ANALOG vs DIGITAL - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine

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