GUNNAR i-AMP3D lenses are optimized to provide the highest level of polarization efficiency and lowest level of “cross talk” between eyes. In contrast, disposable eyewear will often fail to provide lines of resolution. That is the highest level of clarity available. GUNNAR lenses will provide 40 lines of resolution when measured on standard tests. Alternately, single use eyewear is mass produced and manufactured with a stamped film that acts as a filter. GUNNAR glasses are enabled with i-AMP3D optical quality lenses and technology to give you the best 3D experience. How are GUNNAR 3D glasses different from disposable 3D eyewear? When I got home from the movie, I read over the information that Gunnar had supplied with the glasses. Of course, this isn’t really a big deal, since you’ll be sitting in a darkened room with no one looking at you anyway: you’re in the theater to watch a 3D movie, not participate in a fashion show. The difference isn’t night and day, but it’s enough to be noticed.įinally, if it matters to you, the Gunnar lenses simply look better on your face: you don’t look like Drew Carey while wearing them.
It’s hard for me to quantify how much brighter, but suffice to say that the colors were noticeably richer. It didn’t take too long to realize that the image I saw while wearing the Gunnar lenses was brighter than that presented with the disposable lenses.
#Brighter 3d glass movie#
I didn’t experience any eye strain, and didn’t get a headache from the movie (something that has happened to me in other 3D films). I had no trouble with viewing angles, and was able to enjoy the perception of three dimensions regardless of how I tilted my head. The thin frame made them comfortable to wear throughout the film, and the smaller earpieces made them more comfortable than the disposable lenses. As bulky as the disposable frames were, they can be placed over prescription lenses. I wore my contact lenses for the film, but it’s worth pointing out that if you wear prescription glasses you will not be able to comfortably put the Gunnars over your normal frames. After about ten minutes of this, I simply stopped switching and enjoyed the film through the Gunnar lenses. At first, I found this to be a little jarring, and my eyes struggled with the transition. To compare and contrast the Gunnar lenses with the disposable lenses from the theater, I simply placed both on my head and swapped back and forth at different times during the film. This was intended to be an honest comparison of the products based on their performance, and not on technical bullet points. I further chose not to color my opinion of the Gunnar Optiks lenses by not reading anything about how they work, or in what ways Gunnar thinks they’re superior to the disposable lenses that the theater provides. Based on John’s review of Toy Story 3, and his comments that “the 3D was so unobtrusive as to be invisible”, I opted to see that film. Second, there’s the question of whether or not to read the marketing material about these glasses ahead of time or to go in with no preconceived notions. First, there’s the entirely subjective issue of whether you enjoy 3D movies.
#Brighter 3d glass tv#
If you’re eyeing one of the new 3D TVs from Panasonic, Samsung, or Sony, you’ll need the active lenses from the TV manufacturer or some kind of universal glasses. Caveat: these are passive circular polarized lenses, which work with passive 3D displays. If you’re a movie buff and want to really enjoy 3D movies in the theater, you might consider the new line of Gunnar Optiks 3D glasses. Hollywood is going gangbusters with the technology, though: 25 major films are slated to be released in 3D in 2011, and DreamWorks and Disney have promised that all of their animated films will be released in 3D. Although it’s been almost two years since I gawked at 3D TVs at IFA 2008, there’s still little penetration in the consumer space. There’s no doubt about it: 3D is here to stay.
0 kommentar(er)
