Talk:Disney Digital 3-D

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. (

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)[reply]

The 3-D glasses from the movie do indeed use polarised 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, ie 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)[reply]

According to the

circular polarisation is used in this technology. The behaviour of the 3D glasses is quite different from the old linear polarisation approach. The polarised light is not affected by rotating the lens - only by flipping the lens over. Kowloonese 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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 RealD. fat_pads 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's been widely reported that the upcoming Disney movie TR2N (the sequel to

]

Wrong wrong wrong Do Not Merge!

Disney Digital 3D is simply a marketing term Disney applies to any of their digital 3D releases. It is NOT another term for Real D. You can view "Disney Digital 3D" in Real D, XpanD 3D, Dolby 3D, Master Image 3D, or in those rare theatres that have purchased a 2nd digital projector and use the two projectors to separately project left and right eye images through simple polarizers. (That's the same system used by the "fake" IMAX theatres when running 3D.)

Let's consider each of these:

Real D places an electronic polarizer screen (called the "Z Screen") in front of the projector lens. The projector is arranged to flash alternate left and right eye images. The Z Screen electronically flips back and forth between two polarizations and each eye sees the correct image. Disadvantages: You need a silver screen to preserve polarization. The leakage level is so high that a portion of each image must be digitally subtracted from the opposite eye image. This requires a special digital file for Real D theatres although this subtraction may be done by the server in the future. Also onerous contract terms for the theatres. Disposable glasses.

There is a variant using the Sony 4K projector where 2K left and right eye images will be shown simultaneously via different parts of the 4K imagers. That idea would have worked with other systems but Sony made a deal with Real.

Master Image 3D works sort of like Real D but instead of the "Z screen" they use an actual filter wheel that spins in front of the projector lens. The filters work better so there is not the leakage problem. Still need the silver screen. Disposable glasses.

XpanD 3D also has the projector flashing alternate left/right eye images but uses electronic shutter glasses where each eye's lens alternately goes opaque and clear in time with an infra red signal beamed into the auditorium. Thus each eye sees only the image intended for it. No silver screen required. Expensive glasses must be sanitized (special dishwasher does this) and occasionally have batteries replaced.

Dolby 3D is a sort of high tech version of the old analglyph system with the red / cyan lenses. BTW, don't believe what you read about analglyph being so terrible. It works fine for black and white movies where the color is ONLY used to separate the images for each eye. It's terrible when they try to do color movies with it like Spy Kids 3D etc. or with TV. Anyway, the Dolby system is based on the fact that human eyes see in 3 colors, red, green, and blue but do not much differentiate within each of those colors. So what they do is use special filters that deliver a sliver of the red spectrum, a sliver of green, and a sliver of the blue, to one eye while a slightly different filter delivers a different part of the red, green, and blue spectra to the other eye. Each eye therefore gets a full color image but a slightly different red, a different green, and a different blue. So the glasses have filters to match and each eye sees its appropriate picture. This can be done with two projectors and filters but is typically done with a filter wheel that is installed inside the projector. No silver screen needed. Expensive glasses must be recycled and sanitized. The net effect of the filters does distort the color slightly but this is corrected by the adjustment of the color balance...the special settings kick in automatically when 3D is shown.

Two projector - Just send the left and right eye images to separate projectors with polarizing filters in front of the lenses. Silver screen required. Cheap disposable glasses. Easily the best system but also most costly although over time it may be cheaper than Real D given the licensing terms of the latter.

Filmteknik (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the theater where I saw Up recently they had posted a a printout of a webpage aimed at theatre directors explaining (from a marketing standpoint) the Disney 3D technology. It stated that theater owners could use it with a normal white screen, and did not need a silver screen to properly screen the movie. I don't have a copy of that printout, but I've marked the relavant section of the article as citation needed. --Mcpusc (not logged in) (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.117.63 (talk) [reply]

A silver screen is needed to preserver polarization and is necessary for Real D, Master Image 3D, or the two projector system using polarizing filters. It is not necessary with Dolby 3D which uses special color filters nor with XpanD 3D which uses a type of electronic shutter glasses.Filmteknik (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of January 2, 2010 is not supported by the reference (press release). The documentation says Dolby, and the article did the same on December 25, 2009. There is no mention in the press release of RealD. The sentence about RealD is grammatically incorrect and seems nonsense. Singing in the Rain??? Can somebody have a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.210.34 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did delete the nonsense about Singin' in the Rain, and fixed things up grammatically. However, I didn't take a close look at the mention of RealD in the sentence. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for this? Matthew Cantrell (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any. In the latest announcement Disney announced Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc., but not A Bug's Life: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/10/04/disney-3d-beauty-beast-mermaid/ --Carniolus (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should confirm the Diamond Edition of Aladdin on Blu-ray to be released in Disney Digital 3-D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.162.244 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Trivialist (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disney Digital 3-D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513062751/http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=15280 to http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=15280

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disney Digital 3-D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809153444/http://www.hoyts.com.au/Movies/details/Beauty_and_the_Beast_3D.aspx to http://www.hoyts.com.au/Movies/details/Beauty_and_the_Beast_3D.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "Disney Digital 3-D" is just a brand name Disney uses on its 3D releases, is there any actual point in having an article about it? Trivialist (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]