ANALOG vs DIGITAL - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine
ANALOG vs DIGITAL - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine
ANALOG vs DIGITAL - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Feedback Cinema<br />
specially for the system. There was even<br />
a prototype device one could use to make<br />
one’s own Sensio 3D movies.<br />
But now back to the cinema.<br />
One of the most enthusiastic<br />
boosters of 3D movies was James<br />
Cameron, who was known to<br />
be working on a science fiction<br />
blockbuster titled Avatar. When it<br />
came out, it showed everyone how<br />
effectively 3D could be used.<br />
But the lesson was lost.<br />
Hollywood executives<br />
didn’t know what 3D was or<br />
how to shoot in 3D, and their<br />
technicians told them what<br />
they wanted to hear — that<br />
by some sort of crazy alchemy,<br />
one could add 3D to vast stores<br />
of 2D films. That couldn’t<br />
actually be done, but no one<br />
wanted to face the truth. <strong>High</strong><br />
ticket prices brought crowds in<br />
to IMAX cinemas to see in “3D”<br />
films that were shot in neither<br />
IMAX nor 3D. With the effect<br />
blunted by the lack of actual 3D<br />
effects, spectators began, instead,<br />
to focus on 3D’s down side.<br />
For one thing, the screen cutoff<br />
problem is back. Even on the gigantic<br />
IMAX screen the problem<br />
remains, because the image<br />
is simply blown up to the<br />
screen’s size, whereas “real”<br />
IMAX movies use the screen<br />
edges to fill your peripheral<br />
vision.<br />
Then there’s the problem of<br />
3D glasses. Leaving aside their alleged<br />
“dorkiness” (you’re viewing in the dark<br />
after all), they’re inherently uncomfortable<br />
because they’re cheap. They make<br />
dollar-store sunglasses look good. With<br />
use, their plastic lenses get scratched.<br />
Because they’re made to a price — and<br />
not a high price — they are darker than<br />
they absolutely have to be, and they<br />
take away from the luminosity of the<br />
image. In cinemas with dim projection<br />
gear, dark parts of the image will all but<br />
disappear.<br />
Add to that the production errors,<br />
in which the image is presented either<br />
too far forward or too far back, making<br />
it difficult to focus, and giving some<br />
viewers headaches.<br />
30 ULTRA HIGH FIDELITY <strong>Magazine</strong><br />
But now let’s talk about 3D home<br />
theatre.<br />
The reason for the 3D wave of the<br />
1950’s was the arrival of TV (albeit black<br />
and white) in the living room. Television<br />
never did kill the movie theatre, at least<br />
not yet, but there was a perceived need<br />
to offer moviegoers something extra<br />
to bring them in. Today the perceived<br />
threat is home theatre. However, now<br />
home theatre is also 3D, or it can be. Is<br />
it taking the world by storm?<br />
Here too there are problems.<br />
Let’s start with the glasses. Watching<br />
TV is more of a casual activity than<br />
going to a movie, and needing to don<br />
glasses is, for all but gadgeteers, a<br />
showstopper. Depending on the<br />
3D system you select, you’ll need<br />
polarizing glasses, like the top pair<br />
shown here, or active LCD glasses,<br />
like the ones at bottom. Polarizing<br />
glasses are old technology, and all else<br />
being equal the LCD system is superior.<br />
However the glasses are heavier, because<br />
they’re actual electronic devices,<br />
and they contain batteries. In most<br />
systems we’ve seen, they’re slow<br />
to react, and they let you see a<br />
disturbing “ghost” image. They’re<br />
expensive too, and you need a pair<br />
for every visitor if you’re going to<br />
watch the Big Game in 3D.<br />
Actually, 3D sports have<br />
another problem. Look at the<br />
Panasonic pro 3D camera on this<br />
page, and you’ll see that its lenses<br />
are so close together they will pick up<br />
little depth. Panasonic is not alone in<br />
this. Fujifilm is almost alone in making<br />
a still camera, shown here, with<br />
actual natural spacing between<br />
its lenses. Sports exacerbate this<br />
problem, because the action is distant,<br />
and even an 8 cm interocular distance<br />
won’t pick up much depth. Photographers<br />
of the old Viewmaster travel discs<br />
would include a nearby object, such as a<br />
tree or a bush, to add depth to the<br />
scene.<br />
And then there’s the poor<br />
resolution. We’ve gotten used<br />
to HDTV, with its smooth images,<br />
but in most 3D systems each frame<br />
must be used for two images instead of<br />
one, cutting the resolution in half, and<br />
letting you see the scanning lines you<br />
had left behind when you gave your old<br />
Trinitron to the Sally Ann.<br />
What most threatens to kill this<br />
latest 3D wave is the lack of quality material.<br />
You can buy blockbuster movies,<br />
such as the final Harry Potter film,<br />
which were shot in 2D and “converted.”<br />
You can buy endless quantities of animated<br />
films whose 3D effects are cheaply<br />
computer-generated and therefore cheap<br />
to produce, but which are not worth two<br />
hours of your time.<br />
We are resolutely pro-3D, and we<br />
think most of the problems can be<br />
solved. But they aren’t being solved, and<br />
we’re not optimistic.