3D 3-D glasses comparison POLAR vs. CENTER (1 Viewer)

[bob kaplan]

part 1:
i have both of POLAR EXPRESS and JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH on Blu-ray. The glasses for each movie are quite different. On EXPRESS the red is covering the left eye and the right eye has a blue (yes i did spell it correctly!) "lens"; and on JOURNEY, the red covers the right eye and the left has a green "lens." Anyone know why there would be a difference for the two movies.
part 2.
DLP monitors appear to be the way of viewing future (distant future) home video 3-D. Does any know if LCD might also work....i am in the process of looking at new TV's and wondering what's up.
Thanks for the help.
b

 

[Mr. Film]

Maybe encoded differently? I prefer the clear glasses for 3D. The one's that they give out at a DLP 3D movie at theater. If their the colored glasses I simply won't watch it.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

They are different styles of anaglyphic encoding. There is a third anaglyhic method which was used recently for the Monsters vs. Aliens Super Bowl ad and the recent 3-D episode of Chuck, which used yellow and blue filters (ColorCode 3-D). The consensus seems to be that anaglyphic is lame, but that the version used for J2TCOE was better than The Polar Express. Hopefully the Blu-Ray Forum will standardise a 3-D spec soon, as BD supports dual 1080p streams.

 

[Dick]

I have posted my comparisons of these two DVD's in other threads, but I'll repeat them here:

I own a 46" Sony Bravia LCD. POLAR EXPRESS, which was not originally intended to be a 3-D film, looks pretty crappy to my mind. Very few shots have a really good sense of depth - the red and blue separations are very distracting and only occasionally converge. Not recommended. On the other hand, JOURNEY, filmed in 3-D (albeit not in analglyph) works quite well. I would even venture that about 75% of the DVD contains effective depth effects. We all know that the color of the original Polarized images is drained by the red/blue glasses; accepting that, this is a decent and enjoyable (and vacuous) adventure with some truly startling 3-D effects. Recommended.

Hope that helps.

 

[GregK]

Consider the anaglyph formats as "2nd rate 3-D options" until a specific stereoscopic standard is decided upon. There are already advanced 3-D video formats out there that work quite well. (Sensio, field & frame sequential, dual stream, etc) But these advanced formats require 3-D ready displays and hardware. Hence the need for one advanced 3-D video format, which is why SMPTE and the CEA are currently looking at all of the formats and will then recommend a 3-D video standard.