h a l f b a k e r yBuy 1/4, get 1/4 free.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Some IMAX movies only seem to be shown in 3D; for viewers who would prefer to watch in 2D while getting the big screen experience, but don't want to block one eye, the theater could offer 2D glasses which would be similar to 3D glasses, but with both eyes showing the same image (either using the same
filter, or else using the same polarization).
Seek and ye shall find
http://www.popularm...ck=pm_news#fbIndex1
now baked [theircompetitor, Aug 19 2011]
[link]
|
| |
If both lenses were polarised the same way, you'd get a half-screen experience. |
|
| |
half-screen? how do you figure? |
|
| |
Most passive 3-D projection systems use polarized glasses, with one lens rotated 45 degrees right and the other rotated 45 degrees left. The projected images have matching polarization. The images for left and right eyes both occupy the full screen. |
|
| |
By using the same polarizataion on both lenses, you would be viewing either the left image or the right image with both eyes, thus you'd be missing the 3-D depth cues. |
|
| |
I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to do this, but it would work just fine. |
|
| |
Would these allow you to watch 2D movies in 1D? |
|
| |
Why do they use +/- 45 degrees, rather than 0/90 degrees? On the last IMAX film I saw, I could not move my head nor glasses to get both images clear; my guess is that was a result of my angle to the screen. If the screen is viewed off-axis (as it will be for many people in the theater) angles may be somewhat distorted, but 0 and 90 should remain correct. |
|
| |
If the lenses could have been rotated, that would helped things considerably. |
|
| |
By using +/- 45 degrees, the theaters can use those cheap cardboard glasses without having to worry about someone putting them on backwards and screwing up their experience, as it's the same either way. |
|
| |
The last theater I was at used really big non-folding glasses, so they couldn't have been worn backward. The bigger problem, as I noted, was that I couldn't position my head or the glasses for proper separation. |
|
| |
Yes why would you want to do this? But jaksplat - THAT is a good idea! 1D movies. I'm sure it could work - mirrors of some sort translating the image into one line. Probably just getting longer and shorter based on the overall brightness of the image you're seeing. |
|
| |
And! WHY MOVIES? WHY NOT 2D LIFE GLASSES?!?! We could watch our own lives in 2D!! I want to be a cartoon, STAT. |
|
| |
If we can work out the technology, this is a great idea. After all, some people may just want to watch the movie without being distracted by silly 3D effects. (I don't know about you---but when I'm watching a classic like "Son of Svengoolie", I don't care about things popping out of the screen; I just want to focus on character development.) |
|
| |
If only we could devise some glasses that would add depth to shallow movies. No doubt this is why snackbars do so well. |
|
| |