or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Airion

Good to see some raw impressions! I'll be eagerly reading everything you can offer us. On the other hand, first impressions can be misleading. I'll be most interested in where your opinion settles a week or two from now.
Yes, this makes sense to me too (though I'm not 100% sure, as there may be something to the fact that our eyes don't see rectangular images). But as with converged cameras, the distortion is only in the edges. IRL it would be permanently in our peripheral vision, where we can't really notice it. We certainly can't look right at it as we can in the artificial case of viewing a 3D display. If we move our eyes to focus and converge on an object that was in our peripheral...
I think we're talking about different things. I should say vertical parallax. It's a known disadvantage of shooting with converged cameras and a direct result of keystone distortion. What we don't know how much toe-in there was shooting a particular scene in a particular film, and how much keystone distortion was or wasn't corrected in post production. Does anyone?
Disparities that are due to the left/right offset of our eyes, of course. That's the basis for stereoscopic vision. Vertical disparity, no. Our eyes can fuse a small amount of vertical disparity, but it's not comfortable and it's not natural. The greater the camera toe-in, the greater the distortion in the edges and the more vertical disparity present when viewing those areas, and so the greater chance that some viewers will feel discomfort. The closer to parallel the...
I agree with this, so let me clarify. The problem is distortion. With converged cameras, there is vertical disparity introduced in the edges, which is problematic. It should be easy to see this in the images above. With the parallel camera 3D image, you can look and focus anywhere in the image and have no problem, no vertical disparity.
First it was active vs passive, and that got stale. Now it's parallel vs converged. The next great AVS Forum 3D war has begun!
In real life we are unable to focus on anything other than the center of our vision. Our eyes are both our eyes and the cameras. The distortion can only be in our peripheral vision.So when we're looking at a 3D image with converged cameras, it should look great when we're looking at what the cameras were converging on. It looks natural, and our peripheral vision, to the extent that our brains even care, is realistically distorted. But look elsewhere in the image, and the...
At least write a sentence so that people can understand the context and learn!The image on the left is the distortion you get with significantly converged (aka "toe-in") cameras. The one on the right is what you get with parallel cameras (basically no distortion). With slightly converged cameras, you'd get something slightly in between.
I believe I have a good understanding of parallel vs converged cameras, but I admit that this information (how exactly movies were shot) is not readily available. Please share it if you have it!nenito2k...you ask good questions! I agree that Under the Sea has problems, and I've thought so since before reading this thread. In a few scenes, the background is separated on my 90" screen greater than the separation between my eyes, meaning that these scenes are essentially...
Converged cameras is what I thought of when I read the OP too. Most movies are shot with parallel cameras, Avatar being a notable exception. From what I can see, a lot of documentaries were shot with the cameras converged. In all these cases (including Avatar) I find the 3D image to be slightly difficult to view at times. As I understand it, it would unavoidably be so if you're looking anywhere in the image other than the center where the cameras converged. Everywhere else...
New Posts  All Forums: