Talk:RealD 3D

Merger proposal

It seems to me that the Disney_Digital_3-D page says almost exactly the same stuff in paraphrase. It's just the Disney branding of the same technology --Farry (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be OK with a merge as long as any unique information in the Disney 3-D article is not lost. --NrDg 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two should be merged. The Disney Digital 3D page is misleading in that it suggests that Disney 3D is an exhibition format. It is a production format. It could be suggested that DD 3D co-opts the RealD brand- however- the real distinction is between a studio's production and a theater's exhibition technology. Napstergirl (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be merged with the Disney article. Warner brothers also uses this technology (Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D). Several smaller studios have licensed RealD technology for IMAX films. Merging the articles would give the impression that this was a technology only available on Disney films and was, in some way, different from the technology in non-Disney films. Durnett (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Durnett

Circular polarization technology

I've picked this stuff up from blogs, so it's all horribly unsourced. Maybe somebody else would like to try their hard at finding some concrete sources?--Farry (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) When I have time I will try to pull from some of the display and visualization magazines which have written up RealD. Napstergirl (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So this technique have audince use the glasses right ? --Fotte (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title needs to be amended

RealD's new brand convention is that "RealD" be rendered as all one word in order to facilitate user searches for information on the technology. Napstergirl (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I will do a move in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napstergirl (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)