UK Cinemas Get 3D Projection Rollout 151
CNETNate writes "The largest chain of cinemas in Britain, Odeon, has become the first chain to fully roll out 3D projection technology in its theaters. These new projectors will deliver 3D images at a resolution of 2K (2,048x1,080 pixels). Many major cities in the UK will now be able to project the new 3D movies coming out of Hollywood, without it being referred to as a novelty offered in one or two locations."
Back to the Future 3D (Score:2, Funny)
Too close (Score:5, Funny)
I always make the mistake of sitting too close and then having the 3D objects end up projected behind me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that's exactly what I'm wondering. They claim a resolution of 2,048x1,080 pixels, but wouldn't real 3d be a resolution of say, 2048x1080x1080 at least?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's just like viewing one screen with one eye, and another screen with the other eye. So you could say it's 2048x1080x2
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's exactly what I'm wondering. They claim a resolution of 2,048x1,080 pixels, but wouldn't real 3d be a resolution of say, 2048x1080x1080 at least?
Nah, it's just like viewing one screen with one eye, and another screen with the other eye. So you could say it's 2048x1080x2
which means if there is 540 people in room (with no eye deficiency) then you need 2048x1080x1080
Re: (Score:2)
No, because all 540 people view the same two images. Their view doesn't change depending on where they sit.
3d? (Score:4, Insightful)
And lets face it, who want's that in a public space...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And glasses... (Score:1)
Re:And glasses... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nope, now they use lenses that are circularly polerized. One CW the othe CCW. Doesn't make any fucking sense to me but I dont have to know how it works, I just have to vomit and make the cleanign staff weep.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I dumbly took a picture but the effect would obviouly not show in it... still it surprises me that it has not become de standard yet... why do we need this sort of coloured or polarised lenses when it can be totally achieved without ?
I'm sure that the Chinese company hasn't patented the system (cue to IP jokes, 3..2..1) so it should be fairly easy
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As if you had someone to watch TV with...
If yes, then why are you posting on Slashdot? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> If yes, then why are you posting on Slashdot? ;)
Because I fucking *hate* Sex and the city
Once you get married, I bet you find yourself watching TV less. Part of that may be you have a richer life and other activities to occupy you but mostly its because chick tv sucks big green donkey dick
Re: (Score:2)
Those things never worked for me because I have one strongly dominant eye. All's I ever got out of it was a monochrome image :(
Re: (Score:2)
With a polarized light projection system you wouldn't have this problem.
Reality: (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is closer to this:
Bugger! People don't want to pay £15 to sit for hours in a dirty, smelly, sticky cinema to watch disgusting, blurry, washed-out reproductions of Hollywood movies that take twenty minutes to start (while accusing them of everything from theft to supporting terrorism), where a hot dog costs more than the ticket, the drinks are 99.999% water and the staff are similarly dirty, smelly and sticky.
The madmen would rather sit at home in comfort with their HDTV's and get a better quality image close up! What are they thinking?!
Hey, we need to get our customers back, so let's add a useless 3D element to our movies that everybody has been able to do but nobody has cared about in the last fifty years!
Seriously, the last four or five times I went into a cinema in a large town not 10 minutes from London, there were about three people in there, including me. They need a new gimmick and they think it will bring back the audiences. It won't. The problem isn't the type of movie projection - it's the quality of the systems (all the films I've seen this year have been blurry, out of focus and even when in focus look very horrible), the atmosphere of the cinema (which is all-but-gone now), the service recieved and the price you pay. I can OWN a copy of a film cheaper than I can go to the cinema once, and it will "appear" better quality because I'm closer to a higher-quality screen. Plus, I can pause it to get a real hotdog, or I can invite friends over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, most local cinemas to me are always packed on the 'cheap' night - Orange Wednesday (for those of you not in the UK - the mobile phone operator gives you 2 for 1 on a cinema ticket for a screening on Wednesday if you text them)
But despite all the failings of the communal cinema experience that you mention - for me, it's kind of worth it just to get better sound. I've got decent THX-certified 5.1 speakers - but I've not set them up correctly, because the layout of my living room's prohibiting putt
Re: (Score:2)
"the last four or five times I went into a cinema in a large town not 10 minutes from London"
I can think of few places "10 minutes from London" that aren't
"dirty, smelly, [and] sticky"
But apart from that, yes, I agree, cinema must fade. I just hope that people don't start applying the same argument to live theatre - that's one form of entertainment that's perilously close to extinction - but perhaps theatre companies could start offering 'in home' plays where they act in front of your HDTV?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, you can't "own" a copy of any cinema film, not unless you happen to be a Hollywood mogul - at least, not in the sense that ownership actually allows you to do what you want with your property.
With that out of the way - mate, you really must go to some shit cinemas. The ones I go to - and I normally go in Brighton or Worthing - are fairly clean and non-blurry and the staff are no less or more "dirty, smelly and sticky" (do you have some sort of cleanliness OCD thing going on?) than your average
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that a large McDonalds coke bought from next door is just as flat, has just as much ice, and costs 1/3 of the price. Popcorn I don't care for, and I dare anybody to tell me that my pack of Maltesers wasn't bought from their again overpriced sweet counter.
Hell, I could walk into our "Deluxe" screen with a tin of wife-beater and they couldn't do a thing. They sell it behind the bar (again
Re: (Score:1)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past I've been told that cinemas make next to nothing off the actual ticket selling and make most of their money from the consumables they offer.
The whole reason consumables are so expensive is because it's the only way the can make any money (except raising ticket prices, which would stop anyone coming).
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I always have the choice of not having a drink or nibble for a couple of hours, and often that's exactly what I do. I just don't believe that I should have to pay well over twic
Re: (Score:2)
There are more often than not sign stating that you may only consume beverages and food purchased on the premises.
I have seen a piece on a consumer TV programme about this exact practice, and it's utter bollocks. They can put up as many signs as they like saying you can only consume stuff bought on the premises, but there are no laws to back it up. In fact, the law may well be on the side of the visitor, with their cache of supermarket bought sweets.
The piece I saw involved undercover cameras, and the spotty youth checking tickets got shirty, but when the manager came down the customers were allowed in straight away.
Ac
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Stella is the chilled pig-wee of the underclass, no matter what those poncey pseudo-French adverts tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
That truly is amusing to learn :)
I drink stella when it's on offer for cheap and there's nothing else better, but I do know a lot of people who do feel they're being "fancy" by drinking some other country's bland lager.
Just for curiosity's sake, let me throw this out there: Around here (East coast US) Stella usually goes for anywhere between 6 and 9 dollars a six-pack, or (on average) 4 dollars for 16oz on draft. Anyone care to give me a price-check on what it's like in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a really good lager, get something Czech like Budweiser Budvar, if they sell it in the US. I understand ale isn't that popular in the US, but if you get the chance, I'v
Re: (Score:2)
I love that stuff. They call it "Czechvar" here.
Lots of us Americans think that our macrobrewed domestics are bad too. However, not all of our beer is swill; there are LOTS of good microbrew domestics available. (Yuengling and Stone's product line specifically come to mind)
Re: (Score:2)
I adore Wychwood, haven't had all of their beers but Hobgoblin is a favorite. I don't recall ever having seen Peeterman Artois in the states but I'll keep an eye out next time I go for specialty beer.
It's true that ales generally aren't the rage, but I think some of the milder microbrewery ales are gaining popularity (the likes of Sierra Nevada, Dogfish Head, Redhook and smaller regional breweries) Then again as an ex-homebrewer my idea of what's popular is probably a hair skewed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not many people have the luxury of going to a decent cinema, though the Brixton Ritzy is a nice old place and close to where I live. Brighton is likely to be an exception, being a vibrant and young town.
The M25 belt *is* exceptionally crappy though.
Last few times I've been to a cinema (other than the Ritzy) it's been almost empty, but then I don't watch blockbusters or chick-flicks, I watch the obscure sci-fi.
Re:Reality: (Score:4, Interesting)
Although HDTV is still a niche market at the moment, I am sure the fact people have better home entertainment systems is making it less attractive for many people to go to the Cinema.
I think there is still a sizable market for Cinemas, but they need to start evaluating what the market wants rather than continuing blindly on their current path. I would like to see Cinemas trying out the following business plan:
1/ Include some smaller screens, perhaps as little as 15' in smaller rooms.
2/ Provide a broader range of content. Things like showing certain TV shows (24 / BSG / Lost), older films.
3/ Allow people to hire the smaller screens, perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch. These screens could also be used by gaming tournaments etc.
Currently cinemas only pander to the blockbuster market, but this ignores a lot of potential.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember seeing "A Clockwork Orange", back when, in a cinema near Piccadilly that had many small screens, each seating 30 - 50 (it WAS almost 40 years ago). I thought, then, that it made a lot of sense, and for anything but "Star Wars: Episode IV", or something, I still do.
2048x1080??? That's never going to get me out of the house.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually possible to do this.
perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch.
And this shouldn't be too hard. The cinema has a relationship with the distributors.
Re: (Score:2)
HDTV isn't going to remain niche for very long. You can hardly buy a non-HD TV these days and the Sky HD receiver has dropped in price to only fifty quid, and currently offers over 30 HD channels. Sky is also planning to offer 3D HDTV - now that's going to be a niche market for a while.
Add in the forthcoming Freeview HD channels and HD will be very much mainstream in Britain by the end of this year.
HD cinema is not HDTV (Score:2)
It is vastly superior ...
Re: (Score:2)
3/ Allow people to hire the smaller screens, perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch. These screens could also be used by gaming tournaments etc.
What, so that you could watch what was going on at the gaming tournament while you sat in the theater? This makes zero sense. I got a 2200 lumens XGA projector for $400 used, you can get them for that new almost now, this is adequate for this purpose and you can set it up in the convention hall where you're actually having the tournament instead of in the theater where there's no room to set up a PC anyway.
The whole point of a theater is to provide a screen bigger than you can get elsewhere. Projectors cost
umm.. (Score:2)
24 hours of the original series
10 episodes of 1980
3 hour miniseries
67 episodes of the new version
27 webisodes
(scraped from wikipedia)
- we could do it in like 5 and a half days, in a week sleeping minimally
Re: (Score:2)
I think most American theaters were like this years ago. All the mainstream theaters i've been to recently were very well kept (but still expensive). They usually have the movie you want to see in normal, Digital, and Director seating for both. Director seating costs a few dollars more but there's a whole lot more room, comfy seats, and staff that will get you whatever you want to eat/drink during the movie. Imax is sexy too :)
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, the last four or five times I went into a cinema in a large town not 10 minutes from London, there were about three people in there, including me.
Odd, the last few times I've been to the cinema just outside London boroughs (in Epsom - and not on the Orange Wednesdays offers), it's been rammed full, and had a high proportion of idiots who decide they'll check/send text messages while the film is on, or even have conversations with pals that are sitting next to them, or on the 'phone.
I've pretty much stopped going to the cinema now, because the tickets are expensive, the number of retards who seem to go there to not actually watch the movie is too high
Re: (Score:1)
staff are similarly dirty, smelly and sticky.
I for welcome our new dirty/smelly/sticky overlords erm can I have fries with that :)
Re: (Score:2)
Now they have to market themselves a luxury service. It seems to me that most people who go to the cinema are doing it because it feels like a little splurge, it is doing something different and a bit expensive.
People don't go because it is a better cinematic experience, they go because it is a cheep date or night out.
Re: (Score:1)
Those info is ok for people who would shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. And would go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again!
3D makes a difference (Score:2)
Over the next decade, we'll see a transition to 3D movies and you'll start seeing 3D setups at home as well (first for games, such as the solution being offered by NVidia). Eventually 3D will roll out to the masses and people will go back and convert the classic 2D movies into 3D. Old people will cry out that 2D is the way it w
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we need to get our customers back, so let's add a useless 3D element to our movies that everybody has been able to do but nobody has cared about in the last fifty years!
Not just useless - in some cases, detrimental. Because of the visual impairment I have and the way my brain learned to deal with it, I don't have proper stereoscopic vision. My brain uses the picture from the dominant eye, and then fills in whatever's left with my other eye.
Aside from not having any depth perception, this also means that '3D' films are, at best, not 3D, and at worst, unwatchable and migraine-inducing. More 3D movies means less movies I can actually watch, and thus less money to the studios
Re: (Score:2)
I generally agree with you, now that I'm in full-time employment and can afford such luxuries as a decently-sized HDTV, sound system and furniture.
Back when I was a student though, I had a 14" 4:3 TV, some admittedly quite powerful PC speakers, a cheap DVD player that made a grinding sound when it span the disc (plus a retina-destroying LED on the front that required some blu-tacking over), and some awful student-flat furniture.
The alternative was the local Vue cinema, with huge comfy seats instead of the f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but at the theater I can tell my wife to be quiet and I can enjoy the movie. At home... no such luck.
And I do truly hope there is a special place in hell for child molesters and people that talk in the theater.
What a lot of nonsense. (Score:2)
Lets get food out of the way: don't like it, don't buy it. That simple really.
As for the personnel I can't smell them, I don't get that close to people across the counter mate. As for checking if they are sticky, lets just no go there ...
Although I agree with you about the advertisement and bullshit bigbroterish nonsense, you can arrive just before the movie starts. If the cinemas are as empty as you claim you will have no problem finding a seat (grin).
Finally your home cinema does not have the definition a
They're already out in some places. (Score:2, Informative)
Last year in Leicester Square (London), I saw the godawful Beowulf movie in 3D.
Last week in Tyneside (Northern England), I saw the godawful 'My Bloody Valentine' movie in 3D.
The cinemas already seem to be getting the upgrades coming through. I just hope Hollywood gets a similar upgrade to stop churning out such garbage using 3D recording techniques.
Re:They're already out in some places. (Score:5, Insightful)
why would they stop? it's working, you're watchin those movies in the cinema
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect like most attendees, I was watching more for novelty than for content. A film about a gas mask wearing murderous miner doesn't exactly scream quality and production values.
But when the initial 'early adopter' phase passes - the falling attendances (and reduction on RoI) should mean that they'll need to either up the quality and produce movies that are both as sound in writing and acting as they are in visual trickery, or adopt a new trick.
Re: (Score:2)
A film about a gas mask wearing murderous miner doesn't exactly scream quality and production values.
Like any other topic, it really depends on the writer, director, and actors.
A really good crew can make a great movie about making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch.
2048x1080? (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't a 3D screen have a third dimension to its resolution?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically they're polarized at 90-degree angles, not opposite to each other. (Or circularly, but I really don't understand the whole thing with right-handed and left-handed circular polarization. Linearly polarized light is about as much as I can comprehend in the polarization issue...)
Re:2048x1080? (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually stereoscopic projection (two images, one image for each eye), not full 3D.
So it should be 2048x1080 x2.
Next thing is frame rate (Score:3, Insightful)
This is great news but when I say an IMAX movie the one thing that I really noticed was that 24 frames per sec looks really naff, and can even cause a headache, when everything else is so realistic.
Since the Odeon system is digital I guess it is possible to overscan it and use clever motion interpolation to make movement look smooth, like some of the newer HDTVs do now. Anyone know if they do this?
Otherwise with decreasing storage costs the native frame rate of the films will hopefully get up to 70+ fps soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Since the Odeon system is digital I guess it is possible to overscan it and use clever motion interpolation to make movement look smooth
Who cares about problems with frame rate when the resolution is 2,048 x 1,080 pixels?! A fairly standard 40 inch TV is close to that resolution so just IMAGINE how shit that's going to look on a 40 foot wide screen.
Even the 4K digital projectors look pretty crap compared to 35mm analog film reels. The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 2-4 times higher than any
Re: (Score:1)
From personal experience seeing Quantum of Solace and Transformers in digital format as well as analogue, I can safely say that the digital format was a lot sharper and more defined than the analogue format.
Personally I prefered the digital format, the quality difference wasn't that noticable, I only really realised the difference at the start of the movie (when I wasn't immersed in it).
I have no idea what projectors the cinemas were using, so I can't comment on that.
Has anyone had a similair experience wit
Re: (Score:2)
There's some element of it being an optical illusion because there's no frame jitter.
I'm not saying that digital is horrible - I'm just saying it definitely a lot lower resolution, but I actually agree that I think it looks better if you're sitting a fair way back from the screen as I really hate frame jitter.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen enough quality setups to make an informed judgement, but the quality of film projection in 90% of the cinemas I've seen has been plain bad. With digital projection it seems that it's much easier to get reasonably high quality on the screen.
I also doubt that 35mm really does have an edge over the latest digital cinematic cameras. Plus the fact that most movies go through 2K digital post-production anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The angular size of the 40 inch TV and the 40 foot wide screen is going to be pretty similar. So the angular size of the pixels is likewise going to be similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. I've done the maths and you'd have to sit only 3-4ft away for that to be the case (relative to sitting half way back in a typical cinema). Who sits 4ft away from a 40 inch screen? I'm 12ft from my TV, and it's only 32".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The effective resolution of a 35mm film print is about the same as HDTV. Film productions tend not to use the slow, fine-grain films that you need for recording fine detail, and the process of producing successive prints for distribution reduces the detail even further.
Also, don't forget that although the cinema screen might be twelve times bigger than a television, you'll probably be sitting twelve times further away.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
'Fully' roll out? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been watching 3D films at Odeon cinemas for over a year - this isn't their first rollout of 3D-capable projectors.
Given that it's Britain... (Score:2)
3D Movies? (Score:2)
What 3D "holywood" movies are there (except for the occasional 3D animation)?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films [wikipedia.org]
or
http://www.reald.com/Content/Pages.aspx?pageID=5 [reald.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The article if a "fluff piece" (Score:2)
FTFA:
"The UK's Odeon chain is installing 3D projectors in many of its cinemas. These new projectors will deliver 3D images at a resolution of 2K (2,048x1,080 pixels). To put that in context, that's roughly twice the resolution of a movie on a Blu-ray disc"
Where do they get their "twice the resolution?" blu-ray/hi-def is 1920x1080. We're only talking a difference of less than 7% - not "roughly twice the resolution."
I doubt may slashdotters would consider the lower-res 1280x720 as "really hi-def" any mor
Re: (Score:1)
Bear in mind that 3D projections require 2 images to be projected, meaning that the resolution is infact 2x(2048x1080).
That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to what they're saying, it's a bit misleading for the general public (as they wouldn't know what resolution Blu-ray is running at), but I guess the whole point is to talk the new projectors up as much as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The article doesn't say which kind of 3D (Score:2)
If normal digital projection is 4,096 x 2,160 pixels and this projects at 2,048 x 1,080, I would guess this is a typical anaglyph method using half the pixels for each eye. In other words, normal digital projection.
It could be that they are using two different projectors using polarized light, and that this system uses lower resolution to lower costs. But I would expect a polarized solution to simply use two standard projectors at 4K. Of course the reporter apparently doesn't care which method is being u
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you on about? Analglyph uses the standard 'flat' resolution along with colour-shifting and filtered lenses. Individual pixels are not 'right' or 'left', but both at the same time. You're thinking of polarized direct displays, which use half the pixels polarised one way and half the other (usually in alternating rows or columns). What is being used here is polarised projection, where two images are projected at the same (standar
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought I'd point out that a lot Blu-Ray movies don't even have that resolution, but 1920x800 because they were made with the cinemascope aspect ratio.
Why they couldn't just make downscaling standard is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
To put that in context, that's nearly the resolution of a typical 24" monitor you might have at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do they get their "twice the resolution?"
One image for each eye.
Re: (Score:2)
ok lets start at some basic mathematics for you.
2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch
Here's some more basic mathematics for you: 1080 and 720 are not the same number. Your comparison is off by an order of magnitude because of that.
The comparison is between 1920x1080 and 2048x1080. The figures are:
2048x1080: 2,211,840 pixels.
1920x1080: 2,073,600 pixels.
The difference being a factor of 1.0666. 6.6%, not 60%.
The figures you mentioned aren't in pixels per inch either, unless the screen has the dimensions of 1x1 inch. That would be a little underwhelming.
Re: (Score:2)
2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
I believe I speak for everyone who actually knows what they're talking about when I say, "what the fuck?"
I only have one good eye you insensitive clod (Score:2)
But if they do all go 3d, maybe I can sue under some sort of disabilities act and get a gazillion dollars !!?!?!?! (or one free hotdog from the concession stand - its all about the same)
Porn? (Score:2)
I am surprised we aren't hearing about this being used in a porn as that's where "new" technology usually shows up first. Are they slipping or is it so gimmicky porn directors won't even touch it?
The movie theatre sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oscar Deutsch Entertains Our Nation (Score:4, Interesting)
Once upon a time, directors would use different film with different grain size to effect a desired mood for an act.
In this modern era of digital recording and projection, where any visual artifact may simply be a by-product of the video compression algorithm, I think that Hollywood needs to come up with more compelling and entertaining story lines than simply relying on the "new shiny" effect.
I think that they are finally running out of ideas to recycle.
Anyways, kudos to ODEON for trying to take some initiative to lure people out of their homes and into the cinemas. Alas, I have moved to La La Land where the projectors are old and creaky and routinely scratch the film after the first couple of showings. Not to mention the defects in the screen, rips, tears and unidentifiable stains, which mar the viewing quality.
Which reminds me of my other rant - will someone please clean the screen at Disney's California Adventure's California Soaring attraction? It just keeps getting worse: First a palm print, then something which looks like a coffee stain. Come on, Disney... It's been like that for at least 3 years already! It ruins the effect!
You'd thunk that Los Angeles would have the most up-to-date and well maintained entertainment technology for the theatre patrons to enjoy but it simply isn't so. And the art/small projects which actually do have a story line rarely get wide screenings, if at all.
I miss the old ODEON in Aylesbury... Shame that they deliberately left a grade 1 listed building derelict so that it will become structurally unsound to allow property developers an excuse to tear it down.
Re: (Score:2)
In this modern era of digital recording and projection, where any visual artifact may simply be a by-product of the video compression algorithm,
If you can see any artifacts in a DCI-compliant 250 Mbps 24 fps JPEG-2000, please report to Hollywood because your eyes are better than anyone in the digital cinema industry!
ACTUAL? (Score:2)
From TFA:
actual 3D, with 3D glasses
Somebody needs to tell them that for actual 3D, you don't need 3D glasses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of ignorance, in digital cinema terms 2K refers to a horizontal resolution of around 2000 pixels, because of the variability of the projected format (1.85, 2.35 etc) it makes more sense to refer to the horizontal resolution rather than the vertical one.
Re: (Score:2)
"2k" is the industry term for an image with 2048 horizontal pixels (and 1080 vertical). It's comparable to the use of the number of vertical pixels to denote the resolution of an HDTV system (eg 1080p)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still disappointed. "Real 3-D" to me doesn't mean two images with opposite polarization (which means I have to put on my non-polarized glasses to see it). "Real 3-D" to me should be at least 2048x1080x1080- and allow me to choose to sit in the theater @ 2048x1080x730, or any other row away from the screen....
Re: (Score:2)
"Real 3-D" to me should be at least 2048x1080x1080- and allow me to choose to sit in the theater @ 2048x1080x730, or
any other row away from the screen....
That technology's been around for thousands of years. It's called a 'play'. :P
Re: (Score:2)
(Ok by moving the head side-to-side etc they can infer more, but thats based on motion)
Only if they're looking at real 3D. A simulated 3D image wouldn't change, because the picture presented to that eye is a static 2D image. It only looks 3D when the 2nd picture (which can only be seen by the other eye) is added for perspective.
Now if you had 3 eyes, clearly a 3rd channel would be needed to achieve the same affect
Having three eyes would not be in any way beneficial since only two eyes are required to see 3D. (Oh, and a bit of pedantry: you meant effect.)
Re: (Score:2)
there are creatures out there with more than 2 eyes...
Insects have compound eyes, but those are better for detecting motion and blotches of colour than they are good for seeing in 3D. Spiders have multiple eyes, but they apparently see most with their two largest eyes and we don't really understand the function of the extra eyes if I'm reading the wiki correctly.