Comments on: Why 3D TV Technology is Coming

By: daryll

daryll — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:52:06 +0000

Jim, you’re right that’s another source of good content. There are several firms working in that realm including InThree, and Tim Sasoon’s shop.

The current cost is a bit high given the number of screens that are showing 3D today, but that too should change over the next year.

Thanks for the addition.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:55:19 +0000

Our company converts 2D to 3D. For library or current production. Our converted pictures can play on any projection system and on any 3D enabled monitor. HD or DVD. Any player. 1,2,6 and 8 and off you go. The future of consumer home video in 3D is the array of titles available. Not just current titles although they are sure to lead the way, but library pictures that are suitable for conversion with great stories and that enhance the viewer experience.

By: daryll

daryll — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:52:10 +0000

Chris, you’re right that I sort of glossed over the solution that required two projectors and polarized glasses. I could have gone on about how synchronizing multiple projectors and was problematic, and how they typically used linear polarizes which means head tilt caused cross talk. Of course distributing twice as many prints and having twice as many projectors made them cost prohibitive.

But since I wasn’t doing a treatise on the history of 3D and I figured my post was getting long enough, I skipped that. My comments were directed at the modern solution and the anaglyph information was provided only as historical background. I didn’t give the impression that polarization is new, I never said that. You misinterpreted the post.

Since you question my credentials, I’ll go ahead and provide them. I’ve been working in imaging and the film industry for almost 20 years. I’ve been involved in the making one major 3D production (Terminator 2-3D). I’ve been involved in the making of a couple dozen major motion pictures, and have film credits in two that won academy awards for their visual effects. My current business provides cinema display systems including 3D to companies such as Disney and Technicolor. Maybe you’d like to do your homework (a simple IMDB search would have worked) before you attack someone’s credibility?

Go ahead, what’s your background in the industry?

By: Christopher Mohr Sr.

Christopher Mohr Sr. — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:34:54 +0000

Why do people who comment on 3D and profess to know something about the art, always wind up showing how they didn’t do a very good job of research and therefore make anything they say suspect?

daryll revealed his sloppy research by the following statement:

“In previous incarnations of 3D you would wear a pair of paper glasses with red and cyan filters. That allows only red light to enter one eye and anything but red to enter the other eye. The left and right stereo images are then processed so that one has only its red values, and the other has the green and blue values. Your brain then reassembles the images in to 3D. This process is called anaglyph 3D. The big advantage of anaglyph 3D is that you can display the images using standard film/print technologies. The downside is that it is a really awful 3D image. Creating the image requires throwing away have the information available, and because it isn’t the way your brain is used to seeing 3D it can lead to eye strain and headaches.”

Any decent 3D movie from the fifties was always presented with polaroid glasses and a silver or aluminized screen. Anaglyphs were used for kiddie movies and comic books. He gives someone the impression that the use of polarization in the 3D process is part of a new technology, and it certainly is not.

Do your homework guys!