| Author | Message | ||
     Alatar Rating: N/A |
This may be elsewhere on the site, but if not, there are developments on the cross-lawsuits regarding the 2D to 3D process both Imax and In-Three claim to have patents on. See http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050804/to085.html?.v=11 | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
And here is a Wired article on the In-Three presentation at the DGA's "Digital Day": http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,68406,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
I had studed the first article ... I can not undurstend fully what had happend at the court. Can anybody (native English speaker with law background) translate the information to normal commaon English ? | ||
| stereoboy Rating: N/A |
go to In-Three new web site. there is a heading under press releases click the icon there is a heading stating that they have defeated IMAX'S effort to stimey In-Three in developing there new 3d process. way to go In-Three!!!!keep up the good fight!!! i look foward to seeing STARWARS and other great movie blockbuster favorites in this new 3d on the big screen.....i can't wait!! when will we the, 3d fans get to see a test of In-Three technology?????????i hope soon | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
Stereoboy: In this case I do not a bit undertnad why are the IMAX people happy with the court resuluts (see the first article) ... | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
As I understand it, and keeping in mind that this is an Imax PR release, essentially what it says is that the preliminary attempts by In-Three to have Imax's lawsuit thrown out have been rejected by the judge. This lawsuit (Imax's) will thus now go to trial. Again as I understand it, this is one of two cross-suits, both companies claiming the other is using their proprietary technology. stereoboy: I don't think Imax doesn't want you to see this, I think they just want to be the ones to do it, rather than In-Three. | ||
| stereoboy Rating: N/A |
i think there will be a deal between IMAX and In-Three. why ? Lucas,Speilburg,Jackson etc have come out saying that In-Three showed them clips of there process over a year ago. where ,when and to who was IMAX 3d process shown??? they, IMAX, have to show proof they had the process first. the big Hollywood people seem to back In-Three. IMAX might have a similer process but it will be a fight for them to get a win in the courts. one of them will settle. | ||
| anon Rating: N/A |
i remember reading a while back that there was a fallout between inThree and Imax, I suspect they were supposed to be working on 2d-3d conversions together as a team, but there were some differences. So it now looks like both parties are fighting to retain know-how and right of use. So much for NonDisclosure Agreements. If you want some good conversion know how, check out AnotherWorld's demos too (made in Asia) -Anon | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
I did recieve an email from In-three, in effect saying that imax has lost out in the case. I was thus convinced that imax was at fault, in all fairness however, in-three should have mentioned the other verdicts reached by the same courts as is pointed out in the article on yahoo above. Regards Clyde | ||
| Anon Rating: N/A |
The Press Release from In-Three (also posted on their website) simply pointed out that IMAX had failed to get a Preliminary Injunction against them. It does not claim that IMAX had lost the entire case. However, IMAX's Press Release also is misleading. For more complete information, go to: http://www.worldenteractive.com/courtorder.htm | ||
| stereoboy Rating: N/A |
i only hope the best 3d process wins. and they get on with releaseing 3d versions of big hit movies, very soon. evedently these 3d processes work and look good....thats why the big legal fight. if IMAX had this technology first why didn't they use it and develop it,and release movies in this process????seems to me they are late to the party,and want to impead its development of In-Three???? | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
I had got from US patent office all the In-Tree patents and I just now study them ... From my opinion In-Tree is trying to patent well know things based on standard geometry transformations. The patents are de-facto a sumation of all already known principles of 2D-3D conversion (but very well done sumation) .. I do not know how it works in US patent system, but in Europe it will be probably imposible to patent thing from the public-domain information category (e.g. how to add a 3D perspective to a 2D room drawing) ... I hope finaly both IMAX and In-Tree will be able to put on the market the results of their 2D-3D work (as well s other companies ) and live in piece without fighting for patents describing trivial geometric transformations witch are people already doing for a long time ... | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
So in summary of the summary: - InThree claimed that the transfer of (what is now Imax's) technology from Geshwind (the inventor) to 3DMG was illegal; the judge found it was legal. - InThree's request for a stay pending reevaluation of Geshwind's patent was denied. - both parties' requests for preliminary injunctions in the case were denied. Have I got that correct? | ||
| A noni-mouse Rating: N/A |
Update on Aug. 23: http://www.worldenteractive.com/motion.htm | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
Can anybody translat this to normla language again ? | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
In-Three was to have given Imax all kinds of technical information by now, and they apparently haven't done so (Specifically, on June 2nd, Judge McMahon wrote that “In-Three is ordered to produce all responsive documents, including, but not limited to all versions of the accused software at issue in this action and all pending patent applications referring or relating to the process of converting a film or digital image from 2D to 3D.”). IMAX has therefore requested the court to find In-Three in contempt and impose fines for this (In-Three's violation of the June 2 order). A hearing on IMAX’s above request is scheduled for September 20th. In addition, an IMAX request moving a different hearing up a few weeks, was also granted. At least, that's my understanding of it. Probably doesn't mean much, all part of the legal manoevering I would imagine. On the other hand, my ignorance of all things legal is boundless, so I may be entirely wrong.  | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Technical point: I think that the judge's actual order was for In-Three to give the information to the "court" itself -- which presumably would have given the judge and all sides, including IMAX, access to it... | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
Yes, I think you're right -- sorry for the confusion. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
Maybe IMAX should use their money to create new high-quality IMAX 70mm films instead to waste it for laysuits. In Europe, most IMAX theatres are in trouble or have already closed. People from IMAX in Vienna said the reason is lack of attractive films. Recent films like Ghost of the Abyss and Ocean Wonderland were very poor, both the story and the digital recording technology. | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
As with everyting nowadays, remixing is in.  Instead of developing compelling new movies in 3d, their best bet is to re-lease the classics in "extruded 3d" (dimensionalized is a trademarked name Thats why the waste of money in securing exclusive conversion rights to blockbuster 2d movies. -regards Clyde | ||
| Charles Rating: N/A |
Peter Wimmer is right about IMAX's misguided efforts. IMAX took a giant step backward in 3-D technology when their theaters stopped using shutter glasses and switched to the the current cheaper, inferior anaglyph technique. If I were cynical, I might suggest that IMAX is now showing "ocean adventure" films because the color distortion caused by the anaglyph lenses isn't quite as obvious underwater :-( | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
Well, I can't say I disagree with you, but it's an easier thing to say than to do. Because of the relatively small number of venues, the economics of Imax dictate that you can't spend more than $10M - $15M on a movie and make any money. It is simply impossible to make a decent movie for this amount of money. So unless you have a *lot* of additional money from sponsors (e.g. the NASA films) or are both good *and* lucky (e.g. Everest), LF production houses are essentially doomed to make mediocre movies at a loss. @Charles: you are confusing anaglyph and polarized, Imax has only ever had one Anaglyph production, and that was "We Are Born of Stars", made in the 1984 for a world's fair in Japan. However, it's true that they've stopped selling active projection systems, because theaters discovered that the cost of managing so many expensive headsets was prohibitive. Sadly, I imagine theft contributed a lot to the problem. | ||
| XYZ Rating: N/A |
Maybe Charles speek about the Barco "Infitec" technology based on wavelenght shifting. It is a bit better than angalyph, but generaly far from polarized system quality. The only one advantgage is - no depolarizing screen neccesary. | ||
| Charles Rating: N/A |
Alatar: Your information re: current IMAX movie glasses isn't entirely accurate. IMAX may be using polaroid glasses in some theaters, but when I saw IMAX's 2005 release "Aliens of the Deep" four months ago at IMAX's theater in the Virginia Marine Science Museum, the glasses were definitely anaglyph, with a somewhat reddish left lens and a somewhat orangish right one. Screen colors were significantly distorted, and ghosting was obvious in foreground objects. (I would have preferred polaroid filters, which at least wouldn't have distorted the colors.) I know that economics are driving IMAX's decisions, but they arten't going to increase revenues by decreasing the technical quality of their product. | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
Well... I'll ask around. But it is inconceivable to me that Imax would allow anaglyph in their theaters. Perhaps, as xyz says, it is or was a test of the selective wavelength filters, they are slightly different colours in each eye (as opposed to anaglyph, which are complementary or nearly complementary colours). It's also not clear to me whether this would be Imax or the theater management (almost all Imax theaters are franchised) that would set this up. As I said, I will ask and let you know what I can. | ||
| Charles Rating: N/A |
Alatar: Based on what you and XYZ say above, it's entirely possible that the colored filter glasses which were used by the Virginia Marine Science Museum's IMAX theater in April were actually Barco Infitec "selective wavelength" type rather than true anaglyph. (I posted my 01:45 pm note to you before I saw XYZ's message.) But if so, XYZ is right that this new technology is at best only "a bit better" than standard anaglyph and far worse than polarized projection. The images were in my opinion very disappointing, with the same faults (color distortion, ghosting) as true anaglyphs. If IMAX can no longer afford to use shutter glasses, the second best technique after all these years still seems to be the old fashioned polaroid method. | ||
| Scott Warren Rating: N/A |
When I saw "Polar Express" at the Dallas IMAX in December, it was polarized (linearly 45/45), but looked great. I knew better than to tilt my head (did so once just to test the ghosting changes), so I had no trouble. No headaches, plenty of brightness. And linear polarized is CHEAP for big theaters, even with plastic glasses (not the usual paper), so I would wonder why an IMAX would ever consider a step down from a tried-and-true method. They ought to do the active/passive thing with a high frame rate projector and a z-screen, then they wouldn't have to worry about owning (and calibrating) 2 projectors. Scott | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
Firstly, I imagine it's correct that they were testing the Infitec filters, although as I said above, this may not be an Imax call: it's quite possible the theater did it. I can't believe that they would move away from polarized for cost reasons, as they *sell* their glasses for $2 a pair, so they must cost even less than that to buy in. Perhaps it's the large polarization-retentive screen that is the big cost issue? Did the Virginia theater ever use polarized before? If not, perhaps the theater was reluctant to shell out for new screen when they stopped using alternate eye? Or perhaps the theater was never equipped for 3D in the first place and this is a simple way of showing 3D content without changing the projector or screen? "They ought to do the active/passive thing with a high frame rate projector and a z-screen, then they wouldn't have to worry about owning (and calibrating) 2 projectors.": well yes, but appreciate that it would be the theater worrying about this; Imax would be rubbing their hands in glee as the would get to sell another projector. Imax actually did make a 48FPS projector at one point -- called Imax HD -- but I have never heard of them getting a high enough fps rate to directly do 3D from one film strip (presumably 96fps). Bear in mind that the whole original concept of Imax is centered around an invention -- the rolling loop transport -- that enables a 15-perf pulldown. Before that, any film transport trying to pull down more than 5-8 perfs per frame would rip the print to shreds in a few showings. 96 FPS would perhaps be beyond the realm of practical application any current film transport. Also, 96fps means each frame has to be on the film twice (R1-L1-R1-L1-R2-L2-R2-L2-R3 etc) which would double the already very expensive print cost. | ||
| Scott Warren Rating: N/A |
Yeah, I think that's one more reason why forward-thinking theatres (and distributors) are suggesting digital--that WOULD be doable. As for IMAX size/quality running from a digital projector...? Scott |
