Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 68

Thread: Is 3D going anywhere?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by dohbot View Post
    i saw avatar and i didn't find the 3d that impressive.
    You´re hard to please, eh?

  2. #32
    Here's the problem
    http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-conte...zz1fb436a3.jpg

    The plot and characters of Avatar were so crap - I was just looking around at the scenery to pass the time until the film was over - because whilst I could use many negative words about it - the word 'spectacular' has to be in there somewhere.

    So - they give each eye a different image to present a fake depth of field. That's fine - my eyes can do that, I've been looking at anaglyph images for 6+ years and making my own as well.

    HOWEVER two problems :
    Anything other than what is the 'focal point' of that shot, is out of focus. So you adjust your vision to look at, say, one of Cameron's jelly-fish floating things. Your eyes adjust their pointing to allow for the depth given to them, but you can't focus on it - it's out of focus because we're supposed to be looking at a characters face some meters beyond the jellyfishthing.

    Well sorry - but that screws my eyes. I'm either short-sighted or long-sighted as far as they are concerned for almost the whole film. Same problem with 'Up' - which was similarly bad. Strangely - Tom Hank's last Moon Imax 3D thing didn't do this to me.

    Secondly- as the 'shot' changes from one angle to another - then the depth changes and your eyes have to adjust.

    Combine all these factors, and I come out of 3D films like I've been reading a book for 10 hours straight - my eyes are utterly exhausted and create a very unique and unpleasant headache.

    I plan to watch two more movies in 3D before I give up on it for good. Hubble at an Imax. And some other 3D film at another local cinema just to see if it's something unique about the cinema we usually attend that made Up and Avatar so painful to watch.

    Avatar was pretty, but had no genuine merit beyond that. Like a catwalk model. I don't like airheads, and I don't like the look of the future of Cinema, if 'Avatar' is it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,610
    Your image itself doesn't highlight anything new. Even in 2D, the camera will be focused on the subject thereby limiting what you are allowed to look at.

    The problem is, as you say, that your brain is tricked into thinking it is looking at a scene rather than an image.

  4. #34
    But with 3D - your eyes are presented with depth - so you try and enjoy the depth - your eyes actually change their pointing to pull their intersection from infinity (pointed together, straight out ) to closer ( towards cross-eyed). And your eyes pull focus to match....but they can't focus.

    If it's just a flat 2D image, then you can enjoy it like you can enjoy any photograph. Your eyes have no adjusting to do, not depth to accomodate.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,610
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    But with 3D - your eyes are presented with depth - so you try and enjoy the depth - your eyes actually change their pointing to pull their intersection from infinity (pointed together, straight out ) to closer ( towards cross-eyed). And your eyes pull focus to match....but they can't focus.

    If it's just a flat 2D image, then you can enjoy it like you can enjoy any photograph. Your eyes have no adjusting to do, not depth to accomodate.
    Yes, we're both saying the same thing.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    I haven't seen Avatar (don't particularly plan to, and even if I did it wouldn't be in 3D). It sounds like they use "3D" to create depth, but also keep in the 2D film tricks to simulate depth. Specifically, focal effects.

    I wouldn't think you're really want to use both, for the very reason you mention. While looking at whatever is specifically supposed to have focus, it adds to the depth illusion. But if you try to look at anything else, it totally wrecks it.

    I'd imagine the film(s) you've seen in 3D and haven't experienced the problem are also films that don't use focal depth, only 3D with every object in focus. I think that's better, myself.

    As an aside, I've been playing a lot of Modern Warfare 2 on XBox. They did a very great job of using focal effects. It's first person, for anyone not familiar. And an example is when you go from just running around to looking down your gun's sights. When your gun is drawn up, you focus on the sights and everything around you that's not "down sight" goes blurry for a second as your virtual "eyes" adjust. There's similar focal effects based on what you're aiming at and what kind of sight or scope you're using. It's not the first game to do it, but it's the most seamless and well done I've seen. Keep in mind I don't play a lot of those kinds of games, and I just got an xBox a few weeks ago.

    Even still, it's not perfect, as there's times when you're looking at other areas on the screen than where you're aiming. But it brings up the thought, if they could shoot a movie in 3D, and have different "depths" processed seperately, AND have some kind of eye scanner to tell what object you're looking at, AND focus all the layers accordingly, that would help. But that'd still leave the weakness of only working on objects that are "on screen", and the fact that perspective usually don't fit only "on screen".

    I'd guess some fully emmersive 3D goggle system could work, but how bulky, expensive, and awkward is that?

    I'm not convinced we need 3D anyway.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,088

    January 27, 2010
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Movies Going 3D
    ...Warner Bros. has been successfully testing completed 3D footage of Clash of the Titans in 3D. Executives have been so enamored with the results that they have gone ahead and green-lit Potter...for 3D conversion...

    thehdroom.com

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    "3D Converstion"? That sounds like a pain in the rear, considering from what I understand the movies have already been filmed. I sort of thought you had to double shoot the film, or something.

    Good thing I don't like the Harry Potter movies to begin with, though I have read the books. It'll give me one more argument against going to see it when they release them (Tara always wants to go on opening night. Ick!)

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4,243
    <rant>
    I finally saw Avatar, and I wasn't impressed with the 3d either.
    The technology has been around for a long time, and I've seen a lot better-made movies in it in 1995 already (and I think they've been around even before that). But this movie was too obviously written for 2d, and added on some 3d effects.

    Even where it wouldn't have been necessary - you could have added the focus plane when you converted to 2d and left the 3d one completely in focus. But also in all of the aspects of cinematography, scenery and pacing. One of the first scenes in the movie shows out-of-focus shoes walking down a hallway. That's just not how you utilize the medium. Most of the shots were changing orientation too often, which works in the aerial flight scenes as they should be confusing, but is just jarring when you're following the protagonists' path through the jungle and have to re-orient yourself every other second without a real good cause for the scene switch. A smooth camera path between orientations instead of a cut would have been better.

    But that would have meant writing one screenplay for 2d and a completely different one for 3d...

    Also, most of the time I felt I was watching a slightly 3d scene inside a box. Not at all like the 3d IMAX and other science shows I've seen before, which really try to include the audience. A few times they tried to have floating random stuff closer to the audience, but since it was out of focus, it completely lost point. They also shot at the audience a few times, but because of the same problem it was rather unimpressive. I've seen things that made me flinch. This didn't even make me blink.

    Also, if I were inclined to drinking games I'd take a shot whenever they took pains to "film" something through a dirty glass pane just for the neat 3d effect. They really had that one way too often.

    </rant>


  10. #40
    I saw Avatar twice, first in 2d and then in 3d iMax and I was kinda blown away by the 3d experience myself, I smiled 3/4 of the movie. I'm totally open to watching movies at him in 3d but just movies. I think it really looks neat.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Saw Avatar this week and found the 3D very uncomfortable. I had come to the same conclusion to others here, that it is due to the contradiction of having a depth of field but no ability to adjust focus.

    Not helped by the fact I wear glasses: If I wore them under the 3D specs there were terrible reflections so I ended up perching them on the outside which gave me a limited "window" to look out of.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,897
    I understand that some early American films were shot with a second camera positioned quite near the primary camera. This was not intended to pick up an alternate angle, but simply to provide a second negative, as it wasn't easy to duplicate these. Sometimes they assembled a complete "foreign market" version out of the secondary negative, and this was sent to Europe, because it was cheaper to have trhe prints struck there rather than sending over multiple copies.

    (There are two versions of The Phantom of the Opera (1925) out there, with slightly different angles. Unfortunately, there are no good known copies of the "primary" version, and the version usually shown today was one put together from the secondary source when they added primitive sound to it in 1929.)

    It would seem to me that, if footage can be located wherein two offset cameras truly captured the same action simultaneously, a true 3-D image could be reconstructed. There's be a lot of computer processing required, to be sure, but it ought to be possible.

  13. #43
    Interestingly ... the best 3D moving picture experience I have ever had (bearing in mind my lack of stereoscopic vision) was at the Leicester Space Centre's Planetarium, The hemi-spherical screen combined with mostly CGI imagery was truly spectacular and provided a great faux-3D experience with real depth, without using special glasses or requiring the viewer to have two fully functional eyes.

    If the cinema was going to move in this direction I, for one, would be very interested ... but it clearly wouldn't work in all genres of movie.

  14. #44
    Full-dome video is FAR more interesting to me than 3D. Although believe it or not, they are now rolling out 3D full dome. :O

    Imax is also fighting a loosing battle to FullDome as well.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Well, I beg to differ about the mixture of 3d and limited depth of field.

    This is a complicated issue, largely because of the insanely clever trickery that your brain gets up to. Your eyes do have limited depth of field. Bring something up close to your eyes, say 6", keep your focus there, and then try to read the book titles (not from memory!) on a shelf on the other side of the room...

    Problem is, your brain does something immensely clever - it has already seen the bookshelf, so you perceive it as nowhere near as blurry as it is. You brain (not your eyes) are used to this trickery, so things seem in-focus (or close to it) when they really aren't. In a 3d film however, it can't cheat, as it normally does.

    Anyway, I found Avatar's 3d-and-out-of-focus effect quite OK, and even 'natural'. Ish. There may be some peripheral (grin) reasons for that:
    - I'm a photographer, and in my time I've done a lot of very shallow depth-of-field portraits, and I use d-o-f effects frequently
    - I'm shortsighted. I wore glasses to Avatar, but the thing is, if you're shortsighted you are very used to blurry backgrounds - the brain can't 'pre-resolve' stuff it can't focus on.

    So maybe that means I am more relaxed about out-of-focus stuff? I dunno.. I've certainly had problems with other films, especially the red-blue glasses variety. I would have to observe that in the reviews of Avatar I've seen (quite a lot..) this issue hasn't been a biggie for most viewers.


    PS - One of my party tricks - for a somewhat related demonstration of this perceived clarity effect, move your eyes to some text on this screen that you haven't yet read. Hold your focus exactly on a particular word and do NOT allow your eyes to move. Now, using your peripheral vision only, try to read the words that are say, 6 lines above/below the word you are focused on. Can you? And yet, would you say they were blurry, or just sort of... indistinct? Many folk don't realise that you only have a very narrow tunnel of clear vision - but it doesn't matter much because your brain normally fills it all in by quickly casting your eye about, generally without your noticing.

    PPS - I actually do some (very limited) stereo photography occasionally.. Here's a rather mundane example (this is a 'cross-eye' stereogram version - cross your eyes slowly until the images merge - this will give you a headache if you are not used to it..):
    http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2...48119320soMXBL
    Trivia - see anything strange about the clouds, and do you know why that happened?

    To date I have not done any of these using depth of field effects, but now I am inspired to give it a try - I may post some experiments later.. Preferably something a little more aesthetic..

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,199
    Quote Originally Posted by chrlzs View Post
    http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2...48119320soMXBL
    Trivia - see anything strange about the clouds, and do you know why that happened?
    Let me guess, you did the stereo pic by taking two separate pictures, moving the camera between then, so the clouds had time to move a bit?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Let me guess, you did the stereo pic by taking two separate pictures, moving the camera between then, so the clouds had time to move a bit?
    Yes, 10/10, Henrik! No fancy equipment, just carefully move a few cm to the right..

    I can't remember what delayed me, but there was about 20 seconds between images, and in that time, some of the clouds moved just the right amount to bring them into the wrong position for the stereo effect. I was actually quite surprised when I put the two images together, to see just how convincing the illusion is - the cloud is, quite clearly, in front of the second pylon...!

    Here's another:
    http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2...48119320AUSnAA
    This time only a minor anomaly with tree foliage in the background. I apologise for the routine subjects, I've only really been experimenting... By the way, if you really want to hurt your eyes, you can click on it to view at the original size...

    One day I must find out what the size limit is, before you seriously damage your eye muscles...

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by chrlzs View Post
    Your eyes do have limited depth of field.
    I know they do. The TV behind my laptop is out of focus as I'm looking at this dot

    .

    That's fine. My eyes are pointing slightly convergent to co-register on the screen, the lenses focuses for about 60cm.

    Now - I can look up at the TV. My eyes deconverge a little, to the TV about 300cm away, the lenses pull focus for the TV. Now, the laptop is out of focus.

    Switch to Avatar.

    The characters are getting boring - so I want to have a look at the awesome environment behind them.

    My eyes de converge a little to coregister on the background, but whatever the lenses of my eyes do, it remains out of focus. My eyes can explore the depth of the movie, but they can't enjoy it because we are forced to focus on the one and only thing the cinematographer has left in focus. Eyes, like cameras, have limited depths of field. BUT - I have control over what my eyeballs focus on. In a 3D movie, I don't.

    I am presented with depth of field, and I can't use it. That's why I leave 3D movies with an epic headache., and why, as mentioned in another thread - if someone says "You've got to see it in 3D" - I'm probably not going to go and see it at all.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    ...
    Switch to Avatar. The characters are getting boring - so I want to have a look at the awesome environment behind them.

    My eyes can explore the depth of the movie, but they can't enjoy it...
    There is no real reason why Avatar, or indeed any 3d film, cannot be shot using an imaging system with large amounts of depth-of-field (d-o-f) so that pretty much everything is in focus, especially given that much of it was CGI anyway.. (Just try using any small sensor digital camera...)

    But to me, shallow d-o-f is a wonderful and useful *tool*. It allows you to isolate subjects, to provide soft and artistic aesthetics, to provide depth (either in conjunction with, or the absence of, 3d)..

    To dump that from a film, just so that when someone gets bored with the action, they can see everything clearly?? Can you imagine a director saying this to his design team - "now, I think we're gunna lose their interest here - better have some cool, infocus stuff for them to look at.." Makes zero sense to me.

    To me the 3d, the depth of field, the sound, the colour, the design and general aesthetics.. they are just components of a movie and the director chooses how to use them to best tell, and augment, the story. Some movies use only some of those tools. They could have chosen a b&w documentary effect, but somehow, I just don't think that would have worked on Avatar... but might have on District 9..? (Which I didn't like - no creative use of d-o-f that I recall!)

    So, I'm glad the shallow d-o-f stuff was in there. I liked it.

    Taking it away would be like... taking the lens flares out of Star Trek!! {/sarcasm}


    Anyway, if the story is *everything*, I think it would be best to stick to reading books. That way everything will be in sharp focus, and you can't even complain about the casting.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,068
    Story isn't everything. It just ought to weigh more than "pretty" in film choices.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,199
    Quote Originally Posted by chrlzs View Post
    To dump that from a film, just so that when someone gets bored with the action, they can see everything clearly?? Can you imagine a director saying this to his design team - "now, I think we're gunna lose their interest here - better have some cool, infocus stuff for them to look at.." Makes zero sense to me.
    Makes about as much sense as a director making a movie with time where the audience gets bored
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by chrlzs View Post
    Can you imagine a director saying this to his design team - "now, I think we're gunna lose their interest here - better have some cool, infocus stuff for them to look at.." Makes zero sense to me.
    That a script as empty and uninteresting as Avatars would make it all the way to the big screen makes zero sense to me. And Cloverfield. And Star Wars.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,088
    Is 3D going anywhere?
    Yup---The bank!
    April 21, 2010
    ...The security features [on the "new" US$100 bill] include a blue 3-D Security Ribbon on the front of the note that contains images of bells and 100s, which move and change from one to the other as you tilt the note...
    wsj.com

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,897
    I'm sure that I brought this up somewhere on the board, though I can't find it just now.

    These people claim that they have used the two extant versions of The Phantom of the Opera (1925) to reconstruct a 3-D version.

    http://www.carmichael3d.com/poto3d.html

    (Back in the silent era, the studios used to shoot with a secondary camera near the primary, so that they had coverage in case ther primary shot was spoiled, and also to construct a second negative to be sent overseas where new prints would be struck. This was cheaper than duplicating prints domestically. As Universal used their secondary negative to produce a part-talking release in 1929, it's always been well-known that there were two close-but-not-quite versions of Phantom out there.)

    When I floated the idea here, there was skepticism. It seems that the two cameras would have to be placed at known positions or offsets, and that true 3-D couldn't be achieved from just any two angles, even with massive computer processing.

    I got to review a recent 3-D vertsion of Nosferatu (1922) for a magazine. It was pretty clear that they'd simply cut-and-pasted (assisted by the computer) individual frames into a few layers of depth. Sometimes it worked, other times, not so. In this particular case, the new producers sought to "improve" the film by inserting clips from other films (ouch!) and eliminated original footage to maintain the same running time. The end result was mildly interesting, but hardly worth the effort.

    Maybe the new Phantom will be better, but I'm not hoping too much.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,782
    Quote Originally Posted by DonM435 View Post
    When I floated the idea here, there was skepticism. It seems that the two cameras would have to be placed at known positions or offsets, and that true 3-D couldn't be achieved from just any two angles, even with massive computer processing.
    For what it's worth, the computing power required to produce 3-D is not all that massive anymore.

    I watched an original "Star Trek" episode yesterday in 3-D with my television calculating the depth information in realtime, and this was from a single-camera original - it didn't even have a second camera angle for help. Did surprisingly well, but obviously not perfect (particularly with SFX shots).

    EDIT: After posting this, I note that you did say "true 3-D," which this obviously wasn't.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,469
    To be honest with all here, I find 3-D to be too fake. Things can look too much like a Ninetendo game or those metal ducks at a shooting gallery and I am just not that impressed with it. I was told that because I my spectacles have plastic lenses that the refractive index of the plastic does not work well with the 3-D glasses that are handed out. Nonetheless, I find VHS video tapes to be just fine and I can't see much improvement with DVD, HD or anything else on the market. My brain does calculate that all those advancements are better but I am left feeling it is a waste of money and technology.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    Oh for the love of [whatever relevant deity], please, video game industry, pleaaase keep 3D away from my video games! PLEASE! They're one of my few remaining and cherished pastimes. If those get ruined, I might have to actually do something pr--pro---productive! *shudder*
    As long as it can be toggled off....

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    6,525
    My in-laws have a 3-D tv. The images from normal TV are razor sharp, but the actual 3-d is annoying after a few minutes.

    Plus the kids fight over the glasses - one takes them off, misplaces them and blames another child who was peaceably watching up to that moment. Children also think the glasses make great scrapers and sanding tools. I am not exactly sure why other than the fact that the glasses are pricey and you can't just by some at any store.
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Triangles are my favorite shape
    "Three points where two lines meet"
    Tessellate, Alt-J

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    My in-laws have a 3-D tv. The images from normal TV are razor sharp, but the actual 3-d is annoying after a few minutes.

    Plus the kids fight over the glasses - one takes them off, misplaces them and blames another child who was peaceably watching up to that moment. Children also think the glasses make great scrapers and sanding tools. I am not exactly sure why other than the fact that the glasses are pricey and you can't just by some at any store.
    I could get a new pair of glasses for my TV just by going to a 3D movie at the theater and "forgetting" to put the glasses in the recycle bin when I leave.

    But, since it came with 2 child size pairs, 2 clip-on pairs, and 8 adult size pairs, I'm not expecting to need new ones anytime soon.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    6,525
    My in-laws have 8 pairs, but somehow when children are involved, it seems like 2 pair too few.
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Triangles are my favorite shape
    "Three points where two lines meet"
    Tessellate, Alt-J

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: