When small interaxials just don't cut it! - Page 37 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 1097 Old 01-29-2013, 11:07 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Roger, what screen do you use in editing to set your horizontal disparity for depth?

I use a Vizio 32" Passive and sit about 5' away. It's a secondary monitor in my system. Then, when I am done I render a 3D iso 1080 24p file and play that in my HT using a Sony VPL VW90ES front projector on a 110" diagonal screen.

I often run into the problem that my 3D does not look good on the larger screen after looking flawless on the 32" screen. I haven't found a work flow to calibrate the 3D yet so what I do on the 32" vizio always looks good on the big front projector. This problem is not peculiar to wide stereobase as my 3D with the TD10 on some scenes also has trouble looking perfect on the projector.

BTW- the above Bellagio fountains YT video is now looking perfect on both but I've been working for weeks on a much longer project getting it to look good on the larger screen.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 1097 Old 01-30-2013, 04:00 AM
Member
 
Roger Gunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Don, I edit on my Acer passive laptop, which has a 15.5in screen. I view it from about 3ft away, which probably gives a similar apparent size to your 32in at 5ft. My final viewings are on my 42" Samsung active tv from about 7ft. The larger screen tends to give a greater depth than my smaller editing screen, so when I am setting the horizontal disparity for each scene, I reduce slightly from what appears to be perfect at the editing stage. This is purely rule of thumb, but has definitely reduced some of the minor depth problems that I was previously seeing on the bigger screen.

I would expect that with a 110in screen, any disparity that looks right on the 32in would need a reduction to give the same effect on the larger. There is probably a mathematical formula for working out %D against screen size and viewing distance, but I have no idea what it is. I probably wouldn't be able to get my head round it if I did.

There is a fascinating article on 'roundness' here http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/315roundness.html If you haven't already seen it, you may find that the information is quite relevant to getting good depth without cardboarding on the sort of subjects that you are filming.

Incidentally, I am fairly limited in my viewing space for experimenting with bigger screens as I live on a boat, but being a great environment for wildlife, I will be taking a lot of twin rig, wide base footage in the spring, using the 18x telephoto on my Panasonic rig. That should teach me a lot about stereo base and avoiding cardboarding.

Roger
Roger Gunkel is offline  
post #1083 of 1097 Old 01-30-2013, 04:00 AM
Member
 
Roger Gunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Don, I edit on my Acer passive laptop, which has a 15.5in screen. I view it from about 3ft away, which probably gives a similar apparent size to your 32in at 5ft. My final viewings are on my 42" Samsung active tv from about 7ft. The larger screen tends to give a greater depth than my smaller editing screen, so when I am setting the horizontal disparity for each scene, I reduce slightly from what appears to be perfect at the editing stage. This is purely rule of thumb, but has definitely reduced some of the minor depth problems that I was previously seeing on the bigger screen.

I would expect that with a 110in screen, any disparity that looks right on the 32in would need a reduction to give the same effect on the larger. There is probably a mathematical formula for working out %D against screen size and viewing distance, but I have no idea what it is. I probably wouldn't be able to get my head round it if I did.

There is a fascinating article on 'roundness' here http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/315roundness.html If you haven't already seen it, you may find that the information is quite relevant to getting good depth without cardboarding on the sort of subjects that you are filming.

Incidentally, I am fairly limited in my viewing space for experimenting with bigger screens as I live on a boat, but being a great environment for wildlife, I will be taking a lot of twin rig, wide base footage in the spring, using the 18x telephoto on my Panasonic rig. That should teach me a lot about stereo base and avoiding cardboarding.

Roger
Roger Gunkel is offline  
post #1084 of 1097 Old 01-30-2013, 07:31 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Thanks for the suggestion on the horizontal reduction. For some reason I had been doing the opposite and it hasn't worked out. I will try your approach on my next second pass editing. I have a 2.5 hour long timeline I need to get down to 60 minutes for pace and I saw lots of 3D problems too that need fixing.

On wide stereobase, I have a laser range finder to measure distance to near objects in the shot to determine IA settings. This measurement is entered into a stereographic calculator I use on my ipad in the field. This becomes critical when shooting hyper stereobase landscapes. Since I don't use a field 3D monitor, the measurement of objects in my scene help avoid trouble later when I pair the two camera's footage.
For example, in the Bellagio production I failed to check the near objects and they were in the shot and do not work well in 3D but they are dark so I allowed it. In the second number, I moved my rig to avoid the near object. For wider stereobase the near objects may present a problem even though they are 100, 300 and 500 ft away. This is especially true when shooting telephoto like your 18x system. If not careful you may suffer disappointment later when you pair the footage.

Thanks for the link and reference. Looks like interesting reading.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #1085 of 1097 Old 01-30-2013, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wolfgang S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The roundness artikel but also the other sides on that webpage are great readings. Unfortunately not any more in the hand of the author. But it is still a good source for the formulas behind s3D, and a good training to understand what is going on really.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang
videotreffpunkt.com
Wolfgang S. is offline  
post #1086 of 1097 Old 04-08-2013, 04:45 AM
Member
 
Powerplay4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Curitiba PR - Brazil
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
This new video was made with interaxial 28cm, with two camcorders Panasonic Lumix LX7.

Thank you!
Milton

My webpages: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My 3D videos and others on Youtube:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Powerplay4 is offline  
post #1087 of 1097 Old 04-12-2013, 06:16 AM
Member
 
Powerplay4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Curitiba PR - Brazil
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
This new video was made with interaxial 80cm, with two camcorders Panasonic Lumix LX7. Color correction was made.

Long:

Short:

Thank you!
Milton

My webpages: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My 3D videos and others on Youtube:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Powerplay4 is offline  
post #1088 of 1097 Old 04-27-2014, 01:35 AM
Member
 
Bergj69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lage Vuursche, The Netherlands
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Hi people,

I'm the greenest Rookie ever in the 3D Playing field, so damn Rookie, I haven't held a 3D camcorder yet... Don and Joe have been very helpfull in helping me struggle through some buying issues. The results of their advise so far have lead to a HDR-TD20VE (second hand buy at just over $ 715,- but that's including a carry case and a class 10 16 GB card) thats is somewhere between Germany and the Netherlands and an extra battery pack NP-FV70 that has already been delivered. And this book that will provide me with valuable back ground info, supported by a DVD "3D Movie Making" which I will read from cover to cover.

This means I'm all set to start shooting at the limited default TD20 IA of 20 mm. Which I will gratefully start with next week since I have yet a lot to learn.

Here's my dillema I've been plaguing Don extensevily with: (Sorry Don! Thanks for your good advice and patience with me! wink.gif)

For larger IA shooting I have two alternatives:

Option A: score a TD10 (I've got my eyes on one in my neighbouring countries eBay version which auction expires today) for around $500,- and a Cyclopital SBE for yet another $ 500,-. Total of $1000,- investment with wich I extend the limited IA of the TD10 from 30 mm to 140 mm. As Don made clear to me, that only extends my working range by a maximum of a few hundred feet. Perhaps I can squeeze that a bit further backwards using post editing, but that will be accompanied with cardboard cut out effect...

The Pro's of option A: eventhough the TD10 is slightly bigger and heavier than the TD20, since I don't have to carry a rig it is portable in my backpack.
I can easiliy swop between the two, no real need to set up a rig and calibrate two cams. I only have to learn how to work with one expanded IA: 14 mm, so no need to do math.
The Con's: it is highly unlikely I'll get descent 3D shots in my upcoming trip to Canada/USA.... (22nd of THIS May, so I'm pushing a time limit in decision making here...)

Option B: score a second TD20. A brand new one still in original package (someone cleaned the storage room at some wharehouse I reckon) is available at $899,- and that's including shipping. Then a rig consisting of three slider rails (one about a metre long, another two shorter ones that came out of a metre long slider, 66 cm and 33 cm) offering a wide range of variable IA settings, a synchronisor of $ 650 and a tripod with ball head and carry case. I would also need a clapboard, my guess is I'll put one together in the garage. Oh, and some quick release dove tail devices made by Manfrotto. All added up together around $2000,-.

The Pro's of option B: a second TD20 is less chunky than a TD10. The rigs will offer me unlimited 3D range (but with limitations shooting at large IA). The second TD20 can also be used in "two points of view" 3D shooting.
The Con's: The rig and tripod mean more stuff to drag around. Some time will be required setting things up and alinging it all proparly. Calculations must be made to determine the correct IA. Battery consumption is doubled since two cams run to capture one shot (though, for comparison reasons that will also be the case in option A, but from some point onward, I could do with alternate cam useage, the TD20 for regular shooting, the TD10SBE for midrange and longrange shooting, I know, the IA of 140 mm is not enough).
Post editing requires extra work the two streams need to be synchronised.

It would help me a huge deal if I could get my hands on HD (not YouTube SBS) material shot in National Park environments of both options. I've been reading as fast as I possibly could, but since English is not my native tongue, my reading speed is limited. So I haven't spotted a contributor in this discussion that has set up a rig with two TD20's. Perhaps there is one, or even more that have been shooting with two TD20's and hopefully in a very long range environment, I'm not sure. But I know for sure Wolfgang and Don have done work with two TD10's. I believe Frank gave up on the Sony's in pair. Joe has already supplied me with HD footage shot in gis early SBE stage in the Garden which I found very impressive on the medium range shots. Could you guys help me out here and make some footage available for me that is typically at long range? So both the rig versions of National Parks or deserts or lakes as well as some SBE footage?

Many, many thanks in advance for helping me out here!

Sorry to bother you all, dear readers of this thread, that you get troubled by this typical Rookie stuff at page 37... Untill a month ago I had only vaguely hunched that by now 3D shooting should be available for the amateur videographer.... So I'm just evolving out of the 3D stone age whilst you guys have been to the moon and back and are now planning a return trip to Mars....

I apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge... I am working on it!

Kind regards from The Netherlands,

Jeroen
Bergj69 is offline  
post #1089 of 1097 Old 04-27-2014, 04:05 PM
Member
 
Bergj69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lage Vuursche, The Netherlands
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23

Thanks to Don, the family got to see impressive footage of the Bryce Canyon (Valley of Fire will be on tommorow). I've shown my wife pictures of the rig set up and discussed the price. Next we saw footage from Joe that demonstrates the capacity of the SBE. We were all quite amazed by it's effect. 

 

OK, the wife decided for me: the best range that I can get will be shot using a TD10 with SBE. Her main concern about the rig: time. It is true, it will definitely consume more time to set up the rig before I can start shooting. Grabbing a TD10, with SBE already screwed on, out of the bag is a lot quicker. And, when needed, I can put it on my tripod, but not too much hassle in calculating IA, levelling and so on.

 

Unfortunatly, I was busy doing stuff with my beamer (emitter firmware upgrade had gone terribly wrong, lost 3D alltogehter) and missed out on an eBay option where I had my eye on a HDR-TD10E. I can't seem to find another one out there, so, should one of you want to get rid of his/her TD10, just let me know what you want for it! jeroen.vdberg@ziggo.nl

 

Cheers!

 

Jeroen.

 

Edit: got my self a TD10 by the end of the week if the ship that carries it doesn't sink. Thanks to Amazon.com!

Bergj69 is offline  
post #1090 of 1097 Old 04-27-2014, 05:38 PM
Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Very interesting thread, I just saw it so I don't know if it has been discussed (most likely it has), but with large interaxial distance you get the side-effect of making the whole scene look like a miniature in close distance (the brain uses the eyes I.D as reference so when it sees too much separation it scales down the size perception as it would be the case in reality). So, while the depth perception increases, the size perception decreases and also does the reality perception, therefore the difficult part is to keep all those perceptions that contribute to wow factor at the right balance...
SoToS is offline  
post #1091 of 1097 Old 04-28-2014, 09:19 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 130
SoToS- Yes, the miniaturization effect has been discussed as if beating a dead horse. First of all, let me say I don't buy it! In fact I believe it is unimportant. More important is that the illusion is well displayed and the "magic" of it entertains the audience.

The reason why is the proponents in the debate of miniaturization is a defect make it sound as if 3D stereoscopic is real, when in fact it is just an illusion for the purpose of entertainment. Second, whenever you photograph anything and display that photo smaller than real life it is miniaturized. To claim that wide IA makes something look miniature and general photography doesn't is, IMO, ignoring reality of the medium. If I squeeze a mountain onto my TV screen the mountain is much smaller than I saw it as a result of photography. Adding depth to the scene doesn't change that. Finally, with stereoscopic projection, the depth illusion varies as one's viewing distance to the screen varies. It's not constant. But what does improve by Preserving the illusion of a solid object in the distance is the entertainment value of that image. Entertainment is the only benefit of 3D stereoscopic presentation. Anyone who doesn't understand that the 3rd dimension in 3D stereo is an illusion and has no basis in scientific measurement doesn't understand the variable nature of the illusion. But what stereography can do, beyond entertain, is offer a clue as to how something appears in the real world of 3 dimensions as opposed to how it appears in flatworld of 2D. Just don't try to derive dimensions from the illusion as it is, always exaggerated or minimized.

Please understand that I am not saying everyone is entertained. There are many who will not be entertained at all by illusions. These people fall in the same bunch as those who don't enjoy a magician performing because they know it is just an illusion or slight of hand and not real "magic"


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #1092 of 1097 Old 04-28-2014, 11:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Agreed, Don. 3D "rules" are evolving, and people need to be flexible in their thinking. Little about photography and film making is "realistic." Unless we're talking about some documentaries, or creative shows that aim for a specific look and feel, extraordinary amounts of time and energy go into making a program look unrealistic. When you decide to tell a story, you usually commit to using a wide range of lenses, filters and lights that make your job easier and the results more pleasing. Usually, "realistic" programs look bad. Realism is the enemy. Most natural lighting is unpleasant - usually too flat or too harsh. So, you bring in lights and reflectors to control the look. You use a telephoto or wide angle lens because it's the only way to get the kinds of shots you want. Auxiliary lights and lenses provide a look that isn't how we see the world in real life, but they make things look better. We're used to seeing such things in 2D film making, so we don't question them anymore. We need to apply that thinking to 3D. (The same principles apply to sound recording for movies. The last thing you want for most scenes is "realistic" sound, because it's terribly distracting to the dialogue. And generally music isn't playing in the background in real life.)

The good thing here is that most of the "debates" are among the ones creating the 3D programming. Consumers don't care. They just want to be entertained. The reason Avatar made over 3 billion dollars is that it's entertaining. People didn't boycott it because they saw that virtually every shot in the movie has edge violations. Cameron understands the virtues of 3D storytelling, and he decided not to be hamstrung by traditional stereoscopic "rules." That's not to say that there are NO rules, just that common sense and good storytelling should be the primary motivators in how you work.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #1093 of 1097 Old 04-28-2014, 12:10 PM
Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

SoToS- Yes, the miniaturization effect has been discussed as if beating a dead horse. First of all, let me say I don't buy it! In fact I believe it is unimportant. More important is that the illusion is well displayed and the "magic" of it entertains the audience.

The reason why is the proponents in the debate of miniaturization is a defect make it sound as if 3D stereoscopic is real, when in fact it is just an illusion for the purpose of entertainment. Second, whenever you photograph anything and display that photo smaller than real life it is miniaturized. To claim that wide IA makes something look miniature and general photography doesn't is, IMO, ignoring reality of the medium. If I squeeze a mountain onto my TV screen the mountain is much smaller than I saw it as a result of photography. Adding depth to the scene doesn't change that. Finally, with stereoscopic projection, the depth illusion varies as one's viewing distance to the screen varies. It's not constant.

Except if the filmmaker makes you thing that you're looking on that big mountain through a window (a smaller physical window wouldn't prevent you from watching reality).
So in my view, the goal is to make the viewer forget the illusion and think of the screen as the simulation of a real window, where playback of the real thing is taking place, with the correct proportions, like being there behind an equivalent physical window of the same size (the material should be optimized for the expected viewing distance vs screen size).

If that succeeds, then the viewer can focus on the story or artistic side of the footage with the added benefits of the 3D medium. Otherwise, if he thinks "why do I have the weird impression that I'm a giant, or the cars on the road look like miniature toys?" then he won't be able to forget the illusion and he might consider the whole thing too fake, or just a gimmick.

Because of the additional depth parameter and motion, a 3D footage has more chances to be perceived as a 'window' (EDIT: vs a 2D photo). Then the scale perception of the image presented vs separation, kicks in.

The problem is that currently, 3D experience is highly restricted. If you change the viewing angle or the distance from the screen, the image won't change (except if you wear a VR headset and are watching interactive content) so we are trying to push a limited medium beyond its limits, and this is only possible with an additional illusion, by artistic means.
So, all possibilities should be explored in order to provide an immerse experience to the viewer, but not trying to sell him A, while showing him B. Everything -the illusion, should be convincing, and a convincing illusion is the one you can forget.

An additional problem might be that after hundreds of hours, the filmmaker might have trained his brain to perceive his work in a different way than the occasional viewer, and he might be more tolerant too...
SoToS is offline  
post #1094 of 1097 Old 04-28-2014, 12:49 PM
Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Usually, "realistic" programs look bad. Realism is the enemy. Most natural lighting is unpleasant - usually too flat or too harsh. So, you bring in lights and reflectors to control the look. You use a telephoto or wide angle lens because it's the only way to get the kinds of shots you want. Auxiliary lights and lenses provide a look that isn't how we see the world in real life, but they make things look better. We're used to seeing such things in 2D film making, so we don't question them anymore. We need to apply that thinking to 3D. (The same principles apply to sound recording for movies. The last thing you want for most scenes is "realistic" sound, because it's terribly distracting to the dialogue. And generally music isn't playing in the background in real life.)

You're talking about the tools to tell a story in an artistic way and cause emotions vs raw recording of reality (and I can't disagree with that), but it has nothing to do with avoiding to provide a mix of contradictory impressions to the viewer.

As for 'reality' I meant anything you pass as real. If the viewer is convinced that Godzilla looks real, then that's his reality, but any clues his brain is processing, must be consistent to the intended scale of the monster.

EDIT: So, for example, if you want to make the viewer look through the eyes of a giant at tiny people, then the large I.D would be ideal.
SoToS is offline  
post #1095 of 1097 Old 04-28-2014, 02:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 131
All these issues will be ironed out and a new set of "rules" will be established. Cameron was rather conservative with 3D in Avatar, and rightfully so. He was working within the limitations of the existing 3D infrastructure, which was minimal. This influenced his color scheme, average IA distance and other things. He ended up inventing many of the tools he needed to achieve his vision, and that work continues as he modifies his 3D camera rigs on an on-going basis. The point I was trying to make is that we need to question all our 3D preconceptions. Until Gainsborough did it in "The Blue Boy," the "rule" was that one shouldn't use a blue subject as the central image in a painting.

From Wikipedia:

"Gainsborough painted the portrait in response to the advice of his rival Sir Joshua Reynolds, who had written:

"It ought, in my opinion, to be indispensably observed, that the masses of light in a picture be always of a warm, mellow colour, yellow, red, or a yellowish white, and that the blue, the grey, or the green colours be kept almost entirely out of these masses, and be used only to support or set off these warm colours; and for this purpose, a small proportion of cold colour will be sufficient. Let this conduct be reversed; let the light be cold, and the surrounding colour warm, as we often see in the works of the Roman and Florentine painters, and it will be out of the power of art, even in the hands of Rubens and Titian, to make a picture splendid and harmonious."

Similarly dogmatic (and restrictive) rules have been adhered to almost religiously by filmmakers over the years. Then someone breaks a rule and a new rule is born. Jump cuts and a blisteringly fast editing pace used to be verboten. The opposite is the norm today, although such rules seem to be coming back into vogue a bit with 3D. I'm not advocating that we create left/right divergence so great that it's almost impossible to converge the images. That's 3D common sense. But lots of things are fair game and ought to be discussed. 3D gigantism or dwarfism fall into the fair-game-for-discussion category, IMO, even if I personally haven't used such shots.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #1096 of 1097 Old 04-29-2014, 04:18 PM
Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

The point I was trying to make is that we need to question all our 3D preconceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

He ended up inventing many of the tools he needed to achieve his vision, and that work continues as he modifies his 3D camera rigs on an on-going basis.

That second sentence is exactly the key. You just have to aim to create something new and unique, and everything else will follow. The potential difference between the new and the ordinary, will make you move ahead and evolve. It will show you what works and what doesn't and if you manage to overcome the new obstacles, you'll have your new set of tools and techniques.
Any rules broken or created will be the consequence, not the goal, and only then you'll know which ones and why. I mean, this is the end of the process, not the beginning.
You just need an open mind and no religious faith to anything. Just the scientific way of thinking (and the need to express your emotions).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

But lots of things are fair game and ought to be discussed. 3D gigantism or dwarfism fall into the fair-game-for-discussion category, IMO, even if I personally haven't used such shots.

Sure, but only the scientific way can provide proof. For example, you could make a demo of a giant and a few dwarfs and compare the effect of using the giant's interaxial distance for the giant pov and the dwarf's for the dwarf's pov vs the opposite. (of course all other parameters should be consistent, eg far more inertia for the camera on the giant vs the dwarf etc).
SoToS is offline  
post #1097 of 1097 Old 05-05-2014, 08:15 AM
Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerplay4 View Post

This new video was made with interaxial 80cm, with two camcorders Panasonic Lumix LX7. Color correction was made.

Short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wrXvDLObvo

Thank you!
Milton
Thank you, Milton. Very entertaining watching the traffic zoom about so fast! Some fascinating 3D perspectives.

3D strength was fine for my vision. I liked the slow and subtle pans and zooms.
MLXXX is offline  
Reply 3D Source Components

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off