Seeing Ultra-D For Myself - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 42 Old 10-21-2013, 04:14 AM
Member
 
mathu rajan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I magic
Glasses free 3d will be competitive with flat 2d prices
mathu rajan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 07:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by farsider3000 View Post

Scott,

This is a very exciting technology and I was not expecting high quality glasses free 3D this soon. When this technology is refined and "reasonably" priced UHD sets are available ($3,500 for a 65" and $5,000 for an 80" maybe) I predict that this will be the must have set that will wow everyone. I love 3D but hate wearing the glasses since I wear glasses myself and I am distracted with adjusting the glasses all the time.

This technology is actually keeping me on the fence about installing the projector in my theater room. I designed the room with room for a hidden drop down electric screen in the soffit above the plasma tv but I keep thinking the future is a huge 120" glasses free LCD. Most likely I should go ahead and purchase the screen and projector for 2D only and then upgrade my 65" plasma when a 75" or 80" UHD glasses free solution is available. But man would it be nice to wait for a reasonably priced ($6,000 ??) 4K / UHD LED projector.... so many new technologies affecting everyone's purchases.

I am happy to see this technology advance. Thanks for your insights.

There have been a number of 3Ds passive projector systems presented in the last two years at CES but all appeared to be washed out and lacking contrast. None except for LG's original with the curved screen actually were production models. And none were glasses free. I would not say we're a long way off, rather we are not where the buying retail public will spend to have glasses free projector systems in the home theater. The image quality just does not compare to a good 3D active glasses projector system. FWIW- I have a Sony VW90ES on a 100" screen and love the quality. In my HT, I want a roll up screen so panels larger than 65" are out of the question. I'm interested in the Ultra D for my video edit room.


Scott- I want to say that your description matches my visual experience exactly. You did an excellent job writing what I observed last year at CES. I cannot find anything you claimed I would disagree with. BUT- I have to caution everyone, this company is on a fast track in making major developments so what we saw a short time ago is likely to be dated now. This latest claim by Mathu that one can see 3D with one eye is really wild. I am looking forward to seeing and testing that.
Don Landis is offline  
post #33 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 08:01 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,056
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1479 Post(s)
Liked: 2771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by farsider3000 View Post

Scott,

This is a very exciting technology and I was not expecting high quality glasses free 3D this soon. When this technology is refined and "reasonably" priced UHD sets are available ($3,500 for a 65" and $5,000 for an 80" maybe) I predict that this will be the must have set that will wow everyone. I love 3D but hate wearing the glasses since I wear glasses myself and I am distracted with adjusting the glasses all the time.

This technology is actually keeping me on the fence about installing the projector in my theater room. I designed the room with room for a hidden drop down electric screen in the soffit above the plasma tv but I keep thinking the future is a huge 120" glasses free LCD. Most likely I should go ahead and purchase the screen and projector for 2D only and then upgrade my 65" plasma when a 75" or 80" UHD glasses free solution is available. But man would it be nice to wait for a reasonably priced ($6,000 ??) 4K / UHD LED projector.... so many new technologies affecting everyone's purchases.

I am happy to see this technology advance. Thanks for your insights.

There have been a number of 3Ds passive projector systems presented in the last two years at CES but all appeared to be washed out and lacking contrast. None except for LG's original with the curved screen actually were production models. And none were glasses free. I would not say we're a long way off, rather we are not where the buying retail public will spend to have glasses free projector systems in the home theater. The image quality just does not compare to a good 3D active glasses projector system. FWIW- I have a Sony VW90ES on a 100" screen and love the quality. In my HT, I want a roll up screen so panels larger than 65" are out of the question. I'm interested in the Ultra D for my video edit room.


Scott- I want to say that your description matches my visual experience exactly. You did an excellent job writing what I observed last year at CES. I cannot find anything you claimed I would disagree with. BUT- I have to caution everyone, this company is on a fast track in making major developments so what we saw a short time ago is likely to be dated now. This latest claim by Mathu that one can see 3D with one eye is really wild. I am looking forward to seeing and testing that.

I would like to point out that "wobble 3D" works for folks with mono vision, allowing those people to perceive depth. House cats use the technique when estimating the distance of a jump, because their eyes are too close to each other, as do other animals.

To the extent that one can perceive the illusion of depth with Ultra-D, it's restricted to that effect. If you stare straight at the screen with no movement and only one eye, it will look flat... but if the perspective shifts just a little bit, depth will be perceived. Humans do this as well, because standard stereo vision stops being effective at around 20 feet. When people stand on a sidewalk and look at a house, that's not stereo vision. When people see an airplane on a tarmac, or a city skyline, that's not stereo vision. When you see your friend on the other side of the street, that's also not stereo vision.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #34 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 08:57 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Mark- OK, I recall the people at Streamworks Booth last year talked to me about that method to use to record the depth on video but it didn't work effectively.
Quote:
because standard stereo vision stops being effective at around 20 feet.
This is not a locked in stone rule. It is a myth based on certain criteria. That being the human standard 65mm interocular distance of the eyes is not negotiable. . It is easily possible to get around this and record stereo depth of very large and distant subject matter using greater than human interocular distance of 65mm average with your cameras. Very effective 3Ds visuals have been achieved using "hyper distant" spacing between the cameras. Some of the most impressive 3Ds visuals have been recorded using inter axial distances of up to 1000 meters recording fireworks in stages ranging from 20-30 miles deep. The downside is some people perceive this compression of actual distant spacing of depth as a miniaturization effect. I agree with this but do not see it as a harmful artifact. Anytime I see an object on my TV screen that is smaller than it is for real, that image is miniature. The fact that a 3Ds image also has the same miniaturization is just an extension of that effect into the 3D world from the flat 2D world.

See my avitar where I am shooting 3Ds of the Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon that are .5 to 2 miles away using interaxial camera spacing up to 16". There is plenty of 3D effect in this background. Is it miniaturized? Of course, those Hoodoos are about 1000 ft tall.





Most 3D enthusiasts are aware of this ability to extend the range of 3D but many are also against the idea and insist you shouldn't be allowed to enhance stereo beyond what the human eyes naturally see.
Don Landis is offline  
post #35 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 09:08 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,056
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1479 Post(s)
Liked: 2771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Mark- OK, I recall the people at Streamworks Booth last year talked to me about that method to use to record the depth on video but it didn't work effectively.
Quote:
because standard stereo vision stops being effective at around 20 feet.
This is not a locked in stone rule. It is a myth based on certain criteria. That being the human standard 65mm interocular distance of the eyes is not negotiable. . It is easily possible to get around this and record stereo depth of very large and distant subject matter using greater than human interocular distance of 65mm average with your cameras. Very effective 3Ds visuals have been achieved using "hyper distant" spacing between the cameras. Some of the most impressive 3Ds visuals have been recorded using inter axial distances of up to 1000 meters recording fireworks in stages ranging from 20-30 miles deep. The downside is some people perceive this compression of actual distant spacing of depth as a miniaturization effect. I agree with this but do not see it as a harmful artifact. Anytime I see an object on my TV screen that is smaller than it is for real, that image is miniature. The fact that a 3Ds image also has the same miniaturization is just an extension of that effect into the 3D world from the flat 2D world.

See my avitar where I am shooting 3Ds of the Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon that are .5 to 2 miles away using interaxial camera spacing up to 16".

When shooting photos or filming in stereo, you can adjust the difference between the two cameras. I actually shoot a fair bit of 3D, so I'm familiar with the technique—I use a DSLR and a slider bar for 3D stills.

Head movement simulates a greater inter-ocular distance, just like using the slider bar. In bringing up the 20-foot limit, I was referring to people's subjective, real-world experience with 3D—unaided human vision. A lot of people (with two eyes) think that everything they see is 3D, when the truth is that beyond a certain distance (about 20 feet) humans can't see objects in stereoscopic 3D.

In other words, for humans with unaided vision who are viewing a scene from 20 feet away and further, the world starts to look the same whether viewed through one eye or two. As you well know, that's the reason why binoculars spread out that interocular distance, to allow stereoscopic viewing of more distant objects.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #36 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 01:33 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
I use a DSLR and a slider bar for 3D stills.

Mark- Do you use a single camera for that? There is also a mode on many new digital cameras that makes 3D using a pan, same as it does for panorama but stitches every other shot for left right left right... It works very well stitching the shots together for 3D panorama. I have that on my NEX5n. No real control on I-O however.

BTW- I was sure you and several others here were aware of the hyper IA shooting technique for the extended distance and subject size, but only mentioned it so those who didn't know would understand that the 20' limit only pertains to human natural vision.
Don Landis is offline  
post #37 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 01:41 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,056
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1479 Post(s)
Liked: 2771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Quote:
I use a DSLR and a slider bar for 3D stills.

Mark- Do you use a single camera for that? There is also a mode on many new digital cameras that makes 3D using a pan, same as it does for panorama but stitches every other shot for left right left right... It works very well stitching the shots together for 3D panorama. I have that on my NEX5n. No real control on I-O however.

BTW- I was sure you and several others here were aware of the hyper IA shooting technique for the extended distance and subject size, but only mentioned it so those who didn't know would understand that the 20' limit only pertains to human natural vision.

Yes I use a single camera. Unless there is some kind of motion in the scene, I only take two shots so I can shoot in RAW. I've tried out the 3D pano mode on my Sony Alpha but for the most part I'm into having more control.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #38 of 42 Old 12-05-2013, 10:05 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
I've tried out the 3D pano mode on my Sony Alpha but for the most part I'm into having more control.

No doubt- When I use that mode, I usually have to toss out 5-6 attempts to get a good one. But it doesn't require my slide bench.

Have you checked out whether the Ultra D system can display a slide show of your 3D collection? ( without having to put it on a Blue Ray disk )
Don Landis is offline  
post #39 of 42 Old 12-06-2013, 04:36 PM
Member
 
mathu rajan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
yes you do a slide show without bluray it has 4 hdmi in ports
you use a tablet or laptop or pc etc
mathu rajan is offline  
post #40 of 42 Old 01-17-2014, 01:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I would like to point out that "wobble 3D" works for folks with mono vision, allowing those people to perceive depth. House cats use the technique when estimating the distance of a jump, because their eyes are too close to each other, as do other animals.

To the extent that one can perceive the illusion of depth with Ultra-D, it's restricted to that effect. If you stare straight at the screen with no movement and only one eye, it will look flat... but if the perspective shifts just a little bit, depth will be perceived. Humans do this as well, because standard stereo vision stops being effective at around 20 feet. When people stand on a sidewalk and look at a house, that's not stereo vision. When people see an airplane on a tarmac, or a city skyline, that's not stereo vision. When you see your friend on the other side of the street, that's also not stereo vision.

Thanks for all the great work you did at CES, Mark. I really enjoyed your reports.

I just found this thread - I somehow missed it before.

I created some comparative videos for Cyclopital3D, a Colorado company that produces accessories for 3D still cameras and video camcorders. Since the topic came up here, I thought you might be interested in the YouTube link for the one about C3D's stereo base extenders. It shows the differences between 2D, the normal JVC-TD1 interaxial distance of about 35mm, and the wider 140mm interaxial distance of their stereo base extender. The wider the stereo base, the more dramatic the 3D effect. I would say, though, that it is possible to see some stereo separation at distances of much greater than 20 feet. In the video, I can perceive 3D depth between trees on an island in the Japanese Garden, shot with the JVC's normal 3D lenses (separated by about half the distance of human eyes), even though the trees are probably 200 feet away. The SBE shot, of course, is obviously far better at that distance. Here's a Dropbox link to the same video, but in Full HD 3D (1080p//24).

Cyclopital3D stereo base extender - 1080p/24 iso file

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #41 of 42 Old 01-17-2014, 03:19 PM
Member
 
Chris071983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
That was an interesting read. Thank you for sharing what you saw, as it'll be fun to watch this and the Dolby 3D develop, and see which on takes off first to the consumer.
Chris071983 is offline  
post #42 of 42 Old 01-18-2014, 10:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 173
I hope Mathu is right and we see Ultra-D displays in stores this year. 3D desperately needs a good shot in the arm. If the casual viewers who walk into a Best Buy could see bright, glasses-free 3D, without eye strain or cumbersome glasses, I believe many of them couldn't resist buying it. Here's why:

In 2010, when I heard that 3D displays were going on sale at Best Buy, I was practically banging on the door before the store opened. When it finally did, the 3D TV wasn't even up and running. I had to talk the manager into setting one up for me. They also had to open a box with 3D glasses, which meant that only two people could watch at the same time. Casual passersby would glance at it and walk away. One girl even said, "That 3D set is so blurry. Who would want to buy that?" Of course, she had no glasses on - which was funny but sad at the same time. The set I saw was an early Samsung LCD, and it was riddled with ghosting. And when I asked which 3D titles were available for me to buy, I was told there were none. I could get Monsters vs Aliens if I bought a Samsung TV and a Panasonic 3D demo disc if I bought their 3D Blu-ray player. Thank goodness for 2D to 3D conversion, because that was practically the only new 3D I could my hands on for 3-4 months. Then Hollywood released one bad 3D title after another, many of them very poorly done and overpriced 2D to 3D conversions, as they tried to milk the 3D euphoria that was sweeping the CE industry at the time. 3D was getting a nasty black eye (pun intended).

This scenario has played out basically the same way every time I've gone into a store to check out 3D displays, up to the present day. It's still a chore, even for a huge 3D enthusiast like myself, to seek out a salesperson and try to see what's new in 3D technology. For the less than enthusiastic buyer, a good 3D demo simply isn't going to happen at all. Imagine instead what it would be like if people wandered through the TV section of Best Buy and couldn't help but see bright, detailed 3D displays, with good demo material, sitting right next to the 2D sets. Game changer!!!

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

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