked.
Reply
post #33 of 53
7/10/08 at 12:22pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioman970
There's one about some puppies (or some cute animal) going up into space. It looked about as tolerable as the resent Chipmunks movie looked.

That was one of them.
Reply
post #34 of 53
7/11/08 at 8:39pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I'm interested in seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth, my theatre has it listed as being in 3-D. I am concerned about eye strain, the last 3-D movie I saw was Jaws 3-D and it really bothered my eyes, I could barely even watch the Captain Eo ride at Disneyland without getting a headache. Is this even a concern with Real D?
Reply
post #35 of 53
7/11/08 at 9:16pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I saw Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D today - fun movie. There was one 3D trailer before it, called "Fly Me To The Moon" a cartoon about flies that go on the first lunar mission.
Reply
post #36 of 53
7/11/08 at 9:57pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I saw Meet The Robinsons in 3D last year, and the glasses were very comfy over my eyeglasses.

My Mother and I both had eyestrain or headache problems with the 3D flicks of the 80's, (especially Jaws 3d!) and the depth effects were not so hot. (I don't any theater had things calibrated properly back then.)

Neither of us suffered any eyestrain with MTR, and were very impressed with the depth of the images.
Reply
post #37 of 53
7/11/08 at 10:02pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

is RealD the same thing they used for the Sega Master console system games like 20 years ago? anyone remember Space Harrier?
Reply
post #38 of 53
7/11/08 at 11:25pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I've seen two Real-D films - Beowulf and U2:3D. Absolutely no problems with eyestrain or anything like that, the images are clear and in their proper colour. If there's a film you're interested in that is available in 3D, I recommend it.

That said, not everyone may be okay with the process. When I went to see Beowulf, as I was leaving, I put my hand on the handrail and there was something sticky on it. I quickly moved my hand, but it felt like there was still something on my hand. I lifted my hand towards my face to try and see what it was in the low light, and the smell of vomit hit me. Someone hand clearly tried to run out of the cinema, failed, and as they were reaching the end of the row thrown up over the curtain and handrail. And then I put my hand right on that spot.
Did I mention it was my 30th birthday?
Reply
post #39 of 53
7/12/08 at 3:51pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt
The only thing I hate about 3D is having to wear glasses over my glasses. Less than comfortable.

I regularly wear glasses and I didn't have any problem with the ones that were given out for Journey to the Center of the Earth. They fit nicely over my regular glasses and stayed in place the whole time. No Complaints here at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron68
I'm interested in seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth, my theatre has it listed as being in 3-D. I am concerned about eye strain, the last 3-D movie I saw was Jaws 3-D and it really bothered my eyes, I could barely even watch the Captain Eo ride at Disneyland without getting a headache. Is this even a concern with Real D?

I didn't experience any eye strain or headache effects at all...very pleasant experience overall, I found.
Reply
post #40 of 53
7/12/08 at 8:09pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I saw a commercial tonight that mentioned 3-D glasses being sold at Walmart for an upcoming television event. We own a 57" television; would glasses such as these actually change our viewing experience substantially? My children are looking forward to the film, and since I've never used 3-D glasses before, I have little knowledge of what they can do to one's perception of a film shown on a television. Thoughts?
Reply
post #41 of 53
7/12/08 at 10:52pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

You'd be talking about the upcoming broadcast premiere of the Hannah Montana concert film. Wal*Mart is selling 3-D glasses to benefit some children's charity or other. Although Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: The Best of Both Worlds was shot and presented in Real D, for broadcast the film is being shown in red/blue anaglyph format, which hardly compares to Real D.

How do I know? I just got back from Journey to the Center of the Earth this afternoon, and I can tell you that it is the best 3-D viewing experience I've had yet, and I've seen more than my fair share of 3-D movies. The glasses are reasonably comfortable, there is no eye strain or double vision, the effects are astounding and the image is razor-sharp. The trailers for Fly Me To The Moon and Bolt were cute, but the one that's got me excited is TWC's Igor with John Cusack. Not a 3-D trailer, but the movie looks great.

In answer to the question about if Real D is similar to the 3-D system employed by the Sega Master System, the answer is: kinda. The Sega Master system used LCD shutter glasses and rapidly alternating frames to create 3-D. Real D uses a rapidly alternating shutter system on the projector with circular polarised filters that match with the filters contained in the Real D glasses. It is this circular polarisation that reduces eye strain, as a tilt of the head will not result in double vision like it would with the old horizontal/vertical polarisation that was used in the 50s, 70s and 80s. The shutter rate is much faster though to reduce noticeable flicker (I believe it's 144 Hz, or 3 cycles per frame per eye per second).
Reply
post #42 of 53
7/13/08 at 5:33am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
You'd be talking about the upcoming broadcast premiere of the Hannah Montana concert film. Wal*Mart is selling 3-D glasses to benefit some children's charity or other. Although Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: The Best of Both Worlds was shot and presented in Real D, for broadcast the film is being shown in red/blue anaglyph format, which hardly compares to Real D.

How do I know? I just got back from Journey to the Center of the Earth this afternoon, and I can tell you that it is the best 3-D viewing experience I've had yet, and I've seen more than my fair share of 3-D movies. The glasses are reasonably comfortable, there is no eye strain or double vision, the effects are astounding and the image is razor-sharp. The trailers for Fly Me To The Moon and Bolt were cute, but the one that's got me excited is TWC's Igor with John Cusack. Not a 3-D trailer, but the movie looks great.

In answer to the question about if Real D is similar to the 3-D system employed by the Sega Master System, the answer is: kinda. The Sega Master system used LCD shutter glasses and rapidly alternating frames to create 3-D. Real D uses a rapidly alternating shutter system on the projector with circular polarised filters that match with the filters contained in the Real D glasses. It is this circular polarisation that reduces eye strain, as a tilt of the head will not result in double vision like it would with the old horizontal/vertical polarisation that was used in the 50s, 70s and 80s. The shutter rate is much faster though to reduce noticeable flicker (I believe it's 144 Hz, or 3 cycles per frame per eye per second).
Stephen,

Thank you so much for your detailed response. It is much appreciated! I may PM you about this.
Reply
post #43 of 53
7/13/08 at 8:05pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Thanks everyone in regards to the eye strain issue, I'm planning on seeing Journey tomorrow. I noticed that it's no longer listed in the online listings for my local Theatre as being in 3D, I'll be disappointed if it isn't but will see the movie anyways.
Reply
post #44 of 53
7/13/08 at 11:19pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I would also like to see a really good 3D system make a come back. When I was a kid in the 70s a local theater showed a double feature of Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came from Outer Space in 3D! I was VERY impressed. I wish some local theater would do a marathon of old 3D films.

Doug
Phoenix, right? The World 3-D Expo was down the road from you. Take I-10 straight to Hollywood and turn left:

World 3-D Film Expo II presented by SabuCat Productions

watch for news of the next World 3-D Expo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thane101
I think you are referring to Real D technology. As far as I know its never been called Real 3d.

I work as a projectionist at a theater that has a 3d screen, and I have seen all of the 3D films since The Nightmare Before Christmas. I don't know how to compare it to older 3D films (since I haven't seen any), but the digital technology is supposed to make the images much more sharp, and the polarized glasses fit comfortably and cause minimal strain on your eyes.
The effect works quite well, almost like you are watching a stage production.
Digital technology doesn't have the resolution or sharpness or depth of 35mm film. It doesn't, and that's all there is to it. Polarized 3-D in 35mm film -- whether it be the two-camera system from the 1950s (which remains superior to the digital 3-D of today) or the twin-lens, single-camera system of the 1980s (still in limited use) -- when properly shot and properly projected causes no eye-strain whatsoever. None. Zilch. Zippo. Polarized 35mm 3-D is out of fashion now but still the best stereoscopic technology and experience yet devised. Yes, better than Real D. Polarized 35mm 3-D is often misconstrued with anaglyph 3-D, a low-quality system which imposes red and blue gels to create a fraudulent, pseudo-depth that quickly causes eyestrain whether it is properly projected or not. Spy Kids 3 and Shark Boy & Lava Girl are good examples of the inadequate anaglyph system.

Real D, a new digital 3-D technology, is very impressive, however, and winning accolades everywhere. Real D is well-financed, which helps. Don't pass up the chance to see a film in Real D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt
The only thing I hate about 3D is having to wear glasses over my glasses. Less than comfortable.
If the film is properly shot and properly projected, experience demonstrates that audiences become immersed in the stereoscopic experience and forget all about the glasses. IMAX has been showing state-of-the-art stereoscopic documentaries for over a decade with 100% success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregK
Showing public 3-D features using polarized light has been ongoing sense the 1939 World's Fair. All of the over 50+ Hollywood features produced in the first part of the 1950's were also shown in the Polaroid 3-D process.

There are some minor differences, (Real-D uses circular polarization, while previous theatrical polarized venues used linear polarization) and the methods of getting the two left and right images onto the screen has varied.

The 1950's 35mm polarized set-ups used two interlocked 35mm projectors. This offered the best presentation, but could easily be knocked out of sync if an edit or cue point was set wrong. Properly projected dual 35mm 3-D projection is still a sight to behold, and is highly recommended.

From the mid 1960's on, the two images were crunched onto a single 35mm frame. ..No more dual projection sync issues to worry about, but the resulting image had the equivalent quality of dual 16mm. And because most of these were also shot using the single strip method, these given 3-D movies will always look a little under par.. even when shown in 2-D.

Real-D uses a single digital projector alternating between the left and right images (and polarizing each image as needed) at 144 times a second. Many of the early digital projectors were 720P, but most new Cinema digital projectors are 1080P. Every once in awhile, if there is a camera pan at just the right speed, you may see a bit of strobing from the 144hz alternating images. But this effect is far and few between and is easily far superior to what was shown in the early 1980's. And for the most part for the projectionist, Real-D is a start and forget procedure.
I appreciate this excellent capsule history, although you under-estimate the twin-lens, single camera 3-D systems. I've seen them produce much higher quality than you indicate. Projection was often a problem during the 1980s revival; theater owners were less than diligent in maintaining SMPTE standards for projection brightness which certainly injured the revival. Also, there weren't films made in single-strip 3-D to sustain the revival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott McGillivray
I saw the first 10 - 15 min of Beowulf before the darn projector broke. It was at an IMAX and I found the result of 3D and IMAX not a great one. It was just a bit tiring to watch. Maybe that is not the right word, but I did not care for it. Mind you, I am not a huge fan of IMAX for any kind of fast moving film. I find it rather blurry or disorienting when the camera pans on such a huge screen..
It takes time for the human eye to become acclimated. Some people don't adjust as quickly as others to 3-D. But it is the more natural way to see films. Since we see through two eyes, why shouldn't our photography and cinematography be done through two lenses? With a little practice watching 3-D movies seems perfectly normal. because it is normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron68
I'm interested in seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth, my theatre has it listed as being in 3-D. I am concerned about eye strain, the last 3-D movie I saw was Jaws 3-D and it really bothered my eyes, I could barely even watch the Captain Eo ride at Disneyland without getting a headache. Is this even a concern with Real D?
Shouldn't be. Projection is usually where stereoscopic films are done in, so to speak, but Real D is extremely conscientious and very hands-on. Eyestrain is only a remote possibility.
Reply
post #45 of 53
7/14/08 at 5:19pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W

I appreciate this excellent capsule history, although you under-estimate the twin-lens, single camera 3-D systems. I've seen them produce much higher quality than you indicate. Projection was often a problem during the 1980s revival; theater owners were less than diligent in maintaining SMPTE standards for projection brightness which certainly injured the revival. Also, there weren't films made in single-strip 3-D to sustain the revival.

I've seen quality projection of single strip 35mm 3-D, and some of it was decent. Then again, 16mm can look pretty decent too under the right conditions. I still stand by my assessment that an average Real-D digital set-up will look better than the average single strip 35mm print.

Dual 35mm obviously is an entirely different animal.
Reply
post #46 of 53
7/17/08 at 8:06pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I saw Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D today, the movie was pretty good (not worth the new $8.25 Matinee price, up $2 from last week). The movie was too short and I didn't like how the characters basically stumbled across everything, even though they had a book full of clues but the 3D aspect was excellent. There was no eyestrain or headaches at all, so I was able to keep the glasses on throughout the movie.
Reply
post #47 of 53
7/18/08 at 3:44am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I'm going to see "Journey to the Center of the Earth" in 3D. It has picked my curiosity. I heard that the 3D version sold more than the 2D! Do they use the same process that James Cameron is using for Avatar?
Reply
post #48 of 53
7/18/08 at 12:04pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Just an FYI: The current issue and previous issue of Widescreen Review magazine feature a two part article about 3D technology, the first part covering what is being used in digital cinemas and the second part discussing home video. I'm not trying to blow my own horn, nor am I claiming the articles are completely free of errors, but they should answer a lot of questions.
Reply
post #49 of 53
7/19/08 at 6:20am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
watch for news of the next World 3-D Expo.

Maybe in 2009?

Also, any word on when 3-D will be coming to Blu-ray? I have seen many articles on the web and Mitsubishi's 120HZ rear projection demo's of 3-D which look fantastic. But, I don't see any of the film studios releasing anything.
Reply
post #50 of 53
7/20/08 at 9:36am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

I saw Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D today, the movie was pretty good. The only problem I had with the 3D & glasses is when scenes would change or shift quickly, things seemed to lose focus until we were settled again on one or more subjects. Nice glasses though, not the cheap cardboard ones I've seen in the past.
Reply
post #51 of 53
7/21/08 at 4:23am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

That’s the real problem with 3D. Because contrary to 2D, with each scene your eye has to change focus, so imagine it will be very tiring if the movie is not done and cut properly. I read an article that said because of this, making a 3D movie is different and you have to consider this while editing. So in a way you can never make a movie that is 100% perfect in both 3D and 2D.

I don’t know how James Cameron is going to do it especially with his many cuts. Maybe his 2D and 3D versions will have different cuts!
Reply
post #52 of 53
7/22/08 at 5:12pm

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

Is Cameron using the RealD process? I thought he had been involved in developing something different and new?
Reply
post #53 of 53
7/23/08 at 5:14am

Re: Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?

According to Wiki, yes!
Real D Cinema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process?