Main > Everything Else
Avatar - The Movie
shardian:
--- Quote from: pinballjim on January 03, 2010, 11:53:34 am ---Imax3D did the same thing with the layers and the people generally being non-3D.
As for blooper #3, maybe they were able to resuscitate his avatar? But I noticed it, too.
--- End quote ---
I saw it in Sony RealD
Even if they did save the Avatar, noone else could use it.
RayB:
Sony bought RealD ? I didn't know that.
Xiaou2:
I saw Coraline on a RealD screen. While it was still good... I immediately regretted it.
The 3D effect was nowhere near as intense. RealD = Meh.. Imax = Hell Yeah!
The larger the screen, the more the 3d depth separation.
(Even subtle differences are magnified and enhanced to the viewer.)
The close you sit to the screen, the closer the effect will appear to be.
(With Imax, objects can appear to be within an arms reach away)
The Sega Master system had a 3D shutter glasses setup. The maximum 3d effect
came from a missile in the game 'Missile Defense 3D'. On my 27" tv, that effect
is only about 4". (small objs can be separated very far for max depth) The
main objs were only an 1" above the screen... while most everything else in depth
inside the screen.
If you were to move 10ft away from that 27" screen, you would barely see any
depth at all. Move 2ft or closer... and that effect was maximized.
Xiaou2:
My glasses were a little uncomfortable, until I bent the arms for a few minutes.
They certainly could have designed them to be more comfy.
There are 2 'Good' 3D technologies:
1) Polorized Glasses : (Imax / RealD) These use directional polorized light,
and 2 projectors. Unless you have a Big budget, this isnt going to be in your home.
2) LCD Shutter Glasses : 2 LCDs are mounted in the glasses. Each eye turns off and
on, becoming opaque, then transparent. This is timed so that the display shows the
correct image for the correct eye.
The monitor has to have a very high refresh rate, else you notice 'flicker'. This
is why they are trying to produce higher HZ LCD tvs. (120hz would be like 60hz
each eye) LCD glasses have come a long way. They can be lightweight, wireless,
and take little power to operate. Its the best practical 3D technology out there.
There is no Holographic technology that Looks like the 3D you saw in Imax.
The only device I heard of that was a 'Rumor'... turned the air in the room to superheated
plasma in order to make an illusion. If you placed your hand in that room, you would
immediately get a 3rd degree burn.
Lasers are still being perfected to be used as a full color display system. However,
just because something uses lasers, does not mean Hologram. A 3d Hologram,
would need some way to Stop a beam of light at a certain spot in space. I believe
only scientist using million dollar machines & sub zero temperatures can actually
Slow or stop light.
The Last technology is LCD displays which act like those holographic pictures. The kind
where you turn them, and they animate. However, this technology is CRAP.
Its severely limited in viewing angles and distances away from the screen...
else you get artifacts and non-3d. The picture quality (resolution) is reduced too... because it takes a lot of the resolution up for the 2ndary angled output.
(every other line)
You see how crappy this tech is by looking at those cheesy pictures...
but Ive personally seen a non-glasses 3d lcd in person, and it was horrific.
Trust me when I tell you that LCD Shutter glasses are going to be the cheapest
way to display 3d in the home. With Polarized glasses and a projection system
being the best... but most expensive.
Xiaou2:
But what would you put in the air?
If you put a screen - then its simply 2D.
If you put anything else, it needs to be perfectly translucent on all its layers..
and even then... how thick it is determines how much depth you get.
And finally, there is a huge difference between:
1) A 2D hologram projection in mid air (pointless)
2) A complete 3D Hologram : All sides Visible from all angles (Overkill)
3) A typical 3d scene limited in perspective (as seen today)
They do not even use holographic cameras yet, and the amount of bandwidth and
data storage for that would be insane as well. We probably wont see holographic
display tech like that in our lifetime.
The only full holographic displays use a spinning discs that they shoot a projection,
or laser at. However, they are usually pretty small in size, expensive, and probably
wont ever scare to necessary sizes needed. (imagine a 15ft sphere needed for
display heh)
Also as said, lenticular display is garbage. Heres some fun quotes:
"Another problem with lenticular displays is that it depends upon the audience being in a sweet spot to get the 3-D effect. If you were to move to the left or right from one of these sweet spots, the image on the screen would begin to blur. Once you moved from one sweet spot to another, the image would return to a cohesive picture. Future televisions may include a camera that tracks your position. The television will be able to adjust the image so that you're always in a sweet spot. Whether this will work for multiple viewers of the same screen remains to be seen.
Some people experience a feeling similar to motion sickness after watching a lenticular display for more than a few minutes. That's probably because your eyes have to do extra work as they deal with the discrepancy between focus and convergence"
So, its glasses... or HMD Goggles for many years to come, IMOP.
Sadly, HMDs still are fairly low res... and are way too expensive. Ugg.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version