Has anyone seen a movie that uses the "Real 3D" process? (1 Viewer)

[EricSchulz]

One of the screens on our new theater is being converted to "Real 3D" (unfortunately, not before "Journey...Earth" starts next week!). I tried doing a forum search and came up empty. (Mods: if a thread exists, please link or merge this with it.)

How does this process work? Is it still a glasses/headset set-up? What's the quality like? Any pros or cons any of you care to share?

I LOVED the last 3-D resurgence (I remember seeing "Jaws 3-D", "Friday the 13th 3-D", "Comin' At Ya" and a revival of "House of Wax") and hope this becomes a viable movie viewing experience rather than a passing fad.

 

[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

 

[Radioman970]

I'm hoping the theatre in my tiny town gets Journey in 3D. I doubt they will. I'm wondering if it's worth seeing in 2D...

The last 3D movie I watched was Spykids 3D at home on DVD and I thought it was kind of cool but didn't match what I remember from seeing stuff like Space Hunter and Warhal's Frankenstein in the early 80s in the movie theatre.

 

[Gary Seven]

I too am curious of this process. The 3D movie I saw was Flesh for Frankenstein in a midnight movie and it was wild.

 

[Radioman970]

That's the one I saw too. Sometimes it's called Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. I saw it in the 80s. Funny, I was about 15 or so and me and a friend who was about 13 went to see it. Ha! Mom dropped us off but the ticket lady wouldn't sell us tickets. Mom was urked. "What the hell...? Why won't they sell you tickets?!" She didn't wait for an answer and bought our tickets for us and sped off. I mean, it was just Frankenstein, right? Even funnier, right in the middle of it my friend was saying "I don't think I'm supposed to be watching this..." (I believe during the imfamous rape scene) and I told him to just put his hands over his eyes. Damn, that's a good memory!!! One of my favorite personal movie moments. Poor mom...she thought it was Karloff in 3D!!!

I have both Fresh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula on DVD now and they are absolute blast! I really wish there were 3D version available on DVD though. There's just something missing watching 3D in 2D.. That's what I'm afraid of with Journey. :frowning:

 

[Thane101]

I think you are refering 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 your watching a stage production.

 

[EricSchulz]

Ooops, I guess you are correct! Thanks for the info...

 

[Leo Kerr]

REAL-D uses circular polarization to make their system work. The single projector is alternating left-eye/right-eye with an LCD shutter in front of the lens that applies the polarization. The glasses are also circularly polarized.

The big difference between this and "old style" polarized 3-d is that if you tilt your head, you don't get the double-image thing going.

Leo

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The other big difference is the single digital projector. Previous film based systems had to have two projectors running simultaneously, so film lengths were typically restricted until the platter system came along. House of Wax actually had an intermission so the projectionist could change reels.

Alternate film based systems have been proposed with a beam splitter and a single length of film, but Real D has been the first time a 3-D system has been implemented that requires minimal adjustments to the theatre.

 

[EricSchulz]

Well, apparently switching over a screen to use this process isn't a huge deal...the local paper today states that "Journey..." will be showing next week in "Real D".

Thanks for the info guys...now, does anyone know whether older 3-D films can be "converted" to utilize this process? ("House of Wax", for example)

 

[Patrick Sun]

I take it that no one saw Beowulf in RealD last year?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I saw a screening of a 3D copy of Dial M for Murder at this year's 3D Film Festival in Brookline, MA and it was also polarized with the same glasses. I think polarized came first, with the other formats more middling but easier to handle.

 

[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.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I just graduated college with a BS in Optical Engineering and my dad has subjected my brother and I to a lifetime of film appreciation, so this RealD method is extremely intriguing to me. Any links to articles on this? The theory is pretty interesting, but I'm curious if there are any issues with the polarization being lost/reversed as the light hits the screen. I'm guessing this isn't the case (and if it is reversed, then that's an extremely easy problem to overcome).

Note: I figure I can probably Google/Wiki the term "RealD" but I'm hoping someone on here knows a good, direct link.

 

[GregK]

Morgan,

Here is a nice PDF article on Real-D's operating system.

http://www.reald-corporate.com/_reso...%20Conf%20.pdf

 

[Tarkin The Ewok]

How is Real-D different from the Disney Digital 3-D films like Meet the Robinsons and Bolt, or are they the same process with different branding?

 

[Brett_M]

I saw Beowulf and it was INCREDIBLE. The glasses are comfortable and I did not worry about them after about 20 seconds. The 3-D effect was sweet.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Not that I would know first-hand, but wasn't the Hannah Montana movie also in RealD?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I believe it's the same process.

Disney likes to call things that already otherwise have names by something with their corporate moniker. Thus, a DVD in the hands of their marketing department becomes "DisneyDVD", and the standard "DVD" logo gets replaced by a Disneyfied version. I'm actually surprised that the people in charge of the DVD spec and logo haven't complained.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The only thing I hate about 3D is having to wear glasses over my glasses. Less than comfortable.