Which Screen Format do you prefer for 3D? - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Which Screen Format do you prefer for 3D viewing?
2.35 5 13.51%
1.78 22 59.46%
Don't really care, just give me 3D 10 27.03%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 68 Old 01-27-2014, 07:13 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Which Screen Format do you prefer for 3D viewing?
BLWTX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 68 Old 01-27-2014, 07:45 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Of course 1.78 will dominate this poll since that is what most people use at home and they want their screens filled. I voted for 2.35 since I use a 2.35 screen and if that is what was most common, it would win this poll.

Above all that though, I am just glad we are getting OAR on blu 3d no matter if it's 1.78 or 2.35.
old corps likes this.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #3 of 68 Old 01-27-2014, 10:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
old corps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mid-Michigan
Posts: 1,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Of course 1.78 will dominate this poll since that is what most people use at home and they want their screens filled. I voted for 2.35 since I use a 2.35 screen and if that is what was most common, it would win this poll.

Above all that though, I am just glad we are getting OAR on blu 3d no matter if it's 1.78 or 2.35.

+1

Exactly. Had to vote for 1.78 because that's what my screen is. IF I had 2.35 of course that'd be where my vote would go.wink.gif

Ed
Toe likes this.
old corps is online now  
post #4 of 68 Old 01-27-2014, 04:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
rekbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somers, CT
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I voted for the third option. I have a masking system to convert the screen to ether format so I want my movies in the OAR format as the director intended.

Smart enough to know better, to old to care
rekbones is offline  
post #5 of 68 Old 01-27-2014, 07:20 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 123
I also have a masking system but I prefer for the director to use the largest screen area, which for me would be 16:9 when shooting a 3D movie as it produces the maximum 3D benefit. We all have our personal preferences.
old corps and Reload9000 like this.
Don Landis is offline  
post #6 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 05:50 AM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

I also have a masking system but I prefer for the director to use the largest screen area, which for me would be 16:9 when shooting a 3D movie as it produces the maximum 3D benefit. We all have our personal preferences.

+1. I come from the Realist 3D camera days of higher height than width. More height still gives me more depth.
Don Landis likes this.
threed123 is offline  
post #7 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 06:29 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 123
My solution to 2.35:1 3D is to sit closer to the screen. smile.gif
Don Landis is offline  
post #8 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

My solution to 2.35:1 3D is to sit closer to the screen. smile.gif

 

Many times, I've referred to this as employing the JSC Technology ®.  Just Sit Closer.  :)

 

I absolutely believe that height is very important for 3D, even in theaters, and that 16:9 is more than wide enough.

 

That said, if the theater is 2.35+ and you've maxed out the height, why waste the pillar space?  Depends: if the film happened to be shot in 16:9 (like Avatar), you'd have to throw away vertical information and that's an unacceptable trade off.  I feel more physically immersed gaining the vertical information than I do gaining the L/R edges.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #9 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 06:59 AM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

My solution to 2.35:1 3D is to sit closer to the screen. smile.gif

I crank up my Darbee for more realism. Having a 159" HighPower screen helps a lot.
threed123 is offline  
post #10 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by threed123 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

My solution to 2.35:1 3D is to sit closer to the screen. smile.gif

I crank up my Darbee for more realism. Having a 159" HighPower screen helps a lot.

 

That is something I'm skeptical of.  In 3D you have two images each free to be modified slightly differently by the Darbee?  That would make it harder for the images to fuse, no?

 

During editing, an director can notice if there's any particular problems in getting images to fuse and deal with it accordingly.  You're handing off to a little box a lot of trust.  Does it realy work IRL?

 

Besides, "realism"?.....I don't want "realism", I want what the director wanted.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #11 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 07:52 AM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

That is something I'm skeptical of.  In 3D you have two images each free to be modified slightly differently by the Darbee?  That would make it harder for the images to fuse, no?

During editing, an director can notice if there's any particular problems in getting images to fuse and deal with it accordingly.  You're handing off to a little box a lot of trust.  Does it realy work IRL?

Besides, "realism"?.....I don't want "realism", I want what the director wanted.

The Darbee affects both the right and left image equally with contrast sharpness similar to unsharp masking. It doesn't affect the fusing of images--at least to my eyes.
threed123 is offline  
post #12 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 08:30 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Many times, I've referred to this as employing the JSC Technology ®.  Just Sit Closer.  smile.gif

I absolutely believe that height is very important for 3D, even in theaters, and that 16:9 is more than wide enough.

That said, if the theater is 2.35+ and you've maxed out the height, why waste the pillar space?  Depends: if the film happened to be shot in 16:9 (like Avatar), you'd have to throw away vertical information and that's an unacceptable trade off.  I feel more physically immersed gaining the vertical information than I do gaining the L/R edges.


It still all depends on the film and what the director wants to emphasize though. If a greater sense of height, then 1.78, width then scope. 3d does not change this particular rule and if it did, EVERYTHING would be in 1.78 which is obviously FAR from the case. Some 3d films work better in 2.35, some in 1.78.

Quote:
Originally Posted by threed123 View Post

The Darbee affects both the right and left image equally with contrast sharpness similar to unsharp masking. It doesn't affect the fusing of images--at least to my eyes.


Agreed. The Darbee in no way affects the fusing of the images in 3d. This is easy enough to test out as you can A/B instantly on the Darbee.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #13 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 11:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Depends: if the film happened to be shot in 16:9 (like Avatar), you'd have to throw away vertical information and that's an unacceptable trade off. 

Regardless of how he may have changed his mind after-the-fact in post-production, the photography for Avatar was composed for 2.35:1. The open matte 16:9 transfer on the Blu-ray has an awkward amount of dead space on the top and bottom (especially the bottom, because he used a high topline rather than centered).

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #14 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 04:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Above all that though, I am just glad we are getting OAR on blu 3d no matter if it's 1.78 or 2.35.
Ditto.

I did vote 1.78, though. For me, with a 1.78 screen, bigger is better. That statement works for the folks with 2.35 screens, too. Whatever the maximum amount of screen real estate being used for the film.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #15 of 68 Old 01-28-2014, 05:00 PM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The open matte 16:9 transfer on the Blu-ray has an awkward amount of dead space on the top and bottom (especially the bottom, because he used a high topline rather than centered).

I believe this was done to enhance the IMAX transfer so there would be more close-up depth in the bottom, thus adding more overall depth to IMAX. Most IMAX screens, especially, the smaller imax have the audience located at center or above, so the action tends to be in the topline.
threed123 is offline  
post #16 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 07:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Besides, "realism"?.....I don't want "realism", I want what the director wanted.

I want what entertains me. So, I will favor movies that are the largest real estate over movies that use less. I favor movies that are bright with good color and easy to see as opposed to movies where much of the action is lost in the shadows. I don't care if the director wanted the movie in scope and so dark I can't see what is going on. With my home viewing, I need to see the action and I like larger height screen for 3D, all else( story and acting) being equal.

Personally, when I frame a shot for my 3D documentaries, I will always frame for 1.78 and if the scene is a panorama, I use it as an add-on or picture over picture or picture over CG info to fill up the black. In a case where the scene is wide and large, I will frame for a long distance foreground and reduce the sky unless the sky is part of the story. Examples are in my Bryce Canyon and Valley of Fire Documentaries. In these I allow the foreground to come right up into your room and continue past the screen plane off into the distant mountain ranges with little sky overhead. Can be achieved using wide angle lenses coupled with hyper wide stereo base between 6" and 28". Here foreground begins at about 300 ft and farthest is about 1-10 miles. In the panorama shots, I center them and put rolling titles above and below in the black areas filling up the 16:9 frame.
tgm1024 likes this.
Don Landis is offline  
post #17 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
 
Quote:
Besides, "realism"?.....I don't want "realism", I want what the director wanted.

I want what entertains me. So, I will favor movies that are the largest real estate over movies that use less. I favor movies that are bright with good color and easy to see as opposed to movies where much of the action is lost in the shadows. I don't care if the director wanted the movie in scope and so dark I can't see what is going on. With my home viewing, I need to see the action and I like larger height screen for 3D, all else( story and acting) being equal.

 

Point taken.

 

 

Quote:

Personally, when I frame a shot for my 3D documentaries, I will always frame for 1.78 and if the scene is a panorama, I use it as an add-on or picture over picture or picture over CG info to fill up the black. In a case where the scene is wide and large, I will frame for a long distance foreground and reduce the sky unless the sky is part of the story. Examples are in my Bryce Canyon and Valley of Fire Documentaries. In these I allow the foreground to come right up into your room and continue past the screen plane off into the distant mountain ranges with little sky overhead. Can be achieved using wide angle lenses coupled with hyper wide stereo base between 6" and 28". Here foreground begins at about 300 ft and farthest is about 1-10 miles. In the panorama shots, I center them and put rolling titles above and below in the black areas filling up the 16:9 frame.

 

 

Interesting!


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #18 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 10:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 675

Curious.

 

Don, when you film something for potentially both a 3D and 2D release, do you simply use one eye for the 2D, or do you use a 3rd camera?

 

I've heard a recommendation of using the 3D cameras basically focused to infinity to allow the eye to converge all items, while for the 2D you can do the normal focal length work.

 

And do you prefer to have the L/R cameras aligned in parallel?


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #19 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 11:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by threed123 View Post

I believe this was done to enhance the IMAX transfer so there would be more close-up depth in the bottom, thus adding more overall depth to IMAX. Most IMAX screens, especially, the smaller imax have the audience located at center or above, so the action tends to be in the topline.

James Cameron used high toplines for all of his Super 35 productions long before IMAX was a consideration. His actual concern was for how the movies would look in pan & scan for VHS and TV broadcast. A high topline meant less likelihood for a boom mic to dip into the frame.

terminator2_super_35_exampl.jpg
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml
tgm1024 likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #20 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 12:27 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

I want what entertains me. So, I will favor movies that are the largest real estate over movies that use less. I favor movies that are bright with good color and easy to see as opposed to movies where much of the action is lost in the shadows.

I agree with this to a point which is why I prefer 2.35 3d in general since I use a CIH 2.35 screen and scope 3d is much more immersive for me because of this. Again though, I would never suggest ALL 3d films be released in a 2.35 aspect (I am not suggesting you would for 1.78) since above all else, I want OAR and what the director is trying to convey which in some cases will work better with 1.78 and some cases 2.35. I just don't agree that 1.78 is in general a better 3d aspect which is what some seem to suggest. It all depends on the film and what is trying to be emphasized whether it is a greater sense of height (1.78) or width (2.35).

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #21 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 12:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
tezster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 41
I think if there was an option to vote for "the format which uses the entire viewing area of my screen", it would get 90%+ of the votes.
tezster is offline  
post #22 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezster View Post

I think if there was an option to vote for "the format which uses the entire viewing area of my screen", it would get 90%+ of the votes.

 

The question should have been, "If you could choose a screen of any size just for viewing a 3D movie, what aspect ratio would it be?"

 

Whatever.  Beaten to death this one.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #23 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 01:10 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

The question should have been, "If you could choose a screen of any size just for viewing a 3D movie, what aspect ratio would it be?"


The only correct answer to that though would be whatever aspect ratio correlates with the OAR which will depend on the film. Any other answer besides that says I don't respect the directors vision.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #24 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
Done Deal DR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 650
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 82
First and foremost, I agree that it should be in line with director's intent. I think most all of us can agree that shooting something with 2.35 scope in mind, and then cropping the picture to 1.78 for 3D is not a solution as you possibly lose a lot of valuable subject matter on the sides. I think the real debate is if it should be natively shot with 1.78 or 2.35 in mind.

I think 1.78 is the better ratio for 3D and prefer when it's shot in 1.78 with this in mind. When talking diagonal screen size, inch per inch, obviously 1.78 is going to amount to more screen real estate than 2.35, and for 3D I think the bigger the screen the more immersive experience and better 3D effect you get. I couldn't imagine watching 3D on a common 40-55" TV panel, and then further shrunk down with 2.35" aspect. There are times where I'm taken a bit out of the 3D effect when viewing 2.35 3D content on my 159" HP.

Of course some with scope screens will say they prefer 2.35 3D, but you're talking about .00000001% of the viewing public with scope screens (completely made up statistic, but really it must be an absolutely tiny amount of the market) . Even people like me with huge 16:9 screens running relatively low-mid end gear are very rare when you talk about the market as a whole. The vast majority of the market benefits if it's 1.78 with a larger screen, versus that tiny fraction with scope screens who end up losing screen real estate. To me it's like saying every film should be in 11.4 surround sound, and if you have anything less than that you get a mono sound track. The fact is that most people out there are viewing this content on 40-55", maybe 60" or so TV panels which are all 16:9. I think the numbers clearly say for 3D, where you need the screen to be utilized so the 3D is as effective as possible, the director would go with 16:9 1.78 and I know directors are out there that feel the same way.

It isn't make or break for me if 3D is in 2.35, but I certainly enjoy the additional vertical screen space when it's 1.78, and it's wide enough to frame most anything for a director.

Home Theater Build in Progress (Contemporary living room, Klipsch RF-7 II 5.2 audio, Sony VPL-HW50ES Projector, Da-Lite 16:9 159" HP, recessed Mid Atlantic rack, etc)
Done Deal DR is offline  
post #25 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 01:58 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Done Deal DR View Post

First and foremost, I agree that it should be in line with director's intent. I think most all of us can agree that shooting something with 2.35 scope in mind, and then cropping the picture to 1.78 for 3D is not a solution as you possibly lose a lot of valuable subject matter on the sides. I think the real debate is if it should be natively shot with 1.78 or 2.35 in mind.

I think 1.78 is the better ratio for 3D and prefer when it's shot in 1.78 with this in mind. When talking diagonal screen size, inch per inch, obviously 1.78 is going to amount to more screen real estate than 2.35, and for 3D I think the bigger the screen the more immersive experience and better 3D effect you get. I couldn't imagine watching 3D on a common 40-55" TV panel, and then further shrunk down with 2.35" aspect. There are times where I'm taken a bit out of the 3D effect when viewing 2.35 3D content on my 159" HP.

Of course some with scope screens will say they prefer 2.35 3D, but you're talking about .00000001% of the viewing public with scope screens (completely made up statistic, but really it must be an absolutely tiny amount of the market) . Even people like me with huge 16:9 screens running relatively low-mid end gear are very rare when you talk about the market as a whole. The vast majority of the market benefits if it's 1.78 with a larger screen, versus that tiny fraction with scope screens who end up losing screen real estate. To me it's like saying every film should be in 11.4 surround sound, and if you have anything less than that you get a mono sound track. The fact is that most people out there are viewing this content on 40-55", maybe 60" or so TV panels which are all 16:9. I think the numbers clearly say for 3D, where you need the screen to be utilized so the 3D is as effective as possible, the director would go with 16:9 1.78 and I know directors are out there that feel the same way.

It isn't make or break for me if 3D is in 2.35, but I certainly enjoy the additional vertical screen space when it's 1.78, and it's wide enough to frame most anything for a director.


A traditional theater works under the assumption of CIH though and is the way (from my reading) a director thinks of the different aspect ratios (maintaining a constant height vs width) when shooting a film. CIH is meant to open up on the sides while maintaining the same height as 1.78 which is the exact opposite of how the typical ass-backwards 1.78 screen works which unfortunately is what the vast majority use at home I largely due to broadcast standards.

As far as your comment "I think the real debate is if it should be natively shot with 1.78 or 2.35 in mind", again this all depends on what is trying to be emphasized more in whatever film in question and if height, 1.78, if width, 2.35. Because of this, and just like 2d, there is no general correct answer to this as some movies will get the visual goal across better in 1.78 and some in 2.35 so there should be no general pushing toward one aspect or the other in light of this just to conform to whatever aspect we each use at home.

Bottom line is the ONLY thing we should be pushing for no matter if 2d or 3d is OAR, period.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #26 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 04:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Done Deal DR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 650
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

A traditional theater works under the assumption of CIH though and is the way (from my reading) a director thinks of the different aspect ratios (maintaining a constant height vs width) when shooting a film. CIH is meant to open up on the sides while maintaining the same height as 1.78 which is the exact opposite of how the typical ass-backwards 1.78 screen works which unfortunately is what the vast majority use at home I largely due to broadcast standards.

As far as your comment "I think the real debate is if it should be natively shot with 1.78 or 2.35 in mind", again this all depends on what is trying to be emphasized more in whatever film in question and if height, 1.78, if width, 2.35. Because of this, and just like 2d, there is no general correct answer to this as some movies will get the visual goal across better in 1.78 and some in 2.35 so there should be no general pushing toward one aspect or the other in light of this just to conform to whatever aspect we each use at home.

Bottom line is the ONLY thing we should be pushing for no matter if 2d or 3d is OAR, period.

While I agree most studios probably film projects with CIH in mind, I don't think that invalidates my point.

1. For the vast majority of the planet 1.78 is a larger image.
2. larger image equals more immersive and effective 3D.
3. IMAX and various directors agree.

Really it doesn't matter though, we will get what we get.... I just think the experience is for 3D is better that way and obviously you can see by the poll most consumers agree (even on an enthusiast site like this). Really a good portion of the 3D we do get isn't even shot in 3D, so it's a moot point a lot of the times. In regards to 2D my stance flips, however the director wants it is how I want to see it, OAR.

Home Theater Build in Progress (Contemporary living room, Klipsch RF-7 II 5.2 audio, Sony VPL-HW50ES Projector, Da-Lite 16:9 159" HP, recessed Mid Atlantic rack, etc)
Done Deal DR is offline  
post #27 of 68 Old 01-29-2014, 05:05 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Done Deal DR View Post

While I agree most studios probably film projects with CIH in mind, I don't think that invalidates my point.

1. For the vast majority of the planet 1.78 is a larger image.
2. larger image equals more immersive and effective 3D.
3. IMAX and various directors agree.

Really it doesn't matter though, we will get what we get.... I just think the experience is for 3D is better that way and obviously you can see by the poll most consumers agree (even on an enthusiast site like this). Really a good portion of the 3D we do get isn't even shot in 3D, so it's a moot point a lot of the times. In regards to 2D my stance flips, however the director wants it is how I want to see it, OAR.


I hear what you are saying, but the results of this poll were not hard to predict considering the vast majority use 1.78 screens. tongue.gif We could have called this poll from a mile away which is why it's a silly poll in the first place IMO. How do you think the poll would have turned out if the vast majority used 2.35 screens? This is why above all I still say OAR is what we should be rooting for, not one aspect ratio or the other just because it fills more/most peoples sets. Apparently other various directors think 2.35 is more immersive and the best choice for their 3d film since we have a lot of films in that aspect ratio as well.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #28 of 68 Old 01-30-2014, 12:36 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Curious.

Don, when you film something for potentially both a 3D and 2D release, do you simply use one eye for the 2D, or do you use a 3rd camera?

I've heard a recommendation of using the 3D cameras basically focused to infinity to allow the eye to converge all items, while for the 2D you can do the normal focal length work.

And do you prefer to have the L/R cameras aligned in parallel?

I have done only a few renderings in both 2D and 3D. I did one of our HT cruise on the Allure because the biggest audience was not interested in the 3D aspect as they were just cruisers interested in the ship and activities. The largest audience were not people from Home theater but were from Cruise Critic.

So while I did most of the shots in 3D, the 2D rendering used the left eye cam only. I have done a three camera production buit here I shot the center camera as a 3D camcorder for the closeup shots. On my bench, I had the two NEX5n's with 10mm lenses spaced 20" and the center camera was a TD10 3D camcorder for the tight shots. In post I then switched the two views and with the twin cams getting the entire width in 3D the tight cam could be independently panned, made possible with a double stacked fluid head. This video is of the Bellagio Fountains, Las Vegas. A couple weeks ago I used the same setup but with the Panasonic Z10k as the center cam for video of the Ubehebe Volcanic Crater in Death Valley. The NEX5n's were using 12mm lenses and spaced 28" IA. Focus is generally not an issue for very wide angle lenses. Everything is in focus and making sure your near stuff is far enough away to prevent the left and right from separating in the pairing. I made this mistake in my first couple of hyper stereo shoots, including Valley of Fire. After that I carry a range finder scope and 3D stereo calculator to keep the cameras "legal" When my camera lens and IA says near subject must be 150 feet away, I range it to be sure nothing in the bottom of my frame or sides is closer than that. With twin cams, I don't have the luxury of a 3D monitor in the field to be sure. Everything is trust in the sniper scope and the calculator.

My bench is not capable of variable convergence, I shoot my cams carefully calibrated for parallel. I have a system that is very accurate. Not by choice but variable convergence is extremely difficult to achieve without the expensive servo control systems backed up by 3D monitoring with software to aim the cameras. I used some of this stuff in my class on twin rig shooting. Over a $250K of hardware! I'm an amateur hobbyist and don't have the budget for those. The class was fun, however.
tgm1024 likes this.
Don Landis is offline  
post #29 of 68 Old 01-30-2014, 12:48 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I hear what you are saying, but the results of this poll were not hard to predict considering the vast majority use 1.78 screens. tongue.gif We could have called this poll from a mile away which is why it's a silly poll in the first place IMO. How do you think the poll would have turned out if the vast majority used 2.35 screens? This is why above all I still say OAR is what we should be rooting for, not one aspect ratio or the other just because it fills more/most peoples sets. Apparently other various directors think 2.35 is more immersive and the best choice for their 3d film since we have a lot of films in that aspect ratio as well.

I think the 2.35 AR is a result of a couple of influential directors decided to make a departure from the original square format and others followed. But I recall reading about 15 years ago the reason for 16:9 was it represents the AR of human vision. To my way of thinking, that is the most immersive viewing experience. Sitting close enough your screen can fill your viewing range. With 2.35, if you fill your vertical viewing angle the sides get chopped and requires you to pan while watching fully immersed.. If you back away to include the sides while staring at the center, you will see the black top and bottom masks. At least that's how my vision works. Maybe people with Marty Feldman eyes see in 2.35. biggrin.gif Just kidding!

Don Landis is offline  
post #30 of 68 Old 01-30-2014, 06:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 675

^I always wondered if perhaps one of the primary motivators of ever wider AR's was the simple nuts and bolts of designing ever larger theaters.  I understand some argument about the artistic merit of mimicking the lateral turning of the head in real life as well, but there may be a simple nuts-and-bolts aspect to it: In general, unlike stages shows, you don't usually have the economic luxury of stacking people in tiers vertically. (?)


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
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