The 3 different versions of 3D at the movie theatre

[TitaniumTroy]

Here is a breakdown of the three different versions of 3D at local cineplex's. I looked this up because I was curious about the difference between IMAX vs RealD 3D, I was not even aware Dolby had their own version.

Seems like IMAX has the 3D effects come into the theatre from the screen, more things popping out at you. RealD 3D takes you more inside the movie screen, and is less dramatic but less tiring for your brain/eyes after awhile. Dolby 3D was rated by the reviewer best overall for colors and is more like RealD 3D the glasses cost more but the screen can be cheaper.

http://3dvision-blog.com/what-to-choose ... 3d-movies/

My local theatre is promoting their use of RealD 3D, which supposedly has the brightest picture via their Barco projectors.

http://www.cinemark.com/technology :geek:

 

[Yesfan70]

I've always wondered that. Thanks for the links.

One question I've always wondered is, Are the various 3D technologies the same or different for 3DTV brands? I know a set of Panasonic 3D glasses can't be used with a Samsung or LG set, but is that because of the 3D technology or just the glasses are configured to work with brand x TV?

 

[TitaniumTroy]

Yesfan, here is the best answer I could come up with to your question.

Passive 3D TVs, on the other hand, will work with most circular polarized 3D glasses regardless of brand, although some differences (slightly different tints, for example) may affect performance.

Here is a third party passive 3D glasses manf. http://www.i-3k.com/3dglasses.html

 

[Yesfan70]

Hmm...Two days and only one additional post. I was hoping for my discussion on this topic.


Thanks for the link TT. I saw on that link the classic red/blue glasses. I guess those would be considered the cheapies of the passive glasses technology?

 

[TitaniumTroy]

Well I guess we can just have a discussion of two people. When I was at Best Buy a couple of months ago they had a side by side display of Sony active vs LG passive glasses with 3D tv. It had various movies, demo's and live ESPN you could watch and compare. Watching some NBA basketball on it was a pretty cool effect, in someways better than the movies.

I actually kind of prefered the passive glasses vs the active, they were much brighter being one reason. I wish they would have had a Panasonic display and had their 3rd generation glasses like I have at home to compare against.

I still cant belive we have the inoperabilty between active glasses problem. Didnt these boneheads learn anything about trying to promote a new technology from SACD and DVD-A. Regarding active glasses their should be one standard, then more people will buy into the technology because it is less confusing. Kind of like the saying "a rising tide will lift all boats".

This is part where Flint usaually comes in and gives some long windy explantion why, the electronics manf. can't all get along peaceably,blah,blah,blah.... Bullcrap, there all just a bunch of greedy, fartknocking, knuckleheads, so says I, damn't. :angry-cussingblack:

 

[Batman]

I know that the manufacturers of active technology are working towards a standard of universal active glasses. Also the passive tv technology cuts the horizontal resolution by half I believe....I read this in a sort of pros v. cons type article discussing passive and active 3d technology...I think there are too many drawbacks to passive technology with the exception of cost. If you're a fan of 3D why make concessions for a lesser over the long term to save a few bucks in the short term...

 

[TitaniumTroy]

XPAND makes a universal active 3D glasses, not sure how they stack up against the latest from the OEM's, Some negatives, they are not rechargeable, they are heavier than my third generation Panasonic glasses 29oz vs 56oz. http://www.xpand.me/products/universal-3d-glasses-x103/

Here they are on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Xpand-X103-Univer ... 176&sr=8-1