3D movies, TRON 3D, Tron Imax 3D

Forums › Off topic › 3D movies, TRON 3D, Tron Imax 3D

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#73758 21-Dec-2010 15:24

The digital 3D movies I've seen at Imax Auckland have been really good. If I remember correctly the glasses for that were very heavy sit on your head type things. Almost a helmet. Nice big flat glass plates for lenses.

Went to see Avatar there and I was disappointed. The action was blurry most of the time and a lot of scenes were not in focus. Crossing my eyes a bit helped now and then - but painful!. The glasses were very lightweight plastic, and they were totally scratched up. I wonder if there is a recommended lifespan for these glasses. You would think a refresh for every new 3D release would easily make economic sense.

Went to Resident Evil 3D at West City Henderson and that was a far better experience.

Note to theatres: throwing all glasses in a big plastic bag and shaking it around at the end of each movie is a really, really bad idea - Aargh! - Something tells me this procedure is not the one in the manual.

Who knows, after this treatment maybe they go into an agitator washing machine as well.

Has anyone been to see Tron in Auckland Imax 3D?, or any other 3D? Was it worth it? Any thoughts on seating position?

According to Wikipedia almost all of Tron is shot in 3D format, and 40 minutes of the movie is shot in Imax format.

1 | 2

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#420009 21-Dec-2010 15:44

Yeah there's two formats for the 3D projection. One is active glasses with batteries in them (3D TVs almost exclusively use active glasses) which I think some theatres use, and the other is passive glasses which use circular polarisation (work that one out!). The passive ones don't use any batteries so these are the ones where you buy the glasses for $5 or something and get to keep them for next time.

From memory they can't run the full IMAX projectors for more than about 40 minutes at a time anyway so that's why IMAX films are typically quite short. I saw the Dark Knight at Aucklands IMAX and those scenes were mental high, I'd forgotten just how tall that screen is, and how sloped the seats are!

I guess IMAX should now be iMAX given the current trends and all.....Enjoy the movie, report back what you find please.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#420024 21-Dec-2010 16:09

I watched it at Reading Courtney Place in Wellington on Sunday, blurry blurry and more blurry. I also noted a lot of blur with Avatar at the same theatre.

I watched Avatar again in 2D on my home HD projector and actually prefered the sharp 2D image. Wish I had gone 2D for Tron now :-(

Until 3D can catchup with 2D HD for image quality, I think I'm just going to give it a miss.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#420209 21-Dec-2010 23:27

Yeah. Some theatres have no idea how to take care of the equipment. And it looks like studios are not doing much quality control on how films are shown.

A clarification: when I said 'digital' in the TS - I meant to say "digitally animated movies produced in the specific imax (and 3d) format".

I saw Angels and Demons (not 3d or imax) at Albany, Auckland. The physical screen there was actually a convex curve. The feature was distorted. All straight horizontal lines in the movie curved up the closer to the ends of the screen. The wrong lens type used for that screen. Elementary error. Horrible.

Back to 3D, looking over the wikipedia articles on 3d systems, imax, and other theatre systems - it must get really complex doing a good job of conversion from one 3d format to another and even getting the right set up in cinema, and between cinemas, and for different movies. Even the screen ratios vs stereo separation must get a bit mind boggling. No surprise it goes wrong somewhere along the way.

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#420230 22-Dec-2010 06:51

Personally, I hang onto my own passive glasses, so I don't end up with a scratched pair when I go to a movie. I spent $2 the first time I went, and it has worked well for me since.
Avatar with active glasses = much better than with passive glasses, but you'll need to go into your local store and watch it on a Panasonic at this stage...

hairy1

3332 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420236 22-Dec-2010 07:26

We just saw Tron at Hoyts Sylvia Park in real 3d and I was very impressed. Nice sharp images and 3d effects were great.

I remember being less than impressed with the imax Avatar 3d experience as it was jerky and not as immersive as I would have thought.

It's an expensive exercise though taking the whole family to a 3d movie....

Cheers, Matt.

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#420253 22-Dec-2010 08:27

Don't forget there are two types of passive glasses out there, the Real 3D and Dolby 3D ones. The Real 3D are the circular polarised (i.e. cheap disposable) ones, but the Dolby 3D uses dichroic filters which, while passive, are more expensive and you don't get to keep the glasses. I think Event cinemas use Dolby 3D, and Hoyts use Real 3D.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#420276 22-Dec-2010 09:14

Thanks for the recommendation on Sylvia Park. I'm beginning to think it's a mistake to see films at imax not made for the format.

Looking forward to a tron imax report in any case.

My Avatar 3d experience at imax could be summed up as looking into a box where all the action was happening. Nothing actually came out of the box.

Was it a different experience at other cinemas?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

gehenna

8495 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420282 22-Dec-2010 09:26

I heard that everything outside the grid (ie in real life) was 2d and only the grid stuff is 3d...can anyone confirm?

not that it matters, I imagine most of the movie is set in the grid. just curious really - seems an interesting way to do it.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420326 22-Dec-2010 11:08

gehenna: I heard that everything outside the grid (ie in real life) was 2d and only the grid stuff is 3d...can anyone confirm?

not that it matters, I imagine most of the movie is set in the grid. just curious really - seems an interesting way to do it.

At the start the camera swoops down though a city and to a house which is in 3D however after that scene it switches to 2D until the grid so yes that statement is correct. Personally I thought is was a good idea. It was quite affective as a way to further separate the two worlds.
I did find the 3D picture to be somewhat blurred and it did get hard on the eyes after awhile.

To the comment by someone that they were disappointed that Avatar did not come out of the screen at you. IMHO that was why it worked so well in 3D. Rather then being a gimmick where things are un-naturally shoved in your face it was more like the real world and so drew you into the story rather then distracting your and pulling you out.

Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

gehenna

8495 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420329 22-Dec-2010 11:18

To me Avatar was about depth, not coming out of the screen. The opening few minutes where they wake from stasis and you see down into the ship with all the pods opening - that was probably the best example of 3D in cinema that I've ever seen. Then there was depth in the jungle scenes etc.

Not like the Monsters Inc paddle ball type of gimmicky 3D, depth is where I see 3D adding value to cinema for me personally.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#420365 22-Dec-2010 11:55

Nety which cinema or imax location did you see Tron?

I did not make a comment that I was disappointed by the Avatar 'looking into a box' experience - some of the scenes were very well done - was just curious to know if it was the same elsewhere or different.

Gehenna, where did you see Avatar?

gehenna

8495 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420378 22-Dec-2010 12:13

gzt:
Gehenna, where did you see Avatar?

Um saw it once at IMAX in Melbourne, then once at Reading Wellington.

SepticSceptic

2186 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#420385 22-Dec-2010 12:21

It's all 3D, including off the grid, and on the grid. OK movie, though I would have liked to see more light-cycle action. Plot almost identical to the original.

Saw it WestCity cinemas - Digital 3D.

3D effects aftereffects never bothered me - no probs focussing, no headaches. For a Saturday night, there was only about 30 people in the theatre.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420386 22-Dec-2010 12:24

gzt: Nety which cinema or imax location did you see Tron?

I did not make a comment that I was disappointed by the Avatar 'looking into a box' experience - some of the scenes were very well done - was just curious to know if it was the same elsewhere or different.

Gehenna, where did you see Avatar?

Sorry mistook the comment to be disappointment. It seems that it is fairly uncommon from my experience. Most films still seem to take the in your face direction.

I saw Tron at Reading in Wellington so not imax.

gehenna

8495 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#420388 22-Dec-2010 12:27

SepticSceptic: Plot almost identical to the original.

That doesn't bode well :)

1 | 2