Showscan, Real-D, and other stuff

[lordtangent]

As I'm sure everyone is aware, one of the interesting things on the horizon for feature films is a revival of 3D (stereoscopic). I've seen demos of the one of the two major systems. It's called Real-D. Being a pretty technically minded person the first thing I wanted to know was how it works.

There are some unique things about "reald"

1. Not very dark polarized glasses that are not sensitive to angle (i.e. you can "roll" your head side to side and there is no difference in the brightness of the screen)
2. Only needs one projector
3. Full color (not the old school red/blue crap

OK, so the first thing I noticed there was that it only need one projector (one DIGITAL projector I should add) That means they are shooting both "eyes" though the same projector. I though, ok... that would work. But if you just flickered back and forth (48 times per second) it would give people raging headache. I learned they flash each eye three times. So the effective frame rate is 144fps.

That got me excited. Even if the projector couldn't actually shoot 144fps (let's say it buffers a couple of frames internally and flickers back and forth), it still has to be able to do and effective 48 fps. That is close enough to Showscan it would be a different experience even if you didn't have 3D stereo.

I kind of wonder if people would just rather see a film at 48fps than in "3D". It might be a better use of the bandwidth. 3D stereo is a tricky way to actually tell a story due to just technical limitations. (You can't actually use the camera as freely or cut as often) But 48fps would "up" the realism with out as many technical limitations.

[Erik Bien]

I dunno, LT: I tend to think that if what people wanted from the cinematic experience was higher frame rates, Showscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan) would have become an accepted standard at least to the same degree as IMAX, instead of a footnote.

The last thing I saw in IMAX 3D was Polar Express; it seemed mostly like a gimmick and felt a bit unnatural (I have better acuity in my left eye than in my right) so I didn't have much urge to see the next 'performance capture' feature, Beowulf in that format. I'm curious to see U23D, to see if I like the live action flavor any better.

One idea I've heard floated is that 3D is really a 'trojan horse' to finally convince exhibitors to invest in digital projection technology, the theory being that theater owners are reluctant to upgrade when they still have "perfectly fine" film projectors.

[icarusi]

1. Not very dark polarized glasses that are not sensitive to angle (i.e. you can "roll" your head side to side and there is no difference in the brightness of the screen)
2. Only needs one projector

Is there a rotating polarizer wheel, like a DLP colour wheel, or are the glasses electronically switched?

[lordtangent]

Is there a rotating polarizer wheel, like a DLP colour wheel, or are the glasses electronically switched?

The glasses are passive and there is a spinning polarizer on the lens of the projector.

Erik, I think the 'trojan horse' theory is pretty reasonable. Really the 3D is the one of the few technical improvements (from the exhibitors perspective) that digital adds. Pro digital projectors are awfully expensive. The exhibitors have to feel like they are getting something more for their money than just a replacement for a system that worked fine in the first place. Of course, another thing they can do with digital that film CAN'T do is stuff like "pay per view" sports, concerts, etc. Anyway, those live events would technically be "video" so any frame rate that is supported by the video standards would be fair game once the theaters are digital.

Another perk for the exhibitors would be the ability to re-purpose screens more easily and put more screens on a well performing film. So there are other carrots for them as well. (Though 3D sweetens the pot considerably)

I saw some of U2 3D and it was damn impressive. But they were VERY careful to shoot it like a 3D move. (No fast camera moves and not too many cuts)

[Erik Bien]

Of course, another thing they can do with digital that film CAN'T do is stuff like "pay per view" sports, concerts, etc. Anyway, those live events would technically be "video" so any frame rate that is supported by the video standards would be fair game once the theaters are digital.

Have you heard about the Metropolitan Opera (http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/broadcast/hd_events.aspx) live HD broadcast to theaters? Starting next month they'll be live-casting a series of Saturday matinee performances. I have my doubts how successful they'll be (in my area, tickets are $22 and the shows start at 11am) but I'm certainly tempted to see how good it looks/sounds.

[lordtangent]

I think that is actually the "Pay-Per-View" event I read about. (My memory is a little fuzzy though)

Gotta say though, the one thig theaters really have going for them is the sound. Most home theater setups will never be as good simply becasue most end users are either not rich enough or sophisticated enough (or both) to get thier home theaters setup to the same level.

You might find this funny, but even working in the film industry, I don't have a decen't home theater setup at all. In fact my TV is not even a decent TV. My thinking is the theaters are always going to be better and for what a home theater costs I could see hundreds of movies in a PROPPER venue, so why bother setting up a half assed home theater? (I don't watch "TV" so I have no use for a home setup in that context)

Now that I have an HD camera though, I'm thinking of getting somethign so I can at least check the output of my camera at full-res full-size.

[Erik Bien]

The "adoption curve" of HDTV seems (in my wholly un-empirical analysis) to ironically skew slower in the most cosmopolitan cities for just that reason: if you love 'art house' movies, but you live in suburban Des Moines, you'd better get you a flat screen, a home-theater-in-a-box and a Netflix account 'cause the local mono-plex will probably not be scheduling Wong Kar Wai's next masterpiece.

If, on the other hand, your market has several exhibitors clamoring for your business, you can take your pick of THX-certified screens, some of which maybe even run movies intended for audiences over the age of sixteen, and so you have much less need of a DIY solution.

At least, that's my theory!

[Erik Bien]

I suppose if grand opera isn't your cup o' tea, you could always go see the Hannah Montana 3D (http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/hannahmontana3d/) PPV event ...