Avatar

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

I saw it on a non IMAX non 3d screen.

oh ok lol. Why would you have bothered though?

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

oh ok lol. Why would you have bothered though?
Why would I have bothered what? Seeing the movie? I saw it on one of the best screens in Seattle. A movie should still be a movie, despite any gimmicks. If it can't entertain someone in 2D - it shouldn't entertain someone in 3D. Despite what you say about the "drawbacks" of seeing it in IMAX, the picture should be sharper, the screen should be much larger, and the audio should be at or above the upper scale of what you will find in a non-IMAX theater. Plus, the seating differences should provide a much more immersive experience. I'm not sure what you think the drawbacks to that are. The digital projectors in question are Christie CineIPM 2k's which have a maximum effective resolution of.... 2048x1080p (not to say that they are projecting this high, but it is the machine's max)This is a higher effective resolution than 35mm, and about half the effective resolution of IMAX. Just an FYI. Of course, the movie wasn't shot in IMAX, it was shot digitally, so I suppose it depends on what the original resolution of the source was.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think the drawbacks to that are.
The drawback isn't the size of the screen or the resolution. The resolution is meaningless if the presented image blurry much of the time. I love IMAX (it's usage in TDK was awesome), but that is a huge drawback of the classic film-based IMAX. And here is part of the reason that it sucks on classic IMAX. Classic IMAX uses linear polarized glasses:

While linear polarized glasses are cheap, they suffer from usability problems. While circular polarization remains constant as you turn your head (clockwise remains clockwise no matter how far you rotate your head), linear does not...just a slight rotation (normal breathing or head-tilt) can be enough to cause the two images to blur and ghost together. Frankly, I’m amazed that IMAX hasn’t upgraded to circular polarization.

Click to expand...

Slim, I think you underestimate how significant a problem this is on the imax classic presentation. I have 106" at home. I wouldn't watch it if it was randomly out of focus for significant parts of the movie. I didn't know this stuff until now. There should be a PSA at the beginning of the movie telling you to keep your head as still as possible. I'm gonna go back tomorrow and see it projected from a digital 3D projector instead. Here are the other options in the 3D glasses market:

RealD and Master Image 3D are two companies that make passive circular polarized glasses that cost about 65 cents apiece. It works by having a filter sit in front of the lamp of the projector. This filter oscillates 144 times a second switching the image between clockwise circular polarization (for the right eye) and counter-clockwise circular polarization (for the left eye). The passive glasses have filters so that the right eye has clockwise circular polarization, and the left eye has counter-clockwise circular polarization. Dolby Laboratories makes passive glasses that cost about $28. The glasses work in conjunction with a special filter wheel installed inside the projector. This filter wheel removes the wavelengths of the light spectrum meant for the left eye only, leaving the right eye to see those wavelengths meant for it. As the wheel spins, it then removes wavelengths of the light spectrum meant for the right eye only, leaving the left eye to see those wavelengths meant for it. The passive glasses have filters so that the right eye only sees its wavelengths, and the left eye its wavelengths. XpanD uses active LCD shutter glasses to produce a stereo effect. These glasses cost about $50 apiece.

Click to expand...

Oh and btw, the use of 3d in avatar isn't what i'd call gimmicky. They don't constantly shoot objects out the screen at you to draw attention to the fact that it's being presented in 3D. I think it's well done. I'll report back tomorrow when I see it presented properly.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

Oh and btw, the use of 3d in avatar isn't what i'd call gimmicky. They don't constantly shoot objects out the screen at you to draw attention to the fact that it's being presented in 3D. I think it's well done. I'll report back tomorrow when I see it presented properly.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

Originally Posted by Althis

Click to expand...

it seems to be based a lot off of The Mission, not sure if anyone has said that

OK, that is exactly what I was thinking during the movie especially at the end...

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

I'm gonna go back tomorrow and see it projected from a digital 3D projector instead.


Well hopefully you won't notice the pixellation and jaggy screen door effects that people are complaining about because of the digital low resolution 3D projection.

Using two high-powered digital projectors, the IMAX digital system projects an image that is bright, with good contrast and slightly better resolution than other digital projectors. But every IMAX digital theater I've been in has also had a noticeable "screen door effect," that is, a visible dark grid pattern separating the pixels. It is particularly noticeable in lighter image areas, and is less visible the farther you are from the screen. But even with my 53-year-old eyes, I was able to see it from the front half of most of the five theaters I've been in. If you move back to eliminate the pattern, your field of view becomes narrower, and hence no different than an ordinary movie theater.

Click to expand...

3D is a gimmick, just like IMAX is a gimmick, just like Dolby surround is a gimmick.

These are things that might make a movie more entertaining, but they will never make a movie BETTER.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Well hopefully you won't notice the pixellation and jaggy screen door effects that people are complaining about because of the digital low resolution 3D projection.

Well, if everything i've posted isnt' complicated enough, there are different digital projection systems and not all of them are created equally. The whole situation is a mess, frankly.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

3D is a gimmick, just like IMAX is a gimmick, just like Dolby surround is a gimmick.

These are things that might make a movie more entertaining, but they will never make a movie BETTER.

Depends how you define better. I might define something that provides more immersion as better because I go to movies for a big spectacle. Then you might say immersion is ruined by a marsupialed plot. It's totally subjective and totally pointless to argue about. That said, the director intended for the movie to be seen in 3D. I'll reserve final judgment for when I see it on a digital screen.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

Well, if everything i've posted isnt' complicated enough, there are different digital projection systems and not all of them are created equally. The whole situation is a mess, frankly.
I am very familiar with all kinds of projection. BUT Digital IMAX 3D is being projected out of the system I mentioned earlier. The Christie CineIPM 2k's. It's one of the better digital projectors on the market, but it's not THE best. It might not even be top 3. And none of them have the resolution and clarity of real IMAX. Nothing else does. This is the draw of IMAX.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

Depends how you define better. I might define something that provides more immersion as better because I go to movies for a big spectacle. Then you might say immersion is ruined by a marsupialed plot. It's totally subjective and totally pointless to argue about. That said, the director intended for the movie to be seen in 3D. I'll reserve final judgment for when I see it on a digital screen.

So you'd go watch a ****** movie in 3D over and over again, just because it was in 3D?

I'm not even sure why I'm asking this, you showed off your home theater here with images from I Robot. Of course you would.

Go about your business.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

I am very familiar with all kinds of projection. BUT Digital IMAX 3D is being projected out of the system I mentioned earlier. The Christie CineIPM 2k's. It's one of the better digital projectors on the market, but it's not THE best. It might not even be top 3. And none of them have the resolution and clarity of real IMAX. Nothing else does. This is the draw of IMAX.

Resolution considered in isolation is a worthless measure. It doesn't matter what resolution the film is if when you see the image on the screen, it is out of focus because the IMAX classic theaters use ****** linear polarized glasses. Again, I will post my final impressions after i see it on a digital projector, but after an IMAX viewing, my impression was that this isn't ready for prime-time. If it really is just because of the ****** glasses and the lower FPS of the film-based IMAX projector, then that would be really unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

So you'd go watch a ****** movie in 3D over and over again, just because it was in 3D?

I'm not even sure why I'm asking this, you showed off your home theater here with images from I Robot. Of course you would.

Go about your business.

Here we go... I wouldn't go see a ****** movie over and over again just because it was 3D. I don't think avatar was the "awesomest movie ev4r," but it is interesting to me as the first movie of its kind, and it was pretty damned entertaining. I'm not a movie snob. Movies=entertainment to me. I have to be analytical all day. Movies=veg. time. And as a home theater enthusiast I'd like to assess the state of the technology for possible integration into my own system. Even with all the problems I had at the viewing today, I could see the potential. It's sounding more and more like the problem isn't the source, but the way its displayed, and that would be very encouraging for 3D at home.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

Resolution considered in isolation is a worthless measure.
You fail to get the point. The resolution of the digital 3Dprojectors is as big a problem as the linear polarizers of the IMAX. It depends on who you ask. There are, for what it's worth, many more people complaining about the digital 3D than the IMAX 3D. Maybe you are just oversensitive. There is a solution, it is to see the ******* movie on as big and bright a screen as possible, and to skip the gimmicky ******* 3D ****. It sounds like it makes the movie WORSE.

I will make my own determination as to which presents the lesser of two evils tomorrow.