3D for YouTube - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 8 Old 02-17-2012, 02:54 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
katedunl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
We had an interesting time making this video for Sprint's 3D mobile device. We wanted it to pop on the little screen as well as the computer screen. To do this, we had a variety of cameras to capture the best angles of the bubbles.

The video we shot is called "3D Bubble Mania" and you can find it on Youtube. I would love to get your feedback on what we could have done to make it better.
katedunl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 Old 02-17-2012, 10:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 31

My Videos

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

cakefoo is online now  
post #3 of 8 Old 02-18-2012, 12:13 PM
Gae
Member
 
Gae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Firstly the positive....

1) There is a nice separation in most shots giving a good 3D depth


Now the negative....

1) There is an inconsistency with the depth with one scene having hardly any separation at all and a couple of others having a bit less (consistency of depth is crucial with 3D IMO)
2) A couple of the scenes near the middle and end have the stereo pairs reversed and so don't work.

Otherwise very good 3D with a nice use of Saint-Saens "The Aquarium".

Gae
Gae is offline  
post #4 of 8 Old 02-18-2012, 02:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The 3D looks on par with what i normally see with film based 3D content, especially GoPro content. So thats good at least, but I think it could be better since I think all film based 3d depth could be better.

Good 3D depth depends so much on a properly sized interocular distance, or the distance between the eyes (and the camera lenses), which is hard say what is right, because it depends on so many things, like children vs adults, theater vs. home and screen size. If you get your interocular distance correct, objects on the horizon should should match your interocular distance, further increasing the depth to make it lifelike, since thats what your eyes do in real life. But if a child watches the film, with a lower interocular distance, or you suddenly buy an 80" 3DTV, now the interocular distance would be too wide and you'll have to back up from the display a bit to see it correctly. With your film, you can see the separation at infinity is not nearly your interocular distance, thus you don't have to worry about that, but adults, with their greater IO distance are missing a bit of 3D depth from not having it.

If you want to see what the world looks like "filmed" with an IO distance of 6.5cm, the average IO distance if i remember correctly, click the link in my signature and watch the second or third video, the first ones a little dark. These are games, but i didn't have any other way to show what life-like 3D looks like. They are rendered the same way as movies are filmed, with the cameras facing forward. Keep in mind, the 3D setting are configured so that you must be relatively close (just under 1 meter) to a 46" or similar sized monitor. You can do the same thing with a GoPro, but you'd have to rig your own holder.

The clarity is the only other thing that could be improved obviously. Youtube does its part in hammering the clarity, but that looks like standard GoPro pixelation. I see it or something similar in I think all GoPro 3D videos on youtube. I don't know why they would compress it like that but they do. My plan for GoPro filming is to record each eye in 2D and edit the two recordings with some other software. Theres no reason side-by-side has to be pixellated like that, even on youtube.
tory40 is offline  
post #5 of 8 Old 02-18-2012, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Tory, interaxial distance is not the only way to increase the parallax of the background. You can also adjust the convergence to push the entire scene further back. The tendency of 3D creators is to bring the subject up to the surface of the screen. This reduces eye strain for people who are just getting into 3D, reduces crosstalk on displays that have a problem with that, and reduces the confusion your eyes are having between accommodation and convergence, which is more noticeable on handhelds because our depth of field is shallow at that distance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

Keep in mind, the 3D setting are configured so that you must be relatively close (just under 1 meter) to a 46" or similar sized monitor.

And that is the problem with your vision of realistic 3D- my TV is 65 inches, so the infinity point is about 4 inches or 9.5cm apart, and therefore impossible for most people to resolve, much less bear for 2-6 hours a night.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is online now  
post #6 of 8 Old 02-18-2012, 09:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Tory, interaxial distance is not the only way to increase the parallax of the background. You can also adjust the convergence to push the entire scene further back.

I don't see why you'd want to push the whole scene back. The objects in the scene should all be at their appropriate physical dept from the camera. The bubbles should be close to you if they are close to the camera. The trees should look far away, the display should look like a window into the world. If it doesn't, something is not ideal.

Quote:


The tendency of 3D creators is to bring the subject up to the surface of the screen. This reduces eye strain for people who are just getting into 3D, reduces crosstalk on displays that have a problem with that, and reduces the confusion your eyes are having between accommodation and convergence, which is more noticeable on handhelds because our depth of field is shallow at that distance.

How do we know that all this shifting of convergence isn't the very cause of headaches? I have 600 hours of 3D gaming on my belt and the only time i got something resembling eyestrain or a headache was the first day i used the 3DTV and spent all sorts of time messing with convergence and depth adjustments. I also got an slightly mildly unpleasant sensation from watching Hugo.

Filming the scene in a substandard to account for crosstalk and new users that might be sensitive to 3D is not what i would call a great strategy for the movie industry and movie enthusiasts. When i have my OLED TV mounted to my motorized ceiling conveyer track that motors it closer, that doesn't have crosstalk and is being viewed by me and people used to 3D, im not going to be very happy with that effecting my favorite films in the future, the very near future....

Quote:


And that is the problem with your vision of realistic 3D- my TV is 65 inches, so the infinity point is about 4 inches or 9.5cm apart, and therefore impossible for most people to resolve, much less bear for 2-6 hours a night.

Right, one size doesn't fit all. My advice was to evaluate the what screen size would likely be the largest katedunl and her viewers would use and adjust her separation for that display and viewing distance. [My calculation is 8.4cm on a 65in display. ]
tory40 is offline  
post #7 of 8 Old 02-19-2012, 12:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

I don't see why you'd want to push the whole scene back. The objects in the scene should all be at their appropriate physical dept from the camera.

Of course. Which is exactly why I'd want to perform a convergence tweak. The first shot is a prime example of a shot that has a strong enough interaxial but needs a simple convergence tweak to achieve a more realistic virtual window effect.

You were going on and on about the importance of interaxial distances and their impact on the spacing between two left/right infinity points, so I'm just reminding you that it's not always the interaxial that needs to be increased in all the instances of the bubbles video.

Quote:


How do we know that all this shifting of convergence isn't the very cause of headaches? I have 600 hours of 3D gaming on my belt and the only time i got something resembling eyestrain or a headache was the first day i used the 3DTV and spent all sorts of time messing with convergence and depth adjustments. I also got an slightly mildly unpleasant sensation from watching Hugo.

"Messing with" convergence adjustments is not the same as being presented with a 3D feature film that adjusts the window on the fly stealthily. I don't know why you felt the way you did in Hugo, but I'm assuming you've watched more than one 3D film at home, and that they didn't all make you feel that way. But all films control the window on the fly.

Quote:


Filming the scene in a substandard to account for crosstalk and new users that might be sensitive to 3D is not what i would call a great strategy for the movie industry and movie enthusiasts. When i have my OLED TV mounted to my motorized ceiling conveyer track that motors it closer, that doesn't have crosstalk and is being viewed by me and people used to 3D, im not going to be very happy with that effecting my favorite films in the future, the very near future....

The bigger your screen, the more properly scaled 3D films start to look. They start to look good in my opinion at 65 inches, which is why I got one. I believe that theatrical and Blu-ray releases have slightly different convergence biases to account for the screen sizes. So it should still look nice and big and cinematic. And for people who have smaller TVs, then hope you're not sensitive to the miniaturization, or hope that the TV has a convergence setting, usually known as a 3D Viewpoint or something along those generic average-joe-friendly terms. Tweaking the convergence can increase the perceived size and depth to something very comparable to a larger screen size.

Quote:


Right, one size doesn't fit all. My advice was to evaluate the what screen size would likely be the largest katedunl and her viewers would use and adjust her separation for that display and viewing distance. [My calculation is 8.4cm on a 65in display.

As a content creator you don't want your largest intended viewers to be testing their physiological limits for extended periods of time, if at all. The reality is that you have a higher tolerance for diverging than the average person, so you can't know what the discomfort is even like.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is online now  
post #8 of 8 Old 02-19-2012, 01:55 PM
tory40 is offline  
Reply 3D Content

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