How to make proper 3D content. - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 10:36 AM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

Fair enough. I will ask one more question and I need a technical answer.
We are talking about this rule from the first post:
"The view angle of the camera is the same as the viewer view angle."
Or as you said that the viewer see's the content with realistic geometry.

How would the film maker decide the stereo window parallax to use, as I think this description I quoted is very vague and nondescript.

Film maker should only be concerned with establishing the target screen size and during filming he should make sure
that the target screen does not dig into side walls, floor or cut objects that are in front of screen.

There is no math or parallax calculation involved or needed
since the camera used has the same geometry as human stereoscopic vision.

Mathew Orman


Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

Film maker should only be concerned with establishing the target screen size and during filming he should make sure
that the target screen does not dig into side walls, floor or cut objects that are in front of screen.

There is no math or parallax calculation involved or needed
since the camera used has the same geometry as human stereoscopic vision.

Mathew Orman


Mathew Orman

What this means "dig into walls, floor, or cut objects that are in front of screen..." is the stereo window shows a stereoscopic version of these three things, and not in one eye only?
That is the floor must be seen in a stereoscopic window, same for the walls, and same for the objects in front of the screen?


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #33 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 10:52 AM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

What this means "dig into walls, floor, or cut objects that are in front of screen..." is the stereo window shows a stereoscopic version of these three things, and not in one eye only?
That is the floor must be seen in a stereoscopic window, same for the walls, and same for the objects in front of the screen?

You will see it in the stereoscopic view finder as the real rig has realistic real time preview.
Or as mentioned earlier you can attach the rig to light weight frame that is the same size as your target window
or the stereoscopic window.

More advanced alternative would be to use laser line generators to project the stereo window into the scene.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #34 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 10:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You don't understand what I'm asking you.
I am asking if these three things when filmed need to have stereo pairs: the floor, the objects in front of the screen, the walls. If not then they can be filmed with only one eye seeing them.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #35 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 11:08 AM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

You don't understand what I'm asking you.
I am asking if these three things when filmed need to have stereo pairs: the floor, the objects in front of the screen, the walls. If not then they can be filmed with only one eye seeing them.

Stereo window is defined by two off-axis 2D cameras
so why are worrying about the scene content?
If there is a floor it will be in stereo, so would be side walls,
back walls sealing and all.
The film maker just need to make sure that the edges of the stereo window do not cut into those objects or they will look unnatural when projected back.

If you cat an actor by half it will look OK if behind the screen but if the half cut actor is floating in front of the screen it will look spooky.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #36 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 11:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

Stereo window is defined by two off-axis 2D cameras
so why are worrying about the scene content?
If there is a floor it will be in stereo, so would be side walls,
back walls sealing and all.
The film maker just need to make sure that the edges of the stereo window do not cut into those objects or they will look unnatural when projected back.

If you cat an actor by half it will look OK if behind the screen but if the half cut actor is floating in front of the screen it will look spooky.

Mathew Orman

Thanks for the example about the actor in front of the screen.
Can I get two more examples of this cutting into objects?
I want a example using the floor and one for the walls. As I'm trying to imagine how these can be filmed wrong but I'm drawing a blank.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #37 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 11:31 AM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

Thanks for the example about the actor in front of the screen.
Can I get two more examples of this cutting into objects?
I want a example using the floor and one for the walls. As I'm trying to imagine how these can be filmed wrong but I'm drawing a blank.

You got your anaglyph glasses and now you download
free StereoPhoto Maker.
Open any 3D stereoscopic image with people and floors or walls etc. and use left and right arrow to move the stereoscopic window relative to all scene objects.
You will be able to crash into floors walls and float cut objects in front of screen.

Have fun learning.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #38 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 12:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I looked and saw the objects besie the left and right wall could be moved so one eye saw the object on that wall and the other eye did not because the parallax cut it off.

That is what I was asking before.
If there is a stereoscopic picture, both sides need to be seen when showing the floor, the walls and object beside the walls, and the objects in front of the screen.

Edit, I will describe what I'm saying this way: comparing apples to apples.
The floor, walls, objects in front of the screen need a stereoscopic pair to compare.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #39 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 12:40 PM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

I looked and saw the objects besie the left and right wall could be moved so one eye saw the object on that wall and the other eye did not because the parallax cut it off.

That is what I was asking before.
If there is a stereoscopic picture, both sides need to be seen when showing the floor, the walls and object beside the walls, and the objects in front of the screen.

Edit, I will describe what I'm saying this way: comparing apples to apples.
The floor, walls, objects in front of the screen need a stereoscopic pair to compare.

Nothing wrong with that.
If Mickey Mouse is hiding behind the block of cheese on left side you may find it that it can only be seen in left eye only regardless if it is natural vision stereo or simulated one.

If you keep forcing gimmick stereographers theories on me I will quit replying to your posts.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #40 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 01:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You did say the floor, the walls and the objects in front of the screen.
Then you gave a example of in front of the screen.
Then I asked you to give examples of the floor and walls.

You then told me to make my own answer by using some sw and some pictures and then use my own invented explaination. Which I did then told you my inventive explaination.
I asked you first to give me the correct answer.
I then did what you said and tried to make my own answer.

Just so you know how it is in the order of events. I'm not out to invent this 3D technology, I asked you for a direct detailed technical example of the floor and walls which you brought up.

This gimmick stereo is not what I want either. I asked you for a descriptive explaination.
Please don't ask me to invent my own answers by self teaching myself using sw I'm not familiar with.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #41 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 02:14 PM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

You did say the floor, the walls and the objects in front of the screen.
Then you gave a example of in front of the screen.
Then I asked you to give examples of the floor and walls.

You then told me to make my own answer by using some sw and some pictures and then use my own invented explaination. Which I did then told you my inventive explaination.
I asked you first to give me the correct answer.
I then did what you said and tried to make my own answer.

Just so you know how it is in the order of events. I'm not out to invent this 3D technology, I asked you for a direct detailed technical example of the floor and walls which you brought up.

This gimmick stereo is not what I want either. I asked you for a descriptive explaination.
Please don't ask me to invent my own answers by self teaching myself using sw I'm not familiar with.

It is called hands on experience.
"How to make proper 3D content." is your own thread.
You are asking me to do a lot of work which you can do your self using my instructions.

Catting into floor will produce floor surface which extends in front of the screen.
Cutting into side walls will make the same effect as the Mickey Mouse hiding behind the cheese block.
Cutting into sealing is the same as cutting into floor.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #42 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 08:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have a question for you Mr.Orman. Is there a way to find the correct parallax to use when converting 2D to 3D. I would crop the picture to make it negative parallax but I am not sure how to make the parallax correct?


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #43 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 09:13 PM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post

I have a question for you Mr.Orman. Is there a way to find the correct parallax to use when converting 2D to 3D. I would crop the picture to make it negative parallax but I am not sure how to make the parallax correct?

Single image 3D conversion is an art unless you some have metric data about objects in the scene and there are enough objects to deduce perceptive and calculate the original cameras HFOV.
If you post the image I will be able to tell you more.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #44 of 56 Old 12-10-2010, 09:28 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
That sounds too complicated for me then. I'll just leave that discussion alone. Thank you anyway, Mr.Orman.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #45 of 56 Old 12-29-2010, 10:55 AM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Example of realistic 3D rig and sample file:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post19727336

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #46 of 56 Old 12-29-2010, 06:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
There is a middle ground on how to get a round 3D picture when talking about percieved 3D depth. There is gimmick and if you want to know how to do this so the result is pleasing the read below.

The video need to be in stereo, but there is a catch there.
The catch is just because it's in stereo doesn't mean it looks like it is.
To get the stereo picture to look like it's 3D you need to sit a distance from the display you think your audience will sit, then make the content use parallax so the stereo is visible.

The proper way to do this is to have a seating distance your audience will sit (40 degrees hfov), whatever angle from whatever size display (48 inches diagonal) - And then have the camera set to use the stereo interocular (65 mm) distance the eyes are apart.

But that's not the only way, there is gimmick too, and that is where the camera is not set at the proper interocular width apart.
Then the person making the video only needs to sit at the intended distance from the display (you choose the distance the display is viewed by the audience), looking at the intended display size (you choose the display size the audience will watch the content on), and then set the stereo window to what they think is right (sitting at that distance looking at that size display you use you judgement on the 3D effect). Although this is gimmick it is what would work.

Simply having a stereo 3D video isn't good enough, it has to be set to a distance from a intended display so the person making the video thinks the 3D effect is what they want.

The proper way to shoot 3D isn't gimmick and is detailed in the first post, but not everybody wants to do it that way so I'm showing a alternative/gimmick method.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #47 of 56 Old 01-13-2011, 09:45 AM
Newbie
 
beerstepup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
that cool knowledge.
beerstepup is offline  
post #48 of 56 Old 01-20-2011, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Maybe icester can provide some material so people can test how the floor, walls, ceiling, and people can get cut off. The last time I tried when I talked to icester I had no material and tried with some picture I got off the internet, so I couldn't understand what he was seeing.

Maybe icester can provide some test material so people can use the stereophoto maker sw and see the mistakes icester mentioned, because it's not clear yet with the free pictures online.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #49 of 56 Old 01-20-2011, 03:14 PM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 View Post
Maybe icester can provide some material so people can test how the floor, walls, ceiling, and people can get cut off. The last time I tried when I talked to icester I had no material and tried with some picture I got off the internet, so I couldn't understand what he was seeing.

Maybe icester can provide some test material so people can use the stereophoto maker sw and see the mistakes icester mentioned, because it's not clear yet with the free pictures online.
Here it is formated for 22 inch 16:9 screen image with stereo window cutting into the floor.
Notice floor extends into the viewer physical space.




Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #50 of 56 Old 01-20-2011, 03:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I see the floor seem to zoom out of the screen when I adjust the horizontal slider in stereophoto maker.


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
post #51 of 56 Old 01-23-2011, 12:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

Here it is formated for 22 inch 16:9 screen image with stereo window cutting into the floor.
Notice floor extends into the viewer physical space.




Mathew Orman

And then fixed:


My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #52 of 56 Old 01-23-2011, 12:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
http://vimeo.com/16465110

Watch that from 3:50-4:50.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #53 of 56 Old 01-26-2011, 12:46 AM
 
icester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

http://vimeo.com/16465110

Watch that from 3:50-4:50.

Sorry,
but the Sony's crap has no place here.
For distorted content or gimmick 3D make your own thread or post on millions like the Sony's.

Mathew Orman
icester is offline  
post #54 of 56 Old 01-26-2011, 08:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

Sorry,
but the Sony's crap has no place here.
For distorted content or gimmick 3D make your own thread or post on millions like the Sony's.

Mathew Orman

The mask will let you avoid window violations if you are adamant about retaining your perfectly undistorted content.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #55 of 56 Old 01-26-2011, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
scorrpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Visualizing a cut-off floor (or wall) is easy.

Consider 3D image of a box, made with a negative parallax, so the box appears to float between you and screen. The box side facing you is removed, so you are looking inside the box - seeing its floor, walls, ceiling, and back wall.
If the entire box fits on the screen, it looks good. But make the box larger, so a portion of it does not fit - you will see the floor/wall/ceiling of the box (something that appears closer) get cut off by the screen frame (something that appears further), and that's definitely unnatural.
scorrpio is offline  
post #56 of 56 Old 02-02-2011, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
8:13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I added some more to my added comment in the first post.
I will post below what I have added to the first post.
________________________________________________________

The above was for Mr.Orman to discuss the making of 3D with Mr.Bloggs, but sofar nobody has wanted to talk to him about making 3D, until now when I read Walter Murch talk about 3D: link

So after reading Walters letter to Roger Ebert I sat down and wrote the following below (I hope Mr.Orman doesn't get upset that somebody else's ideas are presented here besides his own):

3D is the perception of real distance when looking at the screen, 2D accomplished this.
"Once the x- and y-axis are specified, they determine the line along which the z-axis should lie" - wikipedia, Cartesian coordinate system.
This means once you've established the 2D x and y coordinates the z axis may exist.
2D video x and y axis brings a perception that the z axis exists, and this affiliation is seen even though there is only x and y axis.

When you see the z axis but it removes you from the story's immersion, it's because it's showing that the z axis is seen.

Test to show you 3D.
1.) Hold two fingers in front of your left or right eye and form a plus sign +, now you see how to hold your left and right hands, thumbs facing your face, in front of your left or right eye. Remember to keep both eyes open even though your holding your hands in front of only one eye.
2.) Open your computer and Notepad, make notepad full screen and then look at the white screen made by Notepad with your hands in a plus sign +, as described in step one.
3.) Now to see the 3D effect poke your thumb out towards your eye, so the thumb is pointing right in front of your eye, this is the z axis.
Now try without your thumb pointing in front of your eye, this is the x and y axis.

If your trying to see what's going on in Notepad, when your thumb pokes out it takes your attention away from the Notepad screen, doesn't it?

Presbyopia: is a age related eye disorder. What Presbyopia does to the eyes is it progressively diminishes the eyes ability to focus on near objects.

The problem of 3D TV, is that the audience must focus accommodation their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is.

Most people over the age of 50 lose the ability to link convergence and accommodation cues, due to Presbyopia.
All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

When the convergence changes, the eyes focus there. With Presbyopia the convergence changes, the convergence will be further in, but the focus cannot follow it.
This makes the mind concentrate on the convergence and not on the focus.
How this fits into films is if the mind concentrates on convergence and not focus the person identifies the video as 3D, or immersive, but if the mind focuses on the convergence and focus at the same time then there is zero parallax and so no 3D effect or immersion from positive and negative parallax.
The young eyes can see convergence and focus at close range, but the old eyes cannot because of Presbyopia, so the old eyes have the effect that 3D offers, and not 2D.

The Brechtian trick described by Walter Murch.
"Brecht created an influential theory of theatre, the epic theatre, wherein a play should not cause the spectator to emotionally identify with the action before him or her, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the actions on the stage.

For this purpose, Brecht employed the use of techniques that remind the spectator that the play is a representation of reality and not reality itself [...]. Such techniques included the direct address by actors to the audience, exaggerated, unnatural stage lighting, the use of song, and explanatory placards." - wikipedia.

To fix this Brechtian effect the z axis brings to video, you wave the z axis back and forth, gently: this waving motion breaks the focus on the z axis and then the focus goes back to the x and y axis presentation.
It matters if you wave the z axis in a 360 degree circle as compared to moving in either the x or y directions.
When you wave the z axis in a circle the focus remains on the z axis, but wave the z axis in either the x or y axis direction and the focus moves away from the z axis.
To test this, do the 3D test described before, but this time wave the hands around to the left and right, then up and down, then in a circle -You will see the Notepad screen becomes more or less visible.

Back to discussing 3D displays now, on a volumetric 3D video, the z axis when shown can be put into context of the x and y axis, because the eyes look at the z axis, then they look at the x and y axis.
To move the eyes from the z to the x and y axis, and keep focus, the eyes do not move in a circular direction - like your rolling your eyeballs in your head.

So, to define what 3D effect is : The mind concentrates on the convergence, then back to the focus and convergence, because concentrating on only the convergence and not convergence and focus may create the Brechtian distraction: not being able to focus on the convergence and accomodation seen in 2D is not a good thing, it's old man eyes.

Wikipedia says the root word of Presbyopia is Old man + sightedness, it sets in at around 40+ years of age: some people think 3D is Awesome, so old man eyes may make the world look Awesome, making the concerns 2D brings moot.
 
To tell a story, contrast zero parallax with positive and negative parallax: the main story running time is made up of over the top Brechtian theater - when the plot driven part of the story is shown, it gives feedback to this. Seeing convergence and focus in a 3D film is seeing 2D, or zero parallax - there is no Brechtian effect from the z axis, it's all story driven.
 
The story is told in z axis 3D, then 2D shows this story in a new light. In subliminal marketing, it may be that one characteristic of the topic subject is bolded and another characteristic is muted: the bolded characteristic is in 2D and the muted characteristic is in z axis 3D. 3D (Brechtian effect), gives a critical view of what happens in 2D.

Audio version


There is new, and then you are new.
This is a moral of the bears and their cereal.
8:13 is offline  
Reply 3D Tech Talk

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