The glasses have polarised filters, and the light is polarised. So one image goes to each eye. When you take the glasses off and have both images going to both eyes, it's fairly understandable it's going to appear brighter.
Sky 3D
- Thread starter Jimmy1983
- Start date
Until they work out a way to keep the brightness up to 100% of what its meant to be, then its not for me. 3D on a whole for me is a no no. Don't see a point in it. Its a gimmick that should stay in the cinema if it had to stay somewhere, not in the home.
What you see through the glasses *is* what it's meant to be. What you're seeing without the glasses is 200% brightness.
Presumably they can change the levels if they wish - but I would think the level it's set at is for a reason. Who knows how they calibrate it, though.
Fortunately thought, it also makes your surroundings 30% darker. Therefore, no contrast is lost
.
Clip-on polarisers perhaps? They'd probably be more comfortable than your average pair of 3D specs anyway.
It's looking like this list might be wrong. Unless Sky are trying to put people off so they don't get too many people going.
I got the pubs from a 3DTV blog, I'm not sure why anyone would bother to make up a fake list, but it's looking like they did.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,584
- Location
- Warwickshire
You don't know why pubs might want to start the rumour that they are hosting a live 3D game?
'Let's go and check it out'
'OK'
'Bah, misinformation'
'Never mind, let's have a beer here anyway and watch the game in 2D'
No thats wrong:
RealD Cinema said:
You don't see 200% brightness when you take the glasses off. Thats the brightness that you will see if you see the 2D version of the film (Avatar in this case).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,584
- Location
- Warwickshire
So you don't think they bump up the brightness levels of the screen to compensate for the reduction in brightness from the polarising lenses?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 4,313
Having taken my 3D glasses off briefly during both Avatar and Christmas Carol 3D, the brightness without the glasses was really excesssive, way brighter than any film I've ever watched.
Avatar with the 3D glasses certainly wasn't lacking in any brightness or contrast for me, one of the best looking and best realised films (at least from a visual perspetive) I've ever seen, and the 3D really did add to the whole feel of it.
Exactly, they're not going to leave the brightness the same as a normally projected version and say "Ho hum, it's not as bright or contrasty but at least it's 3D" They will have thought about it and made adjustments so the viewing experience in 3D is as good as possible (and of course equal to any 2D version/better due to the 3D)...and so far I have been extremely impressed with what I've seen!
They probably did, but I'm sure it varies from cinema to cinema. Watch the videos on YouTube with Mark Kermode, he explains it much better than I could.
The brightness is still not the same as the 2D version. It never could be due to the glasses. When I saw Avatar it was one of the dullest looking films I've seen, much better watching it with the glasses off.
The brightness is still not the same as the 2D version. It never could be due to the glasses. When I saw Avatar it was one of the dullest looking films I've seen, much better watching it with the glasses off.
Last edited:
It depends on the system used in the cinema. If you saw it somewhere using Dolby3D (everywhere but VUE I think) then your talking twaddle, as theres no light reduction whatsoever.
RealD does reduce lumen output at the projector, and also the glasses are slightly dimmed making it darker yet. However, all RealD setups include a high gain silver screen to combat this. Ofcourse its never going to be quite as bright as a normal film, but will be pretty much there. The important thing is, although the glasses etc. make the film '30%' darker, they also make your surroundings '30%' darker so there's no loss in perceived contrast.
This is the important thing here, go turn the backlight down on your TV and watch in a pitch black room with dark walls dark ceiling no reflection etc. and bask in the glory of your improved perceived contrast.
Back on topic, did anyone see it? The industry are putting all their eggs in the 3d sport basket so I hope it was good!
RealD does reduce lumen output at the projector, and also the glasses are slightly dimmed making it darker yet. However, all RealD setups include a high gain silver screen to combat this. Ofcourse its never going to be quite as bright as a normal film, but will be pretty much there. The important thing is, although the glasses etc. make the film '30%' darker, they also make your surroundings '30%' darker so there's no loss in perceived contrast.
This is the important thing here, go turn the backlight down on your TV and watch in a pitch black room with dark walls dark ceiling no reflection etc. and bask in the glory of your improved perceived contrast.
Back on topic, did anyone see it? The industry are putting all their eggs in the 3d sport basket so I hope it was good!
Well the glasses I wore said Dolby3D on them and weren't the cheap plastic ones that RealD give you. The brightness was much better with them off than on and was a much more pleasureable experience to watch with (minus the double layered image of course). Google "avatar 3d brightness" and you'll see it's not just me experiencing this.
Look I know what I saw, could have just been the cinema I was in, but the brightness was crippled. 3D effects where great, don't get me wrong, but all I'm saying is that 3D will not be the way foward imo. If Avatar didn't use 3D, would it be a good film? Nope.
Look I know what I saw, could have just been the cinema I was in, but the brightness was crippled. 3D effects where great, don't get me wrong, but all I'm saying is that 3D will not be the way foward imo. If Avatar didn't use 3D, would it be a good film? Nope.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,584
- Location
- Warwickshire
I think people widely acknowledge that 3D films are currently more about the experience than the incredible directing and storyline
. That's why they go and watch 'Underwater Adventure' etc., only this actually makes a decent fist of being a movie also.I think people widely acknowledge that 3D films are currently more about the experience than the incredible directing and storyline
The problem is 3D will have a very niche genre in which it will be used. Sci/Fi and Animated films are the only ones i can think of where it would somewhat benefit from being in 3D, if even.
I can't imagine every single new film or TV show being in 3D, which is the way these people at the likes of CES are talking about. The Godfather in 3D would be a terrible experience for example, or something like Eastenders. Just wouldn't work at all. Due to this very small gap in genres where 3D fits in, I can't see it taking off at all.
"...the future is flat." - Mark Kermode