Originally Posted by Steve Tack
I sampled Don's Valley of Fire documenary. It's got a very nice sense of depth and is really pretty cool. But it illustrates that miniaturization effect very well too. When you see tourists walking around, they look like little bitty people to me. It's clear that some folks perceive the miniaturization effect and some don't, so I'm OK leaving that with "it's subjective." del Toro has made his decision based on his perception.
Whether it's 2D or 3D, it does sound like it's going to be challenging to avoid making mechs the size of 25 football stadiums not look hokey. At least it's not a sequel / prequel / reboot / remake.
Well I'm open to all suggestions- When a 6 ft person stands next to a 50 ft tall boulder, how does one make the person look bigger than the boulder? A better question is why should the person not appear small next to the boulder? I've had several viewers use the Beehives scene in Valley of Fire as an argument for the " I hate the miniaturization effect" Fact is in a simple test, shutting off the 3D and viewing the exact same shot in 2D the person is still small next to the boulder. I shot that Beehives scene from about 200 ft away to get that look of the size of these rock formations. Otherwise one could get the idea that those Beehives were no bigger than 1-2 ft shot up close. The key to knowing the size is shooting a known reference next to the unknown subject.
Would you consider the large-scale anaglyph skyscraper photo a "wide disparity scene?" Because I can see it just fine, yet the sense of scale is miniaturized like crazy.
Absolutely it is miniature and has wide horizontal disparity to generate a good sense of depth. Maybe we have different definitions of the word miniature but in my mind miniature means small relative to something bigger. Anytime you compress a city into a small photograph the size is miniaturized because the photo is not real life size. I think when a 3D shooter uses the wrong I.O. for the stage size the depth can be elongated in the size compression, This creates what we call a forced perspective view. Not that this is a bad thing, it is just an effect of having the z axis compressed differently than the height and width.
The main question I've been wondering is why are we ( not del Toro) even complaining about this? I can accept that del Toro doesn't know how to shoot his large scale objects in 3D, because he may not know how ultra stereo works. But more likely, his project just doesn't have the budget to double the number of cameras plus add the support structure to pair them and what he really doesn't know how to do is get the 3D with his restricted budget.
I also have to question the claim that everything must be real or it's no good, then we sit and rave about unreal stories with stuff like giant robots and other science fiction. Lets be consistent here, OK? LOL! I have never claimed stereography is real. It is just an illusion in your brain. Some people can see it better than others and some not at all. I don't restrict myself to rules like if it isn't real then I don't like it. I love science fiction and will enjoy DelToro's work even in 2D and I enjoy stuff that isn't real. That is part of the fun. And, I never said he is a "bumbling 3D noob" either. I said he is obviously not an expert in stereography and listening to him speak on it, there were a number of gaffes that gave that away. I said he would be well advised to hire an expert in 3D stereography who could show him how it's done. (But then there is my suspicion of budget issues.)
Likewise you, cakefoo, make lots of bold statements about what can and cannot be done in 3D. Pretty arrogant for someone who hasn't presented his portfolio of stereography. I respect you for having lots of opinions on what others do, ( Critics are an important resource for producers of content) but, how about you get in the trenches and do a little creation yourself. if you wish to tell people who do this stuff how it's done. When you don't walk the walk, it's better to just state what you prefer to watch. I respect that far more. And, believe it or not I do listen!correction to my earlier statement-
Quote:Not to me. Both are 2D flat realistic views as far as 2D can do. The right one is just shot with a wider camera angle and has a limited stage size bounded by the arena.
The camera angles are relatively identical. The only major difference is that the one on the right has an extremely shallow depth of field, giving it the illusion that it's much smaller and much closer to the viewer.
I would only add that the right one could be shot with the same lens but maybe from a greater distance. The court is physically smaller in the right image and that has nothing to do with the depth of focus. Did you go out and shoot that yourself just for this thread? How do you know what lens was used? You have an amazing collection of photos.
PS- On the 3D hyperstereo city, what impressed me the most in that shot was not the 3D but the clarity. Air quality around Seattle, or most cities is normally hazy. Forget the stereography. I understand how that was done. I want to know how he got such clarity.