The 3D Fraud! - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 30Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #1 of 93 Unread 12-20-2015, 08:49 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Exclamation The 3D Fraud!

After having watched several 3D movies, I came to the conclusion that both 3D experience, 3D art and the 3D industry itself, are being ruined by those lame directors and producers who put money first, quality and art last, and are OK with massive public deception too.

There is no excuse in "converting" their new 2D movie supposedly to "3D" and then selling it with a "3D" label on it. Is it really 3D? Of course not. Therefore, it's a fraud on its own, with the cinefile consumers as the victims. They deceive the viewers, by not marking their inferior creation in order to be distinguished from a true 3D one, letting the unsuspicious buyers of their products think they are watching a true 3D movie, resulting in a disappointing experience, that most times doesn't even justify wearing that pair of glasses.

Like the converted movie "Insurgent" for example. Worse fake 3D I've seen so far.

And there is no excuse of making new "hybrid" films either, just because most of the film's running time is made with CGI. You invest so many resources in CGI and you can't shoot a few scenes with humans in proper 3D? That's ridiculous! Are you the push-button type of pseudo-artist or what?

I'm not saying all true 3D movies are 3D masterpieces, not every filmmaker is capable of crafting a cinematic creation in 3 dimensions successfully, but selling a fake 3D movie as a true 3D, is like selling fake paintings as the real thing, without informing the buyers: An act of customer deception -a true fraud for sure.

Unfortunately, the majority of movies are such pseudo-3D products. And the various opportunists pseudo-gurus and pseudo-reviewers write to attract attention and traffic that "3D proved once more to be just a gimmick, and has died already as we have predicted" and other such BS.

Of course, if you turn 3D art to a gimmick by faking it, why should I pay extra money to buy a 3D TV, pay extra money to buy fake 3D blu rays and tolerate a pair of glasses too for hours, (even if they are the flicker-free comfortable kind) or pay extra money for a ticket for the 3D version in theater, just to have a subordinate experience? It just doesn't worth it for the vast majority of viewers, and the drop on their preference for 3D products is absolutely justified, whether they realize it, or they just act subconsciously (definitely the later for the majority).

So, the public needs to be informed and there should be a clear distinction marking/naming for films shot in 3D vs the converted 2D ones.

As I said, there is no excuse for making 3D films by shooting in 2D first, supposedly for cost, time and effort or "control" (a ridiculous excuse). There are examples of low-budget films with exceptional 3D. Art definitely requires time and effort -and a large dose of your soul of course. If you don't want to invest time and effort eg as a painter for real art, then by all means go get a job in a printing facility. You'll do to art and all of us a big favor!

UPDATE: See the argument sum-up in page 3

.
BillFree and Archaea like this.

Last edited by SoToS; 01-05-2016 at 04:22 PM.
SoToS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 93 Unread 12-20-2015, 08:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 281
I agree that most 3D is a deplorable money grab, but it's not true that all 3D films that are post-conversions shot originally in 2D are a waste of time.

Two movies that come to mind are Mad Max: Fury Road and The Walk. In both cases, the movies were conceived, story-boarded, shot and edited with the 3D release in mind, but for a number of reasons they were shot in 2D and then post-converted to stereo. But the stereo conversions were carefully directed and monitored by the director and cinematographers, and represent their full vision for the films they made.
dschulz is offline  
post #3 of 93 Unread 12-20-2015, 09:08 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I agree that most 3D is a deplorable money grab, but it's not true that all 3D films that are post-conversions shot originally in 2D are a waste of time.

Two movies that come to mind are Mad Max: Fury Road and The Walk. In both cases, the movies were conceived, story-boarded, shot and edited with the 3D release in mind, but for a number of reasons they were shot in 2D and then post-converted to stereo. But the stereo conversions were carefully directed and monitored by the director and cinematographers, and represent their full vision for the films they made.
They are still fake 3D, whether they deserve a watch or not. You can't have two different perspectives of an object/actor/scene with just one angle. The two artificial perspectives will be faked and the result and feel will be inferior and will never compare to a real 3D version of the same movie. And of course will contribute to damaging the 3D prestige to the uninformed/misled viewers.
SoToS is offline  
post #4 of 93 Unread 12-20-2015, 09:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
They are still fake 3D, whether they deserve a watch or not. You can't have two different perspectives of an object/actor/scene with just one angle.
I don't see how you can call it fake 3D when the intent of the filmmaker all along was to create a 3D image. Think of it as just another special effects tool - you wouldn't accuse a film of having fake lasers or fake spacecraft when the director decides to create them in post. And in some ways, post-converted 3D can be better than native stereo, because the director and DP have more control over things like the inter-ocular distance or changing the focal plane and depth-of-field.

What I find frustrating is it is hard to know as a filmgoer which movies *should* be seen in 3D (as with native 3D films or my two examples above) and which ones are hasty post conversions to grab that surcharge.
dschulz is offline  
post #5 of 93 Unread 12-20-2015, 10:00 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I don't see how you can call it fake 3D when the intent of the filmmaker all along was to create a 3D image. Think of it as just another special effects tool - you wouldn't accuse a film of having fake lasers or fake spacecraft when the director decides to create them in post. And in some ways, post-converted 3D can be better than native stereo, because the director and DP have more control over things like the inter-ocular distance or changing the focal plane and depth-of-field.

What I find frustrating is it is hard to know as a filmgoer which movies *should* be seen in 3D (as with native 3D films or my two examples above) and which ones are hasty post conversions to grab that surcharge.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". An art forgerer might also have good intentions to make something beautiful and have a talent too, but his creation, no matter how good, will still be fake and a product of fraud.

Such a film might be acceptable, even great at times, but still fake 3D by definition.
True 3D means being shot from two different angles simultaneously -either with two cameras, or one camera with a pair of lenses/mirrors and a splitter or an equivalent system that provides recording from two different angles. If only one angle is recorded, it is a fake 3D by definition for normal movies with static or action scenes.

Special effects are common to all kind of films. People are aware of it, they are not expecting real lasers.They are expecting 3D though, not 2D + a limited impression of depth, and even for the few that are aware of this deception it is difficult to find out if a film is real or fake 3D (aside a couple of websites with limited references and proof). And the labeling is also deceiving. That's a huge difference.

Better control on what? Two fake perspectives that offer an inferior result? It doesn't even make sense. It's just a ridiculous excuse aimed to those that are not informed properly.
There is no way a fake 3D is better than a real one. That's a lie. And it's not rocket-science to shoot in 3D, most knowledge is conquered and there are no unsolved problems. They just don't want to bother or they haven't invest enough time and effort to study the art of 3D and at best they overestimate the 3D conversion. Those are the faint hearted ones,they haven't got what it takes to make realistic 3D and they prefer the virtual, convenient approach. Or a push-button if possible...

Also, I have noticed that 3D newcomers -people that experience 3D for the first time, or so, are subconsciously very demanding, so the above fakers are damaging the whole 3D industry by disappointing most of them. Of course that includes those who do a bad real 3D work too but they are fewer.

Only solution to which films are worth watching in 3D is ...opinions from people who watched those movies first. Or from honest critics. If they exist. Also if you don't know that website already, see http://realorfake3d.com/. There are several movies missing though and no proof provided for most of them.

Last edited by SoToS; 12-20-2015 at 10:12 PM.
SoToS is offline  
post #6 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 12:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
Better control on what? Two fake perspectives that offer an inferior result? It doesn't even make sense. It's just a ridiculous excuse aimed to those that are not informed properly.
Take it from someone who's shot native 3D, the claim that postconversion offers more control is simply logical. 3D artists can control depth on any layer they want.

Quote:
There is no way a fake 3D is better than a real one. That's a lie.
So just re-read what dschulz and I said-- postconversion offers more control. That doesn't mean we think postconversion is better overall.

Quote:
And it's not rocket-science to shoot in 3D, most knowledge is conquered and there are no unsolved problems. They just don't want to bother or they haven't invest enough time and effort to study the art of 3D and at best they overestimate the 3D conversion.
Just being knowledgable on 3D matters doesn't necessarily mean the process will run just as smoothly as a 2D shoot. Shooting native 3D still increases production times as well as camera rig size and weight.
Don Landis and Barry C like this.
cakefoo is offline  
post #7 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 06:27 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,132
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked: 271
I agree with cakefoo that post conversion offers more control and I will add is forgiving if mistakes are made in production. But just because there is more control, doesn't mean the producers of the project have the budget to actually execute that control with every tool available.

In reality, if you understand how 3D stereoscopic presentation is achieved, you would understand that ALL stereoscopic films are "fake 3D" The stereoscopic tools to achieve a 3D image is nothing but an illusion as its product, regardless of whether it is done with twin cameras or post manipulated. To call one film done with twin cameras real and another that uses post conversion fake is silly and shows a lack us understanding of what 3D stereoscopic presentation really is. So when is an illusion real? Probably when it is devine magic. Otherwise an illusion is just fake reality.
A better description is when you say one film is good quality stereoscopic 3D and another is poor quality stereoscopic 3D.

As anyone who has worked with stereo cameras AND two single cameras in a twin mount with adjustable interaxial and convergence alignment, will know, not controlling the alignment for each scene can result in very poor quality stereo with loss of stereo convergence on near objects while convergence on medium and far objects. But, with any production, the post 3D control can be corrected to perfection while a twin camera rig will always be a compromise calibration for any one scene.

Plus it gets more complicated. As with any illusion, stereoscopic is optimum for a given screen size as well as where you sit to view the screen. There is a sweet spot that is critical. If you are outside the sweet spot for the way the movie was edited, then the illusion of 3D will suffer. Fortunately, when films are edited, the 3D director will figure the average audience and the range of the sweet spot is quite reasonable for most theaters and projection equipment.

The whole topic reminds me of a debate back in the late 80's when HD was introduced. There was a small bunch of TV producers that were screaming "it is fake HD if you didn't shoot it with an ikegami camera." LOL!
aaronwt and Barry C like this.
Don Landis is offline  
post #8 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 06:49 AM
Member
 
jasondjulian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Considering how the human brain works, and the images and missing information that it extrapolates, I don't think anyone can use the term "fake 3D" and be validated in doing so. It's all fake.

It's all perception, and unless you subscribe to the idea that reality itself does not exist, whatever you perceive, 2D or 3D, it is all an illusion. Read Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions ... even by those standards, our 3 dimensional world is "fake".

The problem with this discussion topic is that there is no official definition of what is "real 3D" and what is "fake 3D". Until you define those terms in agreement, and then quantify them, you will never be able to have anything more than a surface-level discussion over what LOOKS better to your eye, and what 3D effect APPEARS more REAL to you than another.
HockeyoAJB likes this.

Panasonic TC-P55S60
Sony S5100 BD-Player
Sony HT-XT1 Sound Base
jasondjulian is offline  
post #9 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 07:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 477 Post(s)
Liked: 165
They do publish info on the method of 3D production. You can find it at IMDB and if it's a 3D conversion, you'll find it on the publisher's website at StereoD or Legend 3D, whoever did the conversion. I was surprised to find some of the best native 3D films had some 3D conversion, like Exodus and Avatar.

They don't publish technical data on their moves in trailers or websites either so method of 3D delivery as a requirement to viewers would never be something that one should ever expect. If you're that curious you can investigate yourself, the information is out there. The fact is most people don't care. They just follow the herd.

I do agree that native is better. To me, it mimics a natural view of what one would see if one were standing where the camera was placed. It's not perfect, our eyes have a wider view than what a camera can show and we can vary the convergence at random while changing focus points. Also not something 3D rigs can do. But it's better than painting in missing information for the two views. However, they have come along way in the 3D conversion process and some are really convincing. Mostly, with 3D converted films it appears there's just a slight 3D layer inside the screen, but nothing deep and nothing out of screen. It also helps when they shoot with a lot of shallow DOP to hide the details in the background. If they shot deep focus it would be really difficult to get a post 3D conversion right.

So whether or not converted 3D does more harm than good, I'd say it's probably better to have the converted movies. Some are better than others, but at least you have the option of 3D. 3D is niche at least in the home, it couldn't hurt to have more options than one for delivering a 3D movie. Even though I don't think converted can match the perspective of native 3D, I still watch the 3D version over 2D, even if the movie is Clash of the Titans.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #10 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 07:47 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Personally I used to be dead against shooting in 2D and post converting because the results were never as good as a 3D shoot but recently the process used for conversion has improved to such a large degree that I have no problem with it. It does give the producers far more control and done with care results in a better 3D experience.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #11 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NickTheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 2,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post
Personally I used to be dead against shooting in 2D and post converting because the results were never as good as a 3D shoot but recently the process used for conversion has improved to such a large degree that I have no problem with it. It does give the producers far more control and done with care results in a better 3D experience.
THIS. There's some damn good post 3D movies and some lousy "real" ones.
NickTheGreat is offline  
post #12 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 11:16 AM
Senior Member
 
danshane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jeffersontown, KY
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post
THIS. There's some damn good post 3D movies and some lousy "real" ones.
Absolutely. THE WIZARD OF OZ and TITANIC were not even shot with 3-D in mind yet they look spectacular in stereo. Nothing "fraudulent" about the efforts of those involved in those conversions.
Don Landis, aaronwt and Barry C like this.

--

Be seeing you...

Dan Shane
danshane is offline  
post #13 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 11:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Gates's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by danshane View Post
Absolutely. THE WIZARD OF OZ and TITANIC were not even shot with 3-D in mind yet they look spectacular in stereo. Nothing "fraudulent" about the efforts of those involved in those conversions.
These 2 movies are just a couple that are way better than a lot of natively shot 3D movies.

Epson 5020UB, Elunevision 112" Reference screen, Marantz AV8802a Pre/Pro, NAD M25 amp, Anthem PVA-4, 4x Paradigm CI Elite E80-R ceiling speakers, Paradigm Studio 60 v5, Paradigm Studio 20 v5, Paradigm Prestige 15B, Paradigm Studio CC-690 v5, Paradigm Studio Sub12 X 2, Oppo bdp-93, Richard Gray 1200c Custom power conditioner.
Gates is offline  
post #14 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked: 150
When the first conversions started to appear, as a 3D shooter/editor, I had made up my mind that I wasn't going to like it, it was phony, and that it would always be inferior to native 3D. However, I've come full circle and agree that the conversions just keep getting better and better. At this point, I have no qualms about watching and buying conversions, and in fact own several. Don Landis said it well: "The stereoscopic tools to achieve a 3D image is nothing but an illusion as its product, regardless of whether it is done with twin cameras or post manipulated." So, bottom line, is if the post conversion is done well with proper attention to detail, it shouldn't be the deciding factor.
Don Landis and johnny905 like this.
Barry C is online now  
post #15 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 02:07 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 26,616
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3465 Post(s)
Liked: 1924
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
After having watched several 3D movies, I came to the conclusion that both 3D experience, 3D art and the 3D industry itself, are being ruined by those lame directors and producers who put money first, quality and art last, and are OK with massive public deception too.

There is no excuse in "converting" their new 2D movie supposedly to "3D" and then selling it with a "3D" label on it. Is it really 3D? Of course not. Therefore, it's a fraud on its own, with the cinefile consumers as the victims. They deceive the viewers, by not marking their inferior creation in order to be distinguished from a true 3D one, letting the unsuspicious buyers of their products think they are watching a true 3D movie, resulting in a disappointing experience, that most times doesn't even justify wearing that pair of glasses.

.....................
Isn't over 95% of 3D movies post converted? Good luck getting things to change.

Personally I have no problem with most post converted 3D movies. If they didn't post convert them then they would never be in 3D. Since it's a more difficult undertaking to film in 3D.

53TB unRAID2--41TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #16 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 02:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gates View Post
These 2 movies are just a couple that are way better than a lot of natively shot 3D movies.
Add the 3D converted original Jurassic Park to the list. I thought that looked better than many "real 3D" movies.
johnny905 is offline  
post #17 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 02:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I agree that most 3D is a deplorable money grab, but it's not true that all 3D films that are post-conversions shot originally in 2D are a waste of time.

Two movies that come to mind are Mad Max: Fury Road and The Walk. In both cases, the movies were conceived, story-boarded, shot and edited with the 3D release in mind, but for a number of reasons they were shot in 2D and then post-converted to stereo. But the stereo conversions were carefully directed and monitored by the director and cinematographers, and represent their full vision for the films they made.
Max Max was converted? I just saw that on Blu Ray the other day and thought for sure it was shot in 3D. Just goes to show you...

This whole thread about "fake 3D" is ridiculous anyway. Either it looks good or it doesn't, that's all that matters imo.
johnny905 is offline  
post #18 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 477 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Isn't over 95% of 3D movies post converted? Good luck getting things to change.

Personally I have no problem with most post converted 3D movies. If they didn't post convert them then they would never be in 3D. Since it's a more difficult undertaking to film in 3D.
No, about 2:1 this year for converted, previous years it's been the other way around.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #19 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 05:23 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasondjulian
Considering how the human brain works, and the images and missing information that it extrapolates, I don't think anyone can use the term "fake 3D" and be validated in doing so. It's all fake.It's all perception, and unless you subscribe to the idea that reality itself does not exist, whatever you perceive, 2D or 3D, it is all an illusion.
............

The problem with this discussion topic is that there is no official definition of what is "real 3D" and what is "fake 3D".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
In reality, if you understand how 3D stereoscopic presentation is achieved, you would understand that ALL stereoscopic films are "fake 3D" The stereoscopic tools to achieve a 3D image is nothing but an illusion as its product, regardless of whether it is done with twin cameras or post manipulated. To call one film done with twin cameras real and another that uses post conversion fake is silly and shows a lack us understanding of what 3D stereoscopic presentation really is.
By the same "logic" what you watch with your eyes is also 'fake" because you only see a fraction of the emitting frequency range missing infrared and ultraviolet, not to mention you only see clearly a "dot" and your brain reconstructs the rest of the picture by moving your eyes, then makes a mental image from both views. Worse of all, only sees 3 dimensions out of 11 according to the latest scientific theories, so everything is virtual and we should all kill ourselves to end this horrible farce!

This is a brain-disolving perception that flatens and equalizes everything, and therefore fails to discover the truth. Try putting every notion to its proper context or level.
In the context of 3D stereoscopy, "real stereoscopic 3D" means receiving the authentic parallax information of a given scene, NOT an asymmetric distortion of a single view of that scene! That's fake 3D stereo by definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
A better description is when you say one film is good quality stereoscopic 3D and another is poor quality stereoscopic 3D.
Distortion < > parallax, and an apple is no better than an orange, so to compare the stereoscopic quality of two films, both have to be stereoscopic first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
So when is an illusion real? Probably when it is devine magic. Otherwise an illusion is just fake reality.
If you want magic, feed your brain with parallax information, not just distortion. Your visual system didn't evolve to stereo for nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
As anyone who has worked with stereo cameras AND two single cameras in a twin mount with adjustable interaxial and convergence alignment, will know, not controlling the alignment for each scene can result in very poor quality stereo with loss of stereo convergence on near objects while convergence on medium and far objects. But, with any production, the post 3D control can be corrected to perfection while a twin camera rig will always be a compromise calibration for any one scene.
Converging the cameras is wrong! It leads to keystone distortion and eyestrain. The cameras should always be parallel. You should only adjust the interaxial distance for the desired parallax and the output stereo pair for the desired window placement. This gives the best possible result, but requires to crop the frame (and scale up the image) and therefore reduces the definition a bit. You can avoid this reduction by using higher res cameras eg 2K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Plus it gets more complicated. As with any illusion, stereoscopic is optimum for a given screen size as well as where you sit to view the screen. There is a sweet spot that is critical. If you are outside the sweet spot for the way the movie was edited, then the illusion of 3D will suffer. Fortunately, when films are edited, the 3D director will figure the average audience and the range of the sweet spot is quite reasonable for most theaters and projection equipment.
That's correct. One (bad) example is Prometheus. In most scenes it has minimum parallax but I bet you'll enjoy it if you watch it on a large screen, sitting quite close (I watched it on a small screen).
HockeyoAJB likes this.

Last edited by SoToS; 12-21-2015 at 06:12 PM.
SoToS is offline  
post #20 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 05:25 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Take it from someone who's shot native 3D, the claim that postconversion offers more control is simply logical. 3D artists can control depth on any layer they want.
Control as an argument would make sense if the visual result was in both cases the same. This isn't the case because a single view misses the required parallax information. You can create a depth impression with a few tricks, but not the genuine parallax information that two different views offer, so the resulting feel will be incomparable to a proper 3D shooting.

And this is why nature followed the path of true stereo through millions of years of evolution, with two eyes for all beings, from humans to mouses, to fishes, to insects. It could use more brain power, but it didn't. Now, more brain power is required for one-eyed-recording pseudo-stereo supporters to even realize the benefits of their own nature!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Just being knowledgable on 3D matters doesn't necessarily mean the process will run just as smoothly as a 2D shoot. Shooting native 3D still increases production times as well as camera rig size and weight.
I never said it will be the same, but there are no unsolvable problems. As for the production time, I can wait for a good movie. I'm paying a premium for a ticket or a blu ray, so I'm expecting the maximum qualty, not the minimum. Neither increased production time or "problems" compare to the hundreds of millions declared as the movie budget (I don't care if that's fake too). Watch "Universal Soldier: Day of reckoning" for example, an $8 million film with great 3D (aside the excessive violence).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
They do publish info on the method of 3D production. You can find it at IMDB and if it's a 3D conversion, you'll find it on the publisher's website at StereoD or Legend 3D, whoever did the conversion.
Thanks for the info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Mostly, with 3D converted films it appears there's just a slight 3D layer inside the screen, but nothing deep and nothing out of screen.
Exactly. So much for having "more control". This makes 3D a gimmick instead of an intense experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post
THIS. There's some damn good post 3D movies and some lousy "real" ones.
If you try a "damn good" native 3D stereo movie and a "damn good" post converted version of the same movie side by side, you'll see how far the second one is from the "damn good" characterization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gates View Post
These 2 movies are just a couple that are way better than a lot of natively shot 3D movies.
And if I give an expensive camera to my dog, he will shoot a worse movie than myself shooting with a cheap cellphone. Let's use cheap cellphones therefore.

Last edited by SoToS; 12-21-2015 at 05:29 PM.
SoToS is offline  
post #21 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 06:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
JamesE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Have you watched this podcast? Douglas Trumbull on Moviemaking
JamesE is offline  
post #22 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 06:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked: 150
SoToS,
I do feel that you make some good points, but as you've discovered here, most people- at least in this group who are probably more knowledgable about 3D than the average viewer- have come to the conclusion that for our entertainment, conversions are truly ready for prime time, at this point. This, of course, doesn't mean that you don't have a valid point of view, or that our judgement and taste is superior to yours. I mearly point it out to demonstrate the fact that many fairly sophisticated 3D viewers find it acceptable and, in many cases, quite good.

When you talk about native 2 camera 3D and parallax, as showing scenes more as nature intended, where the lines get blurred on all native 3D movies is in the post production process. What I mean by this is the raw 3D footage is, in many cases, readjusted stereoscopically. On my own content, I will often make stereoscopic adjustments in post to either add additional depth or pull elements forward into negative parallax when I feel it's appropriate- although most of the time I frame my shots for optimal negative parallax and rarely need to do this. Sometimes, I'll push them back to avoid problematic windows violations and other times just to add the perception of additional depth in farther away scenes. So, does that mean that the 3D is now a fraud, or is it an enhancement done to create a hightened sense of reality? Or, put another way, to more closely approximate what it was like in real life when the scene was filmed. Again, this parallax thing is just not that cut and dried and is only one piece of the puzzle.
johnny905 likes this.

Last edited by Barry C; 12-21-2015 at 10:35 PM.
Barry C is online now  
post #23 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 08:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 477 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
Converging the cameras is wrong! It leads to keystone distortion and eyestrain. The cameras should always be parallel. You should only adjust the interaxial distance for the desired parallax and the output stereo pair for the desired window placement. This gives the best possible result, but requires to crop the frame (and scale up the image) and therefore reduces the definition a bit. You can avoid this reduction by using higher res cameras eg 2K.
Converging cameras isn't "wrong". I adjust convergence when needed and it works just fine without keystone distortion. I also use various ranges of I.A. spacing, depending on the distance to the desired convergence point. I have cameras that have a very close I.A. up to 3 inches on fixed cameras, and even closer when you toe in with convergence. Then of course there are wider I.A. for longer shots. Don can fill you in on that as he shoots a good deal of those scenes. There are a few of us here that have been shooting 3D for more than a few days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
And this is why nature followed the path of true stereo through millions of years of evolution, with two eyes for all beings, from humans to mouses, to fishes, to insects.
Really? Arachnids have 8 eyes. Praying mantis has 5. Scallops have 100 eyes.

Something else, don't take everything over at realorfake3d.com as fact. There are many errors on that site. To name a few: Paranormal Activity Ghost Dimension is labeled as native 3D, is actually converted. Tomorrowland, according to director and writer it was never 3D so doesn't even go on that site. Hubble I notice awhile back was in the converted column but it was entirely shot in IMAX 3D so doesn't belong there. I even posted on their website but no one bothered to change it. That tells me the webmaster isn't that interested in facts or reputation just stirring controversy.
Don Landis likes this.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #24 of 93 Unread 12-21-2015, 09:00 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 26,616
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3465 Post(s)
Liked: 1924
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
No, about 2:1 this year for converted, previous years it's been the other way around.
So 66% converted is much lower than I would have expected.

53TB unRAID2--41TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #25 of 93 Unread 12-22-2015, 02:29 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,132
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Something that has not been mentioned here but is true. Nearly all 3D BluRay 3D commercial disks take all 3D productions and publish the production as a 2D base file, plus an instruction set file to generate the second eye view, for the two eye stereocopic presentation. One way of looking at it is all 3D bluray movies regardless of how it is shot end up as a 2D and then use a particular 2D to 3D conversion algorithm to get the movie back to 3D stereoscopic view. Albeit a near perfect conversion from the original, none the less, a conversion. The licensed 3D bluray standard is done this way, using a base image file and a dependent instruction set to create the additional eye view. Of course there are other ways to store and present the program, but the licensed 3D BluRay standard is essentially a 2D to 3D conversion.

Barry is correct that you are entitled to your point of view on this. The way I see it is whether you recognize a production is produced from twin cameras, conversion from a single camera, the bottom line is whether you were entertained or not. If the knowledge that a movie was produced in a certain way, that disturbs you then the entertainment value is lost on you. Doesn't matter if everyone else is entertained, they are not you. We get it, once you know from tech specs a stereoscopic movie was not produced using your standards, you don't like it. But the majority of viewers don't care what camera was used, they care if they were entertained or not.

I went to see IMAX Star Wars 7 yesterday and the last thing on my mind was how they made the film. For me, it was about the story. I believe nearly all the millions of people who went to see the movie this past weekend went to see the story, and didn't care how it was shot. Even you have to recognize, the producers make a movie to appeal to please the general audience to be successful.
Don Landis is offline  
post #26 of 93 Unread 12-22-2015, 06:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tezster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 187
With regards to this thread's title, it isn't fraud, because there's no intent or grand conspiracy to hide or dupe the filmgoer into believing a particular film was shot with a 3D camera system (it's public knowledge).

The 3D isn't any more real or fake than all aspects of the production i.e. the colour timing, the sound effects, non-location studio/green-screen shooting. It's all part of the film-making process.

If you're unhappy about the 3D being fake, then at least be consistent and complain about everything else that's "fake".

Might I suggest that what you're unhappy with isn't fake 3D per se, but poorly utilized ("bad") 3D, which is something we can all agree on.

Last edited by tezster; 12-22-2015 at 06:12 AM. Reason: added remark
tezster is offline  
post #27 of 93 Unread 12-22-2015, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 477 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Don, I'm not sure that MVC encoded Blu ray discs would generally be considered a 2D - 3D conversion. The premise is that the dependent view saves data by sharing information from the primary "left" view where they overlap on identical information. So there is some information that is shared but when you input the data into the MVC encoder they are two separate data streams. Even so, sharing some data for efficiency wouldn't be considered a conversion from 2D-3D because those separate data streams were unique to begin with and only share data to conserve space. So while a standard 2D to 3D converter like DVDfab's converter would take the single 2D frame and build new left/right viewpoints, the MVC encoder is only eliminating data that's unnecessary for better efficiency. To me, it seems, that would indicate it's compression based and not conversion derived. The data isn't being "altered", only eliminated in redundant locations.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #28 of 93 Unread 12-22-2015, 07:44 AM
Member
 
skeeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 28
This has actually been discussed before...check out the link:
http://realorfake3d.com/

Basically--my lame understanding is, capturing 3D is completely different than CGI'ed 3D.

<Shopping> | Sony BDPS5200 3D | Yamaha RX-V659 | B&W 601 S3

Past: Samsung 51 F8500 PDP
skeeder is offline  
post #29 of 93 Unread 12-22-2015, 07:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 1,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Lol. If 3d conversion is a fraud then you must hate ALL motion recordings, because every single one if them is a series if motionless photographs shown in sequence at varying rates.
Not very "real world" at all.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Stereodude likes this.

buytme
David_B is offline  
post #30 of 93 Unread 12-22-2015, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Watch PAN, one of the best uses of 3D I've seen all year...and it's a conversion. That film (and THE WALK) make better use of the format more effectively than, say, the natively-shot THE MARTIAN, IMO. As for MAD MAX, that was intended to be shot natively. But the 3D cameras couldn't withstand the rigors of the dust-laden location so they had to go with the conversion option.

Last edited by film113; 12-24-2015 at 03:45 PM.
film113 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
converted-from-2D-to-3D , fake 3d , fraud , native 3d
Gear in this thread

taboola here


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