Discussion
crofty1984 said:
dave_s13 said:
JonRB said:
dave_s13 said:
Or reduce the tint of the glasses.
The glasses aren't tinted; they're polarised. One lens lets on only vertical light, the other only horizontal. Everything else is blocked. The left eye lens will only let through light in the "vertical" direction. That's not light coming from the ground, but as you look at a wave "head on".
We usually draw a wave on a bit of paper from the side like this ~~~ so it's unusual to visualise them as arriving at you head on.
We also live in a 3D world, where the light wave can arrive at you going up and down (vertical), but it can also go side to side (horizontal). And any angle in between but ignore that for now.
So the projector for the left eye shows an image broadcast (for want of a better word) using vertical light and for the right eye using horizontal light.*
The lens for the left eye will block out all horizontal light and the right lens will block out all vertical light. Think trying to put a pool cue through some prison bars.
Because of the filters on your glasses the projector just sends both images to the screen at the same time, and lets the glasses lenses do all the hard work of separating them out. That's why if you take the glasses off you "see double".
So the point is, you're both right, the glasses do block some light coming through, what you could refer to as tinted, but the important part is SELECTIVELY blocks out certain light.
If you have 2 pairs (or one broken pair) try this: put one lens behind another, as if you've got two pairs on and rotate one 90 degrees. You'll notice it suddenly gets much darker. That's because you're having one lens block out the horizontal components of light and the other block out all the vertical components too!
- Left eye=vertical light is a complete guess, it may well be the other way around. But the science is right.
Edited by crofty1984 on Tuesday 15th May 22:06
looks like it's probably a limitation of the projection equipment
http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/07/imax-invests-i...
http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/07/imax-invests-i...
dave_s13 said:
Another example is when the eye-patch fella is on a conference call with that council of whatever they are called. You can't really see their faces properly, take your glasses off and you can.
no idea why they bothered getting the big name actors for that role when you couldnt see them anyway!dave_s13 said:
I know all that. The net result is a reduction in brightness, a la wearing sunglasses. So why not compensate by turning up the brightness of the cinema projector?
You say you know that, yet seem to not know the difference between tinted and polarised. If the 3D glasses are using vertical and horizontal polarisation to achieve 3D then they can't, by definition, let more than 50% of light into either lens (and in reality, way less than that).
As for simply increasing the brightness, that would simply wash out the picture.
JonRB said:
dave_s13 said:
I know all that. The net result is a reduction in brightness, a la wearing sunglasses. So why not compensate by turning up the brightness of the cinema projector?
You say you know that, yet seem to not know the difference between tinted and polarised. If the 3D glasses are using vertical and horizontal polarisation to achieve 3D then they can't, by definition, let more than 50% of light into either lens (and in reality, way less than that).
As for simply increasing the brightness, that would simply wash out the picture.
A bit of googling shows that it is a recognised issue and Imax are developing the laser light system (as linked to above) to enable a brighter image. I'm not THX certified (are you?) but I would have thought nudging up the brightness a tad would only improve the picture and not wash it out. I suspect there is a limitation in terms of the bulbs used and the cost implications of running them brighter (,ore heat/power consumption).
I'm far from an expert and would be interested to hear (from an expert) if/how/why the brightness issue can be improved.
Edited by dave_s13 on Wednesday 16th May 12:35
dave_s13 said:
I said the "net result" was to reduce the brightness. Similar to sunglasses.
Ah right, sorry - I misunderstood you. Fair enough. 
Actually, now I come to think of it, Polaroid sunglasses actually use polarising filters to reduce the light, which is why they give Moiré patterns on the windscreen if you try to wear them whilst driving, so actually you weren't far wrong.
Finally got around to watching this last night. Absolutely fantastic! Loved every minute of it. Quite possibly my favourite film of all time! Pretty much echo the comments on here already about the best lines and best bits.
I watched it in 3D. Would have preferred a 2D showing, but the cinema I went to puts the 2D showings into one of the tiny side screens that still has an old film projector so opted for the 3D showing on the digital projector.
3D was OK. Even though the film was a 2D to 3D conversion, Joss Whedon did say that a lot of the scenes were filmed with the intention of going to 3D, and that showed. The scenes towards the end worked really well. But some scenes just didn't work, especially early on.
The early Black Widow fight scene for one.
It seemed really jerky as if the frame rate was bad, but I think it was just the fast cuts that gave that impression when viewed in 3D.
Can't wait for the Blu-ray to be released now so I can watch it again.
I watched it in 3D. Would have preferred a 2D showing, but the cinema I went to puts the 2D showings into one of the tiny side screens that still has an old film projector so opted for the 3D showing on the digital projector.
3D was OK. Even though the film was a 2D to 3D conversion, Joss Whedon did say that a lot of the scenes were filmed with the intention of going to 3D, and that showed. The scenes towards the end worked really well. But some scenes just didn't work, especially early on.
The early Black Widow fight scene for one.
It seemed really jerky as if the frame rate was bad, but I think it was just the fast cuts that gave that impression when viewed in 3D.
Can't wait for the Blu-ray to be released now so I can watch it again.
JonRB said:
dave_s13 said:
I said the "net result" was to reduce the brightness. Similar to sunglasses.
Ah right, sorry - I misunderstood you. Fair enough. Actually, now I come to think of it, Polaroid sunglasses actually use polarising filters to reduce the light, which is why they give Moiré patterns on the windscreen if you try to wear them whilst driving, so actually you weren't far wrong.
SWoll said:
Thought it was OK. Decent SFX and some funny moments but felt like Id seen it all before TBH.
I think TDKR is going to be more my thing.
Gonna go a step further and say that although I enjoyed it in parts, I was left disappointed by the naff-ness of it all. Robert Downey jr and Mark Ruffalo were excellent though.I think TDKR is going to be more my thing.
For me, it didn't in anyway live up to its hype, the quality of the underlying film beneath the quips and SFX is dire.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff