The future of movies?
On the train ride home today, Rick and I were talking about movies. It turns out that the guy who was beside us works for the TIFF in a technical capacity. Apparently the future plans for theatres is 22-channel sound (think being surrounded by speakers, also at various heights) and 3D video (a la Beowulf) is apparently going to be a big thing.
There's currently two competing standards (isn't there always?) for 3D movies: Real D and Dolby 3D.
Real D uses circular polarization in cheap, disposable glasses to isolate the correct image for each eye, and a special screen as well.
Dolby 3D uses colour separation -- slightly different colours for each eye. A spinning disc (like for DLP projectors) filters the projector output, and combined with the 3D glasses, it keeps the left and right images separate. Currently, the glasses for Dolby 3D aren't disposable (~$60), but it uses a traditional white screen. As the TIFF-guy theorized, maybe it will be like sunglasses -- you have your own bought pair that you reuse.
In order to keep the movie smooth, it looks like both standards have each frame displayed three times per eye, so 144fps for a normal 24fps movie.
Is 3D video and a metric assload of speakers enough to keep people coming back to theatres? Granted, that kind of setup is much more difficult to replicate in-home, unlike 5.1 or 7.2 channel audio and a 1080p projector, but when I think about movies I've liked, it normally isn't due to amazing use of whiz-bang features. Its due to it being a fascinating look into how an insane mind might see the world, or an intelligent thriller, or a world that drew me in, like it was a favourite novel. Maybe the technical wonders will allow some brilliant director to better realize his/her vision. Maybe its just a gamble to try and differentiate. From what I've seen with Beowulf, 3D-ness isn't a deciding factor to go see a(nother) movie.
More links:
Some Dolby 3D details
A comparison of them
There's currently two competing standards (isn't there always?) for 3D movies: Real D and Dolby 3D.
Real D uses circular polarization in cheap, disposable glasses to isolate the correct image for each eye, and a special screen as well.
Dolby 3D uses colour separation -- slightly different colours for each eye. A spinning disc (like for DLP projectors) filters the projector output, and combined with the 3D glasses, it keeps the left and right images separate. Currently, the glasses for Dolby 3D aren't disposable (~$60), but it uses a traditional white screen. As the TIFF-guy theorized, maybe it will be like sunglasses -- you have your own bought pair that you reuse.
In order to keep the movie smooth, it looks like both standards have each frame displayed three times per eye, so 144fps for a normal 24fps movie.
Is 3D video and a metric assload of speakers enough to keep people coming back to theatres? Granted, that kind of setup is much more difficult to replicate in-home, unlike 5.1 or 7.2 channel audio and a 1080p projector, but when I think about movies I've liked, it normally isn't due to amazing use of whiz-bang features. Its due to it being a fascinating look into how an insane mind might see the world, or an intelligent thriller, or a world that drew me in, like it was a favourite novel. Maybe the technical wonders will allow some brilliant director to better realize his/her vision. Maybe its just a gamble to try and differentiate. From what I've seen with Beowulf, 3D-ness isn't a deciding factor to go see a(nother) movie.
More links:
Some Dolby 3D details
A comparison of them