Talk:Disney Digital 3-D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] The physics behind it?

Can someone good at Physics please explain how this technology differs from other 3D movie technology? I watched the 3-D version of Chicken Little and believe me it is quite different from any other 3D movies that I have seen. By looking at the 3D glasses alone, I couldn't figure out how they do it.

In comparison, I have watched the Spy Kids 3D movie which uses the red/green glasses. I have riden most of the 3D rides in Disneyland which uses the polaroid (horizontal/vertical polarization) dark sunglasses. (Polar Express 3D was presented using polaroid glasses.) I have watched many IMAX 3D movies that uses a special goggle with electronic LCD shutters that open and close in sync with an invisible infrared signal projected along with the movie. I have made Stereoscopic slides when I was young, so I am quite familiar with how 3D works. If you wear one pair of 3D glasses and then hold up the second pair in front of you, you usually can see that one of the lens is darken. The selective passage of light in each lens enables the 3D viewing. I checked the same with the Chicken Little 3D glasses, and I couldn't find any difference between the left and right lens. They don't seem to be polaroid lens. For some unknown reasons, the movie looks great in 3D, much better than any other 3D movie that I have seen.

How did they do it? 67.117.82.2 01:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The 3-D glasses from the movie do indeed use polarized lens. The effect is not obvious if you look through two pairs of glasses from the same direction. However if you turn one of the glasses around, e.g. you look at your friend who is also wearing the 3-D glasses, you can clearly see that one of the lens has turned dark. Kowloonese 00:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the Stereoscopy article, circular polarization is used in this technology. The behavior of the 3-D glasses is quite different from the old linear polarization approach. The polarized light is not affected by rotating the lens, but only by flipping the lens over. Kowloonese 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
a good test is the miror test. Look at yourself in a moror wearing this "3D glasses". Each eye sees only the other eye. I did put some more specs in there. I will extend if you want. I think this should go to the Read-D page, for Disney 3D is just a brand name over a non-Disney technology. Lenny Lipton deserves his wikipedia page too Mendiburu
I believe I've figured out how they work, but I guess I can't edit the article myself because that would be unsourced original research. Can anyone find verification of my hypothesis? - KT
I'm in the middle of dissertation on stereoscopy. When things quiet down a little for me I'll do a fully cited edit of this article. I agree it should be merged with Real-D. fat_pads 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glasses Image

The super low rez image of the glasses seems pointless. And if it's that important to have a picture of them shouldn't it be of at least a decent quality?

[edit] Frame Rate

I saw Meet the Robinsons in Disney Digital 3D and distinctly remember the frame-rate being horrible. It looked like the frame-rate was halved to 2/24 thanks to the single projector. Does anyone have a second source for the 144 frames per second? I absolutely don't believe it from what I have seen of Disney Digital 3D.

I saw that movie too, and the framerate/flow was fantastic, just as good as a normal movie. I'd suspect maybe the projector you saw it on was goofy. JamesBenjamin 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article placement -> Real D Cinema

The article starts of by describing Disney Digital 3-D as a Disney-branded version of Real D Cinema. If that is indeed the case, why are the technical parts of the article not in the Real D Cinema article (which is basically void of content).

Provided the premise is accurate, the Disney Digital 3-D article should contain mainly Disney-specific stuff and, perhaps, a short overview of the (Real D Cinema) technology. The full technical description should be moved to the Real D Cinema article, which could also contain a list of implementations (such as Disney Digital 3-D and possibly IMAX 3D). Fyo (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)