Toy Story 3 in 4K 3D: does higher-res equal higher enjoyment?
We'll be straight with you, the Engadget staff is somewhat ambivalent about 3D: some of us believe it to be a gimmick, while others see it as a legitimate advance in film technology that takes our movie enjoyment up to its next logical station. What you won't find us disagreeing on, however, is that everything looks better when it's taken to a 4K resolution. Sony has been busy rolling out its new 4K projectors across the US and Europe, and invited us yesterday to see Toy Story 3 in some ultra-advanced 4K 3D. Because of it having four times the resolution of the more conventional 2K stuff -- which Avatar, the big 3D (and 4D) flagship, was delivered in -- Sony's projector is able to deliver both the left- and right-eye frame on the screen at the same time, rather than having to alternate them in hummingbird fashion. That should ideally provide a more pleasurable overall experience for the viewer and ultimately pay off for the company in more people ponying up more cash for the extra goodness. So, we moseyed along to an Apollo Cinema in central London -- the chain has already installed Sony's hero 4K projectors in 11 of its venues -- and all you'll need to do is click past the break to see what we thought.
We were fortunate enough to be able to sneak two editors into this movie showing and consequently can share with you a pair of (contrasting) perspectives on the experience. Sat in amongst the sweet spots near the middle of the theater, Richard Lai found the whole thing a blast, describing the picture as terrifically sharp and remarking on the fact he experienced no eye fatigue even after the full 103 minute runtime of the film (which was padded out with 3D footage from the World Cup and some other fluff).
This hapless scribe, on the other hand, managed to be late enough to garner a seat on the very edge of the audience, getting to savor 3D from a wide angle. And you know what? It kinda sucked. Although objects in the foreground retained the aforementioned sharpness, the left- and right-eye images were discernibly delineated on background or more distant objects, and the effectively incomplete stereoscopic effect served to diminish rather than enhance your absorption into the movie. Just to get all the bile out of our system, we should also mention that there's a noticeable dropoff in brightness when you pop the RealD 3D glasses on relative to what the screen emits -- it seems to be accounted for, as we certainly can't complain about the film lacking vibrancy or color accuracy, but might be something to bear in mind.
On the whole, though, we have to say we came out of the cinema impressed. Sony's implementation of 3D using these 4K-capable projectors is manifestly better than what we've experienced so far -- eye strain seems to have been entirely nullified and sharpness is tangibly superior to what competing technologies are currently able to deliver. So long as you bear in mind that 3D comes with significantly narrower (ideal) viewing angles than the conventional stuff, we reckon this is the best choice for enjoying it.
We're not going to broach the hot question of whether or not 3D is worth it -- that is most probably a judgment to be made in person -- but we will say that it didn't seem to enhance Toy Story 3 on a consistent basis. There were some highlight moments where 3D really took the action up a notch, but the film's immersion mostly felt on par with what its 2D version would have delivered. Will "made for 3D" movies push the currently sporadic utility of the technology into something more robust? Maybe. All we know is that there'd be some 4K voodoo thrown in there one way or another. We've now gotten our first taste of the stuff, and even though it ain't perfect, it's the best damn 3D we've assayed so far.
We were fortunate enough to be able to sneak two editors into this movie showing and consequently can share with you a pair of (contrasting) perspectives on the experience. Sat in amongst the sweet spots near the middle of the theater, Richard Lai found the whole thing a blast, describing the picture as terrifically sharp and remarking on the fact he experienced no eye fatigue even after the full 103 minute runtime of the film (which was padded out with 3D footage from the World Cup and some other fluff).
This hapless scribe, on the other hand, managed to be late enough to garner a seat on the very edge of the audience, getting to savor 3D from a wide angle. And you know what? It kinda sucked. Although objects in the foreground retained the aforementioned sharpness, the left- and right-eye images were discernibly delineated on background or more distant objects, and the effectively incomplete stereoscopic effect served to diminish rather than enhance your absorption into the movie. Just to get all the bile out of our system, we should also mention that there's a noticeable dropoff in brightness when you pop the RealD 3D glasses on relative to what the screen emits -- it seems to be accounted for, as we certainly can't complain about the film lacking vibrancy or color accuracy, but might be something to bear in mind.
On the whole, though, we have to say we came out of the cinema impressed. Sony's implementation of 3D using these 4K-capable projectors is manifestly better than what we've experienced so far -- eye strain seems to have been entirely nullified and sharpness is tangibly superior to what competing technologies are currently able to deliver. So long as you bear in mind that 3D comes with significantly narrower (ideal) viewing angles than the conventional stuff, we reckon this is the best choice for enjoying it.
We're not going to broach the hot question of whether or not 3D is worth it -- that is most probably a judgment to be made in person -- but we will say that it didn't seem to enhance Toy Story 3 on a consistent basis. There were some highlight moments where 3D really took the action up a notch, but the film's immersion mostly felt on par with what its 2D version would have delivered. Will "made for 3D" movies push the currently sporadic utility of the technology into something more robust? Maybe. All we know is that there'd be some 4K voodoo thrown in there one way or another. We've now gotten our first taste of the stuff, and even though it ain't perfect, it's the best damn 3D we've assayed so far.























exactly how does more resolution mean showing the frames on the screen at the same time?
@dcnoren Alternating rows (row 1 = row 1 from image 1, row 2 = row 1 from image 2, row 3 = row 2 from image 1, etc).
Since the resolution is doubled, the rows are half as tall, meaning that you can fit two rows in the space that would otherwise have occupied one)
Each row is polarized 180 degrees apart, btw - that's what allows your left eye to see rows 1, 3, 5, 7... and your right to see 2, 4, 6, 8....
It's basically fancy interlacing.
@dcnoren I thought before watching TS3 on 3D that the characters would really pop out.... apparently they don't.... -__-
@tadghostal I don't know if projectors can emit different polarized light on alternating rows. At least on 2k digital projectors, I don't see that interlacing without the glasses, despite being able to see individual pixels.
The digital projectors I've seen alternate frames very quickly, not used a spacial interlacing like you described.
@tadghostal
Seems that wikipedia doesn't quite agree:
Together with Sony's 4K SXRD imaging chip projector the 4K image is divided into two 2K images that are stacked on top of each other, one for the left eye, one for the right eye. Through parallel lenses these two images are projected simultaneously in opposite circular polarization states for both eyes instead of interleaving them. The movie is presented at 2K, the same resolution as is achieved on a 2K projector with the added benefit of reduced flash artifacts.
I was thinking it worked how you described, too - but it just didn't make sense that it could work that way.
@dcnoren
Eh. 3D is another step to killing thoughtful cinema, right after the fart comedy trends.
@JDM You're right about the alternating images on the current 3d displays - that's what makes these different - they don't need to alternate. FWIW, the projectors you mention do the same thing with polarization. They alternate between displaying one image polarized vertically and one polarized horizontally. That's how the glasses are able work without fancy shuttering technology.
The new projectors work exactly like the ones you're familiar with, only instead of alternating the images, they just interlace them.
I am guilty of oversimplification, though, on the first post. They really don't do row-by-row interlacing, per se. Being digital they're able to interlace individual pixels - but they are offset top-to-bottom for alternating images, producing the same result.
Being digital, they could just as easily offset alternating image pixels left-to-right, but the human eye picks that up more easily, producing a slightly blurred image.
Our eyes are used to the images from each eye being offset top to bottom - if your head (and eyes) are not exactly level to the image you're looking at, each eye displays an image that differs (primarily) on the y axis, but our brains adjusts the images and we "see" only a slightly rotated image. If you cross your eyes, however, or otherwise "unfocus" them on an image, the images are offset along the x-axis, and all you get is blurred or double vision.
More info than you wanted, I'm sure, but I've had lots of coffee this morning.
@JDM
Of course they alternate frames very quickly ... that's why the images appear to move, as in, a movie.
Interlacing is exactly as the word describes, interlacing or interweaving two frames in space by alternating them quickly and slightly off setting them, exactly so your eye cannot see the gaps in each frame.
With 4x the resolution, there is no need to interlace frames, so that ~twice the horizontal the information can appear at the same time. I would bet that interlacing still occurs and it does not actually show both the left and right eye simultaneously, but you still get the same bump in information that your eye can capture ... depending on how far away you are from the screen and your eyesight.
@tadghostal really?? I thought the original 3D projectors alternated between the HD left eye image and the HD right eye image very fast which makes it really HD not 4K. But with the 4K 3D projectors they project the left and right image at the same time so two HD = 4K right??
@dcnoren Wikipedia can be misleading. Sometimes by design, sometimes by accident.
If you watch a movie on a 4K, go to the right edge of the theater. If the screen doesn't dim (and I mean more than 50%- as in you-couldn't-watch-the-movie-from-here dim) - it's not using radial polarization.
@James Sonne Incorrect. Interlacing is not alternating. You can interlace without alternating - if you alternate, there's no need to interlace.
Here's interlacing - 2 images shown simultaneously (1 is pixels from image 1, 2 is pixels from image 2).....
1111111111111111111111111111111111
2222222222222222222222222222222222
1111111111111111111111111111111111
2222222222222222222222222222222222
Here's alternating - two images flashing really fast (same scheme for 1s and 2s)
First image:
1111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111
Second image:
2222222222222222222222222222222222
2222222222222222222222222222222222
The technology we're talking about here is interlacing - simultaneous display of two images.
@FuturismRave folks are confusing "alternating" with "interlacing"
@tadghostal It's not interlaced at all, the DLP projectros alternate left and right eye images at 144 frames per second and have an electronic polarizer synced to the left and right frames.
The Sony display 2 2K resolution images on the 4K chip at the same time and has a special lens that splits that into 2 seperate outputs each with it's own polarizer, they are then aligned so the images line up on top of each other one the screen.
@James Sonne tadghostal was describing scan line interlacing, and it makes absolutely no sense to do it that way with digital display chips. If alternating whole frames is interlacing too, then whatever, I know 3D digital cinema does it that way. I know for sure that 3D digital cinema that I've seen doesn't do alternating scanlines. I don't even know if it's practical to do different polarization in each succeeding scan line. Besides, all it will do is make visible gaps on the screen, you would see very visible stripes.
3D has made Boo Radley come out!
Regardless of the actual methodology discussed here, it all equates to the same thing: 2K resolution 3D from a 4K projector.
I corrected that Wiki entry a few months ago to what Sony stated (2K 3D resolution from 4K projectors). The entry was later corrected to 4K 3D from 4K projectors, stating that Sony's press release was wrong! Looks like it was switched back again.
-Pie
Oops, forgot to add (off topic)...
Pixar's 3D technology isn't that great. I don't find much of an enhancement over 2D, though TS3 was an improvement over the very crappy 3D of Up.
Dreamworks, OTOH, has insanely great 3D technology. Monsters vs. Aliens and How to Train Your Dragon were significantly enhanced by the 3D experience. When it's done right, it is like the step from original academy standard (~4:3) to Scope.
-Pie
@dcnoren
Which cinema did they go to.... as far as i can tell from apollo's website, no london cinema has been upgraded to 4K yet. Am I missing something?
@Boo Radley
Absolutely correct. This Engadget post is very misleading. The editors need to do a better job of vetting their posts.
Let me say it clearly:
Sony 4K SRX systems display two 2K images for 3D. This does not add up to 4K. Do not be misled by the marketing. And by the way, just because a 2D can be presented in 4K does not magically make the LCOS "black" levels match DLP. UGH, why do people always fall for the marketing hype?!
so now that we had a hd ready display, have a full hd display, and soon a 3d hd display, we then get an uhd display?
i want my 4k screen right now. not for movies, but for work.. :)
i hope there'll be a 4k cinema near to me to enjoy toystory on it. and for the 3d, i'll hope to find a place in the middle of the screen.
@davepermen So I'm a bit unclear; is 4K only in 3D? I would like to see it in 4K, if possible, but not 3D..
@ObiDamnKneobi
Sounds like it is really only 2K for each eye. Marketing people got their hands on the naming.
3D is going to be a gimmick, or at the very least not important to consumers, as long as low-quality 3D conversion is used on big budget films. Avatar and Toy Story 3 (both of which were filmed in 3D)? Good 3D! Clash of the Titans (post production conversion)? Terrible 3D. That aside, it's going to be a lot like HDTV in the sense that the public will accept it and pour money into product when the prices start to come down. Luckily, I think the end of low-quality 3D conversion and expensive 3D equipment will probably run on the same timetable, so when 3DTVs start showing up under $1,000, the quality of 3D conversion will have increased dramatically.
@mcdoomington
Toy Story 3 wasn't filmed in 3D, since, you know, it was CG. But that doesn't matter because it's pretty much just a filter anyway so it can be applied whenever you render the movie
@mcdoomington
Actually, Toy Story 3 didn't seem to benefit from the 3D treatment in my mind at all. Saw it in 3D. Might as well have seen it in 2D for all the good it did to the experience.
Other recent movies (like How to Train Your Dragon and even Shrek 4) have done much better with the 3D treatment.
@jedi
Agree ... kind of. TS3 in 3D was very subtle. Only a few moments when you really were immersed. However, the subtlety of the experience was still impactful.
My opinion - if you really notice the 3D they did it wrong. 3D should enhance your experience by making it more life like. Over the top 3D does not make it more realistic ... just more irritating.
@Darthweder That's why I said filmed/created.
Hi I think its cool
@Soapinmouth
Shut up.
@John Stathakis Fell out of the wrong side of bed this morning John?
does higher-res equal higher enjoyment?
Why don't you ask her?
@BlkRb0t
higher res always equals higher enjoyment unless source image is 640x480
@BlkRb0t
Hockey in SD = unwatchable.
Hockey in HD = awesome. You can actually see the puck in HD. (anyone remember that stupid blue cloud around the puck they had to use before HD?)
4k HD might even make NASCAR exciti... nevermind.
@BlkRb0t
When ticket prices hike up another $5-10 overtime because of this Movie theaters will have to determine how much the consumer is willing to pay to go see a movie...
@d3sc3nd3ncy Haha, nothing makes Nasscar exciting.
3D is going to be a gimmick, or at the very least not important to consumers, as long as low-quality 3D conversion is used on big budget films. Avatar and Toy Story 3 (both of which were filmed/created in 3D)? Good 3D! Clash of the Titans (post production conversion)? Terrible 3D. That aside, it's going to be a lot like HDTV in the sense that the public will accept it and pour money into product when the prices start to come down. Luckily, I think the end of low-quality 3D conversion and expensive 3D equipment will probably run on the same timetable, so when 3DTVs start showing up under $1,000, the quality of 3D conversion will have increased dramatically.
@mcdoomington
2d posts have always been a massive fail especially when you wait three post again in three minutes due to not waiting
@DefPoet
Says the guy who's replies on this article have generally been of "massive fail" quality.
@dcnoren
yet you added a even worse quailty comment to this article by replying to one you see as bad
@dcnoren
you live in the same city i was born in
GO KSU!
@DefPoet
But isn't that the spirit of engadget comments? Degrade the quality overall?
/s
;-)
@dcnoren
idn but KSU alone gives u upranks from now on from me
o_0 where was this when I went to see it last weekend! This would be totally worth the drive. The only movies I'll go see in 3D are animated. Other 3D movies get screwy outside the center of the screen in high motion action sequences imho
Headache = less enjoyment
@lexitu
no headache avatar in 3d for almost 3 hours causes no headach unless your very sensitive might cause pian on your nose bridge thouhg
Wtf is up with the comment system? It says I'm logged in but when I try to comment it says "An email has been sent to confirm your email address..."
The question is: Is pixar render the film (natively) in 4K?
I remember seeing a movie in "IMAX 3D" where I could actually see the pixels.
So yeah, higher resolution would be better.
@MioTheGreat
what movie was that cause imax movies that are shot with an imax camera have a very high res
@MioTheGreat I am interested as well. Also, did you go to a real Imax theater or one of the "Imax-lite" digital theaters?
I have 2 real Imax theaters within 30 minutes of where I live (Jordan's FTW) and 1 fake Imax (Loews on the Boston Common). The digital Imax looks like shit. I got a refund after the movie by talking to the manager.
It was one of the shitty digital IMAX 'by name only' places.
It obviously needed higher resolution for a screen that size.