Stereoscopic Smackdown, Part II

By Annlee Ellingson

November 28, 2007 9:16 AM Permalink Comments (0)

Now playing in both Imax and digital 3D, Beowulf offers an opportunity for format comparison

To quote Jeff Corwin again: The things I do for you guys. Like for The Da Vinci Code, which I saw not once but twice to compare and contrast digital in 2K and 4K, I’ve also seen Beowulf twice now, and, like with Da Vinci, I didn’t like it much the first time.

(Actually, as a side note, I’m experiencing an interesting phenomenon in which I like Beowulf more in retrospect than during the actual viewing. I didn’t enjoy the film while I watched it the first time but then recalled it fondly—until I watched it a second time, during which I also didn’t enjoy it. I think I like the movie itself but not the animation, which is distracting during but forgettable afterward. Anyone else experiencing the same effect?)

Anyway, why am I putting myself through this (with apologies to those of you who did enjoy Beowulf upon its first and perhaps subsequent viewings)? This time, as it’s the first film to play in both, I’m comparing and contrasting its presentations in Imax and digital 3D.

I attempted this same experiment a little over a year ago, watching The Ant Bully in Imax 3D and Monster House in Real D’s digital 3D back-to-back. By the end of the afternoon, my eyeballs hurt. Not from the stereoscopic viewings themselves—today’s technology is actually quite comfortable—but from sheer volume. This time out, although there are some venues such as AMC’s Citywalk Stadium in Universal City, that offer both, I let a few days pass between viewings.

The results for Beowulf were much the same: With Imax 3D’s linearly polarized passive glasses, you can’t tilt your head without the image separating into its respective left- and right-eye parts, and ghosting was sometimes apparent. It was difficult to keep track of the faster moving elements during action scenes, and any flaws that film has—such specks of dirt in the gate—are magnified on the giant screen.

Dolby’s Digital 3D system, in its first foray into the commercial market, offered a rock-solid presentation in which the action was more defined and easier to follow, but, on a smaller screen, the viewing experience was more like looking in a window rather than being immersed in the picture. The effect of an object protruding out of the screen at the audience simply lost its magic as soon as it reached the edge of the screen. Moreover, with glasses designed to block one’s peripheral vision, the eyewear create a sense of tunnel vision.

In effectively immersive 3D, the frame extends beyond the moviegoer’s peripheral vision, a situation best achieved by Imax, which is designed to position audiences close up to its giants screens. Perhaps Imax’s digital solution, due to roll out sometime next year, will offer the best of both worlds.

If we’re counting box office receipts, 3D itself is the clear winner, contributing 40 percent of the film’s $27.5 million opening-weekend ticket sales from 20 percent of theatres. But among all stereoscopic screenings, Imax’s giant-screen format accounted for 13 percent of receipts from 84 screens—or 32.5 percent of the 3D box office from less than 10 percent of 3D engagements.

http://boxoffice.com/blogs/annlee-ellingson/2007/11/stereoscopic-smackdown-part-ii.php