Dolby to offer 3D cinema with Infitec technology
By Darren Murph 
posted Aug 2nd 2006 11:03AM
posted Aug 2nd 2006 11:03AM
The same Dolby that has been keeping theaters thumping for years is now teaming up with Infitec GmbH, a German company specializing in virtual reality applications, to develop its own 3D projection system for cinema use. While the ideas surrounding 3D displays in various forms are certainly not new, this technology promises to be more affordable than current 3D installations and boost dwindling ticket sales -- ahh, nothing like a panacea to cure what's ailing the movie industry. Dolby's inexpensive, polarized-lens take on 3D hopes to be a bit more widespread than, say, IMAX, in an attempt to get folks away from their internet flicks and DVDs, and back into the realm of overpriced concessions and stadium seating. It's hard to say if this technology will be the thrill people need to swallow the rising box office expenses, but Dolby hopes you'll be giving a gander at the third dimension when their 3D systems get deployed nationwide in spring of 2007.
[Via Wired]
[Via Wired]
The picture of the audience with the 3-D glasses is being used without the permission of the copyright holder. This image is owned by SimEx-Iwerks. www.simex-iwerks.com
Could be cool.
Doubt it'll take off.
Perhaps I'm missing something, BUT...having just gone and seen Monster House 3D last weekend, the glasses provided to me were definitely NOT battery powered. In fact, they weren't powered at all. Simply the to be expected glasses with clear lenses (we'll miss you red eye/blue eye!). Also, I walked up to the top of the auditorium and checked out the projector. It was simply a Christie digital projector shooting through a RealD lens filter. I'm sure I could very well be wrong here, but so far a lens filter and cheap plastic glasses don't equate to enormous expense.
I recently saw Monster House in 3D at a local theater and it was kind of cool but I get the feeling that over time the "wow" factor would really wear off. The extra $2 for the 3D was to cover the lens costs I am sure but it kind of puts me off when I spend over $20 for movie tickets alone (I live in the Midwest and it. Oh, and Real D uses polarized lenses to see 3D and the set I used didn't have batteries at all.
Real D system doesn't need active shutter glasses, but an active polarized filter in front of the projector (eliminating the need for two projectors). All the audience needs are passive polarized glasses, which are inexpensive and light. I think Dolby's system is based on the same kind of technology.
It is good to see some competition in the market, but this is nothing revolutionary.
The problem is that you still have to wear glasses (apart from being seriously uncool, it would suck for anyone who already wears glasses to see)
I will just have to totally give up going to the cinema now...
Franssu is correct. I have installed several of these systems using Christie and Barco projectors with Dolby or Kodak servers. The Real D system is the same in all these installs...active glasses not used.
This blog entry is wrong, not only because of the error regarding active/polaroid glasses, but because of the differences in the technology that Dolby licensed from Infitec. The pricipal difference is that the Dolby system will not require theaters to install SILVER screens, a necessity to use polarizing glasses. So auditoriums can use white screens that most audiences are accustomed to, and which do not have the traditional "hot spots" that reflective silver screens usually exhibit.
This blog is totally incorrect.
REAL D doesnt use shutter glasses, they use passive polarized glasses (which look and feel like sunglasses).
Also, to say REAL D has "done little to attract box office interest" is incorrect, as both Chicken Little and Monster House 3D showings have done quite well over their 2D counterparts.
The poster is confusing Real D's system that uses passive eyewear with the IMAX 3D's system that uses active electronics glasses that are collected at the end of the show.
From what I can find on Infitec online, it looks like they use offset hues of each primary color -- and the eyewear is supposed to isolate one set from the other.
It's like drawing with Magenta-Navy-Lime for one eye, and Crimson-Sapphire-Malachite for the other eye - and the glasses keep each eye from seeing the other eye's color set.
how does this compare to IMAX 3D? Polar Express in Imax 3-D was the best movie experience ever...
Joeseph:
Pretty much correct. The infitec system uses a pair of filters that transmit red green and blue lines of the spectrum. The spectral lines are very tight and the offset between the left and right lines are imperceptable. Basically a tricolor version of the old anaglyphic method. It doesn't require a special screen, but it has efficency issues.
As for Real3d, they use fixed circular polarization glasses coupled with a polarization modulating cell (z-screen) in front of the projector. Such a system can be very good but literally requres a silver screen to avoid depolarization of the images.
The third option is shutter glasses no special screen involved, but the glasses are expensive and active.
I hope Dolby would also "bribe" Hollywood to produce single movie worth watching in general and 3D in particular.
And I hope they would not hold up speacial effects as Sony does with IMAX, turning it effectively into kid show. Let's say, if hero falls off the roof - I want to experience that to its full. Sony IMAX does some tricks with loosening "effect of presence" completely undermining the experience. Shortly: kid show.
Ok, IMAX Solido uses electronic shutter glasses. (you can tilt your head!) But the regular IMAX 3D which is more common uses polarised 3D glasses and a set of polarised filters on the projector lenses. IMAX 3D uses 2 films (one left and right) as was the case for Polar Express.