3D Theater Versions: Exploring the Difference

In summary: I would say that if one is of the impression that another is stating an opinion as fact then just ask for clarification or an explanation. That's not so hard, is it? In the case in question, it's not like I said "it is a fact that..."; but, still, imo, I could have been a lot kinder and added "iirc" to my post instead of just blurting out "False". I should have asked for clarification and/or explained why I thought the statement wasn't accurate.In summary, There are two versions of 3D in theaters: IMAX and RealD. IMAX uses linear passive polarized glasses, while RealD uses circular
  • #1
Drakkith
Mentor
23,093
7,502
Why are there two versions of 3d in the theaters? What's the difference between them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
IMAX uses linear passive polarized glasses, which makes things "pop out" more. RealD uses circular polarized plastic instead, which gives you actual "depth".

RealD is considered the better of the two because you can move your head around without losing that 3D effect (plus i prefer the RealD glasses, they are usually lighter).

Also, the trouble with the IMAX is that they usually require special screens to show 3D (which also happen to be quite expensive) while RealD can be projected on to regular screens.
 
  • #3
I used to think that IMax was the cat's ***, but now that 3D is available in regular theatres I won't likely go back to one. The glasses are so unnoticeable that I almost scared myself after my 3rd time watching "The Avengers". I hit the can, and glanced up at the mirror while washing my hands. I still had the glasses on, without realizing it. (That, incidentally, was over my regular eyeglasses.)
What I noticed about IMax was that I had to keep sweeping my gaze horizontally and vertically in an attempt to catch the full scene. That problem is eliminated when watching RealD on a normal-size screen.
 
  • #4
GregJ is wrong on a couple of counts:
GregJ said:
IMAX uses linear passive polarized glasses, which makes things "pop out" more. RealD uses circular polarized plastic instead, which gives you actual "depth".

Neither of these simplistic views of the technology's stereoscopic polarization are accurate. Either technique is able to provide equal 3-D effect. "Pop out more" and "actual depth" are more dependent on how the movie was filmed, not the projection technique.

As a general rule, IMAX 3D is filmed using a pair of cameras in stereo at a distance of 2.5" (the same as the average human interocular distance). This provides a continuous 3-D image, like for example Avatar or a range of the IMAX 3D documentaries. A pair of cameras are used for imaging, and a pair of projectors are needed to project the film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IMAX_3D

RealD 3D is not too far different from IMAX save for a few points:
1) it uses a single double-speed projector with an LCD shutter which polarizes each frame (light starvation can be an issue compared to IMAX)
2) live action films are usually post-processed into 3-D (for example The Avengers, Titanic) which makes them more of a "layered" 3D instead of continuous. Digital animated movies are continuous 3D however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema
GregJ said:
RealD is considered the better of the two because you can move your head around without losing that 3D effect (plus i prefer the RealD glasses, they are usually lighter).

This is true as far as I know, IMAX uses linear polarization which requires your glasses stay parallel to the screen (to avoid dimming) where as RealD 3D uses circular polarization allowing you to tip your head slightly (although too tilt much will cause parallax error so it's a moot point in my opinion). I haven't found either technology to be a problem personally.

GregJ said:
Also, the trouble with the IMAX is that they usually require special screens to show 3D (which also happen to be quite expensive) while RealD can be projected on to regular screens.

False, both require silvered screens to maintain the polarization of the light after reflection. A standard white screen destroys the polarization and cannot be used with either technology. Film made a big difference also with IMAX having the larger format, but things being all-digital today the biggest difference is aspect ratio, IMAX being 1.44:1 (and usually on a much larger screen) where as RealD is typically the wider cinematic 2.39:1; HD television is 1.78:1 by the way so neither is a "perfect" fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
You could have been just a tiny bit kinder in your reply ;)

Anyway, I must have missed out when reading that both screens are silvered. My bad.
 
  • #6
Thanks for the info. We have tickets to see Prometheus at the local IMAX theater in 3D on Tuesday. I'll post here about that experience.
 
  • #7
GregJ said:
You could have been just a tiny bit kinder in your reply ;)

That wasn't an attack, although it might seem so. You did bring it upon yourself, however, by presenting an opinion as fact. Your opinion was wrong, so you were caught in a lie. Since this is an educational site, such is unacceptable. I'm rarely correct, but I always make sure to point out that I'm not sure of the real answer (even if I am sure). If you present your thoughts in that manner, you will be okay.
 
  • #8
Danger said:
That wasn't an attack, although it might seem so. You did bring it upon yourself, however, by presenting an opinion as fact. Your opinion was wrong, so you were caught in a lie. Since this is an educational site, such is unacceptable. I'm rarely correct, but I always make sure to point out that I'm not sure of the real answer (even if I am sure). If you present your thoughts in that manner, you will be okay.

I don't think being incorrect means someone is lying.
 
  • #9
Danger said:
You did bring it upon yourself, however, by presenting an opinion as fact.
I feel you meant no harshness, and sometimes I'm a bit abrupt in replying to a statement that I think I know is false. But it's also good to keep in mind, imo, that any and all assertions stated in these forums, no matter what evidence and/or documentation is cited, are, de facto, the opinions of those making the assertions. That is, unless someone explicitly states that their assertion is an expression of fact (not interpretation) of first hand experience, then it should be taken as a statement of belief/faith/interpretation, and therefore an opinion. So, I think that discussions can proceed without a bunch of superfluous reiterations of in my opionion and such. That is, this stating an opinion as a fact objection is silly, ie., a basis for unnecessary contention and argumentation. It would make some sense if we all didn't have the same resource (the internet) for researching stuff. But we do, so it doesn't.

I mostly like, and learn from, your posts Danger. So don't take my reply as any sort of challenge or whatever. Maybe I'm just venting. Though I do stand by what I said -- until refuted, of course.

Drakkith said:
I don't think being incorrect means someone is lying.
Indeed.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Sorry for taking the thread far of it's topic.

Danger I was not lying. I actually found a website that mentioned all the information I replied with (which at the time I had believed to be correct). Obviously it appears that it is not a reliable source of information now :)
However, in light of your reply, I think that I shall be a little more careful in the future (and perhaps check with more reliable sources) before posting. Actually, I will also make sure to mention when a subject comes from knowledge or from external sources too (so that I do not come off looking quite so silly).

And to keep this a little on topic; I am really looking forward to Prometheus. You must let me know if it is worth going to see ThomasT (especially in IMAX 3D, as I now may have a choice between the two).
 
  • #11
Greg, people have undoubtedly noticed that sometimes I don't realize how much customs vary geographically. Where I live, the term "caught in a lie" simply means "incorrect". It has nothing to do with intentional dishonesty. I apologize for using that particular turn of phrase.
Thanks to Drakkith and Thomas for bringing it to my attention.
:smile:
 
  • #12
It's all good Danger. No need to apologise for anything, as I was the one whom made the mistake. I'll live and learn :redface:
 
  • #13
I was going to delete my post #9 because I think I went a bit overboard with it, and there's probably some errors in it. But no need to dwell on that. :rolleyes: Instead I'll just apologize to Danger, the members of the Academy, ... and everybody.
 
  • #14
:smile:
 
  • #15
GregJ said:
And to keep this a little on topic; I am really looking forward to Prometheus. You must let me know if it is worth going to see ThomasT (especially in IMAX 3D, as I now may have a choice between the two).
Ok Greg. My ticket says IMAX Prometheus 3D, 4:25 PM, 06/12/2012. Sometime later that evening I'll post my impressions. Wowee zowee, I can't wait!
 
  • #16
I wasn't attacking anyone, I simply wanted to get better technical information out there about the two technologies.

On another note I watched Prometheus in RealD 3D this weekend, it was good stuff!
 

FAQ: 3D Theater Versions: Exploring the Difference

What is a 3D theater version?

A 3D theater version is a film that has been specifically created to be shown in 3D format in movie theaters. This means that the images on the screen will appear to have depth and will seem to pop out of the screen, creating a more immersive viewing experience for the audience.

How is a 3D theater version different from a regular film?

A 3D theater version is created using special cameras and technology that allow for a sense of depth and dimension in the images. This is different from a regular film which is shot using traditional cameras and does not have the 3D effect. Additionally, 3D films often have specific scenes or effects that are designed to enhance the 3D experience for the audience.

Why do some films have a 3D theater version?

Some filmmakers choose to create a 3D theater version of their film in order to provide a more immersive and visually stunning experience for the audience. This can also help attract more viewers to the theater, as 3D versions often have higher ticket prices.

Do I need special glasses to watch a 3D theater version?

Yes, in order to fully experience the 3D effects, you will need to wear special glasses while watching a 3D theater version. These glasses work by filtering the images projected on the screen, creating the illusion of depth and dimension.

Can anyone watch a 3D theater version?

While most people are able to watch 3D films without any issues, some individuals may experience discomfort or headaches while viewing the film. It is recommended to take breaks and remove the glasses if you experience any discomfort. Additionally, young children may have difficulty with 3D effects, so it is important to check the recommended age for the film before bringing them to see a 3D theater version.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
476
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top