or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Popular Myths About 3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Popular Myths About 3D - Page 5

post #121 of 200
I would like to hear a technical explanation of why polarized technology and FPR cannot be applied to plasma display tech, only LCD? All the (passive) polarized mfrs. are applying the tech exclusively to AM-LCD.

Is it because the (inside of the) screens must be coated with a polarizer and this conflicts in some way with the emissive nature of PDP?

Secondly, I've found that both polarized and active shutter eyewear cut light output significantly (as much as 70%). Is it true that AS reduces luminance MORE than passive glasses?
post #122 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scionracing View Post

I would like to hear a technical explanation of why polarized technology and FPR cannot be applied to plasma display tech, only LCD? All the (passive) polarized mfrs. are applying the tech exclusively to AM-LCD.

Is it because the (inside of the) screens must be coated with a polarizer and this conflicts in some way with the emissive nature of PDP?

Plasma TV using patterned retarder or active retarder solutions are quite feasible and possible over the next few years. In fact, as consumers adopt passive solutions in greater numbers, PDP may have to consider a passive solution. PDP, like AMOLEDs, output unpolarized light, so any passive polarized solution will immediate cut the light output in half. That will be an issue for both technologies. We also expect auto-stereoscopic, or no glasses 3D TV solutions to appear over the forecast period. These will initially be expensive, offered in small screen sizes and produce image quality that is not likely to appeal to the mass market. But this could improve fairly rapidly, especially if panel makers decide this is an application they want to use to commercialize much higher resolution panels (quad full HD or 4K - panels with four times the resolution of FHD panels today). These approaches could become increasingly important in the out years

http://www.cln-online.org/index.php?...ll-about-3d-tv

Quote:


Secondly, I've found that both polarized and active shutter eyewear cut light output significantly (as much as 70%). Is it true that AS reduces luminance MORE than passive glasses?

Depends on the quality of the glasses. You can't get lower than 50%.
post #123 of 200
Many theaters misuse 3-D lenses to show 2-D films, squandering brightness, color

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/arti...e_dark/?page=1

Quote:


The uniting factor is a fleet of 4K digital projectors made by Sony — or, rather, the 3-D lenses that many theater managers have made a practice of leaving on the projectors when playing a 2-D film. Though the issue is widespread, affecting screenings at AMC, National Amusements, and Regal cinemas, executives at all these major movie theater chains, and at the corporate offices of the projector’s manufacturer, have refused to directly acknowledge or comment on how and why it’s happening. Asked where his company stands on the matter, Dan Huerta, vice president of sight and sound for AMC, the second-biggest chain in the US, said only that “We don’t really have any official or unofficial policy to not change the lens.’’

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...r-Local-Cinema

Quote:


by elrous0 (869638) * writes: on Monday May 23, @03:26PM (#36220808)

This is actually due to the fact that Sony digital projectors are so locked down with DRM that even changing the lens requires all kinds of password checks (which can potentially lock the camera down if not done correctly).

Sadly, this is one of the problems that digital projectors were *supposed* to fix. For years, it was a infamous practice for theater managers to extend projector bulb life by reducing the power of the lamp. Since most people don't notice (having no idea how the movie is *supposed* to look), they could get away with it. Roger Ebert in particular complained about [suntimes.com] this practice for decades (even organizing protests at certain theaters engaging in the practice). When digital projection came along, one of the selling points was that it produced a much more consistent image (and managers couldn't futz with it--reducing bulb strength, etc.).

Now, thanks to our good friends at Sony, it would seem like we're right back where we started from (maybe even worse, since this produces an even darker image than one of the celluloid projectors at half power).

Quote:


The Money is in 3D (Score:3)
by NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) writes: on Monday May 23, @04:36PM (#36221520)

The industry has decided to make this commitment for DRM (harder to copy in 3D theater with a video recorder) and margin reasons (higher ticket prices). The problem is that the 2D versions with the right lens look brighter and, in some cases, much better. The solution is never show the brighter 2D version. Of course, it cost money to change lenses, too. Bottom line, there in no incentive for the industry to go back to 2D anything, except that, maybe, people will not go to see dark screens.

The inability to cam a theatrical 3D presentation is probably the biggest culprit in the use of 3D for too many films, IMO.
post #124 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post

Many theaters misuse 3-D lenses to show 2-D films, squandering brightness, color

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/arti...e_dark/?page=1



http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...r-Local-Cinema

So the brouhaha is about Sony projectors. Well what about Christie and Barco who have many more digital projectors in cinemas than Sony does. They are both single lens 3D projectors.
post #125 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
LOL! Me too.

And also the myth that people won't buy into 3D because you have to wear glasses in your own home.
I had laser eye surgery, largely in part because I didn't want to wear 2 pair of glasses. One I'm great with. lol
post #126 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So the brouhaha is about Sony projectors. Well what about Christie and Barco who have many more digital projectors in cinemas than Sony does. They are both single lens 3D projectors.

Sorry this is quite long, but I wanted to try and be complete.

In general, most of the DLP installations are doing frame alternating 3D where the projector switches between showing the left eye and then the right eye, typically at triple frame rate. So the projector is showing 144 frames per second, 3 left and 3 right, times the 24 frames per second. There are 4 different systems in use presenting this triple flash 3D to the audience. Real-D which uses either a "Z-screen" or the "XL system". Dolby 3D which uses alternate RGB color filtering, Master Image which uses a spinning disk of alternating polarizing segments. and Xpand using shutter glasses. All 4 systems have some advantages and dissadvantages. Real D with a single Z-screen was the first system put into wide use. It is not very light efficient and suffers from a bit of image softness and ghosting/crosstalk. If used with a bright enough projector and carefuly setup, it does provide a very good image with only a minor loss in sharpness and color saturation due to projecting the image through the LCD polarizing Z-screen. Real-D XL is an improvement in many ways, but also adds some new problems. It's biggest improvement is in light output. Well over 40% more light gets to the screen comared to a single Z-screen system, but the light out of the projector is split into 2 paths and have to be recombined back at the screen. I have seen it line up perfectly with ease, but I also spent a solid hour tweaking one and was unable to get the image split to less then 4 pixels at al the edges. I think the box had been dropped and the prisms were mis aligned on that one. The XL box does have 2 images coming out of it, stacked vertically at the projection port, but they are both showing both eyes at full resolution. According to Real-D, 2D should NOT be projected through the box or Z-screen. When the projector is operating in a 3D mode, it is sending a sync signal to drive the LCD active polarizers. When running a 2D feature, this signal is not there and the panels do not behave correctly and could even be damaged. 2D contant such as trailers are often shown before a 3D feature in 3D mode and this is not a problemas it just shows the same image to both eyes. A full 2D feature could be shown in 3D mode this way, but is not done in any of the theatres I have been in. Unfortunately, the real-D screen or box on the front of DLP projectors is not normally motorized to move out of the way, so it does sometimes get forgotten and a few shows run through it. The effect on the picture is not horrible, but can be visible. A little dimmer and softer, and you may see the pulsing of the non synced LCD's. The XL boxes do fall back to a fairly fast mode so it will not damage the LCD's and the flicker is usually fast enough to not be visible. At least two other companies are making motor kits to push the box out of the way when not in a 3D mode, but theatre owners tend to be cheap. Master Image is very similar to Real D in that it is using alternate circular polarizing but instead of using an LCD polarizer it mechanically changes the filters by spinning them in front of the projector on a large motor. It uses 12 segments so the amount of tilt is fairly small. The light efficiency is right between the original Z-screen and the XL system from Real-D. Both systems can use the same glasses and require the silver screen to hold the polarization. Master Image does have one very nice feature, it comes with a motor system to move the spinning disk in and out of the projectors light path to switch in and out of 3D without human help. Dolby 3D is a bit different. Since it is using the shifted colors it works on white screens. The light efficiency is a bit less since it does not have the help of the high gain silver screen, but it also does not suffer the hot spotting and color shifts caused by the silver either. The color filtering is done in the projector before the DLP chips so the image from the chips to the screen is not going through anything extra. The left end right eyes are using different primary colors so the calibration is more involved and care has to be taken to get it right, but when done correctly, the colors are very accurate and vivid without the loss of sharpness and contrast suffered by going through the polarizers or other extra glass. The lower light in the center of the screen is easilly made up for with the much more even light right out to the corners. In many cases people think it is brighter overall when using the same projector and lamp size since shadow detail at the bottom and sides of the screen are lit better. All Dolby 3D systems using a single projector will use only one lens and the filter wheel is powered to move out of the light path during 2D operation. Xpand also works on white screens and has the more even light advantage. The glasses are LCD shutters so they suffer similar light loss to Dolby 3D or a single Real-D Z-Screen. There is nothing in the light path from the projector to the screen, the only thing effecting the image is the glasses on your face. Some people swear by the active glasses, other swear at them. They are heavier and need battteries. They are expensive and fragile compared to the passive glasses. Dolby glasses are also more expensive than the polarized ones and are therefore reused and washed like the Xpand ones, but are far more durable and don't need batteries.

Some larger screen theatres have gone to dual projectors. Digital IMAX is also a dual projector system. Real-D and Dolby can do dual projectors in 2 ways. The best is to dedicate one machine to each eye like IMAX does using static polarizers or fixed color shift filters in each machine. When running in 2D, it is common to then use only one machine, alternating on a show by show or day by day basis to keep the lamps at the same life. IMAX still overlays the two images and claims it increases resolution, but even if perfectly aligned, I see that as a tough act to prove. The DLP pixels do not leave much gap at all to fill with the other projectors pixel, but it does blend away the pixel edges a bit.

Xpand using 2 machines still has to have the machines in sync alternating eyes to match the glasses, so there is less advantage to 2 machines, you only get more light, nothing else. Being able to dedicate a machine to each eye eliminates the lag between the eyes where one eye is seeing the new frame first. This can cause a blurring of shuddering look in fast motion and even a loss of 3D depth on horizontal motion.

The SONY 4K projectors are using SXRD, Sony's own version of LCOS imagers. They are not able to alternate between the 2 eye images at 144 hz like the DLP's can. So they had to do 3D in a different way. After quite a bit of testing they came up with the dual lens system causing all the uproar in the Boston Globe. Basically, they went back to the way 3D was done on film in the 80's. They split the imager in half vertically. One half is always showing the right eye, the other half is always showing the left eye. This does give both eyes the new frame at the same time so it does work very well in moderate motion. The problem is that the 3D lens is a beast. It needs to be installed and aligned very carefully to get the two images perfectly overlayed. The 3D lens also does not have any provision for automated adjustments. So the images need to be scaled and fit to the screen depending on the format between flat and scope. Much of the imager ends up blanked and off the screen. This results in a lower resolution, and light output compared to using the full imager for 2D. Since the Boston Globe article came out, several theatres have started changing the lenses for bigger features. Maximum light output is cut to less than 1/2 when the 3D lens is installed versus the 2D only lens. Several theatres have also pulled fairly new SONY projectors out of larger screens as they just could not put out enough light. The DLP projectors not only hold a larger bulb, they put out more of the light the bulb creates. SONY claims 18,000 lumens out of the model 220 projector with a 4,000 watt bulb, the 320 may be a bit better, but I don't have the spec. The typical DLP with a 6,000 watt bulb is over 30,000 lumens. Barco is using a new 6,500 watt bulb and putting out close to 40,000 lumens.

TI is starting to ship 4K DLP projectors. Currently the DCI spec for cinema does not include a 4K 3D format, but one is going to come. For now, all 3D is only 2K resolution. IMAX does label their shows as 4K 3D, but using two 2K DLP projectors is not going to make a 4K image. True 4K projectors like the Sony and new 4K DLP's have 4 times te pixels, double in both directions.

If I did not answer a question you have, please post it or PM me and I will try to clarify anything I may have missed.

GXM
post #127 of 200
From

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...y-Eye-Tracking

Quote:


Focal depth must match stereo depth. (Score:4, Interesting)
by dinther (738910) writes: on Thursday July 28, @05:41PM (#36914138) Homepage As I wrote on Gizmag:

As an armchair scientist, I have been experimenting with screens for quite a while. Trying to plot out what factors are involved for 3D display and depth perception.

I have been following this whole 3D craze with dismay because TV builders have failed to address the fundamentals.

Stereo vision is only one aspect of 3D vision and in fact not even nearly as powerful as some other effects. Although there are many causing discomfort the light ray divergence is most relevant.

Your eye also tells you how far away something is by the amount of work it needs to do to bring it into focus. The lens in your eye bends incoming light rays so they focus on your retina similar to how a photo camera works. To get the best possible 3D effect in commercial flight simulators, they make use of collimated displays.

Consider the pixels on your LCD screen a light sources. Take a pixel and you can consider it to be a light point that radiates light in all directions. After all you want to see the screen at many viewing angles. So the light rays diverge and the lens in your eye needs to bring the rays that hit the eye together to focus on your retina.

A collimated display emits light rays that are more or less parallel. Your eyes can relax more in order to focus which is an very powerful depth suggestion.

Stereo vision and focal distance need to match in order to get rid of the worst nauseating effect. Stereo vision may suggest something is in front of the screen but your eye disagrees because it needs to focus on the screen. These two inputs are fighting each other continuously.

The only way to solve this problem is if we can build a display with an adjustable micro lens in front of each screen pixel. If we can control the light ray divergence from a single pixel in real-time then we can match the stereo vision with focal distance and finally get rid if this mismatch. Added benefit is that displays like this can be adjusted for your eyes so you can watch TV without your glasses. They would make really good computer monitors.

A pixel worth of imagery normally only contains R, G and B channels for Red, Green and Blue light that combine to any color. In addition each pixel needs a fourth channel indicating the depth of the pixel. You may find the focal depth powerful enough without the need for stereo vision. You can try this simply by closing one eye and look around and notice how your eye adjusts to things nearby and far away.
post #128 of 200
Thread Starter 
Here is the problem with 3D:

S3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with glasses. The brain combines them to make 3D.

AS3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with no glasses and the brain combines them to make 3D

Both methods are unnatural as far as human vision. We see 3D images with either eye. A person who only has one eye still sees in 3D. Just close one of yours to mimic this. That person can not see either S3D or AS3D

Human Vision - Uses seperate L & R 3D images

The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN.
post #129 of 200
Showscan used 60 full frames per second to give your eyes a lot more information about an movement of an object. Moving objects give away their depth by the change in ange over time compared to other objects in view. Our brains have been taight over many years to understand all of the distance cues together. Chopping time into 24 frames per second is way too slow and we lose a lot of fine detail motion information. Larger motions and moderate speed motion still does give s some depth cues though, and this does cause a problem for stereo 3D. If the depth cue from stereo vision does not match the depth cue you get from motion paralax, your brain knows something is wrong. The size of the screen and the seating distance effects this and makes it so the contant is a compromise for "avaerage" theatres. Most likely it will be way off when put onto a tiny 50 inch screen in a home. At a theatre, the 2.5 inches between your eyes is a very small fraction of screen width, but at just 40 inches wide or so, the width between your eyes is a much larger fraction of screen width. I have seen the effect of the opposite, content made on a 40 inch plazma was ripping my eyes out on a 60 foot wide screen.
post #130 of 200
I made two new videos and this time they are in 3D side by side format, 720p resolution, left side first.

link

There is two videos, one is 23.976 fps per eye and the other is 47.952 fps per eye.
As before the goal is to see them move in the same line as the line moves from the left to the right.

I read some replies saying they had 240Hz or 120Hz TV's and this fixes any flickering, well I made a video that uses blu ray 3D speed and now you can see if your fast tv stops flickering.

Please try the test videos and reply with how you did as I find that interesting enough I did this work.
post #131 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXM View Post
Showscan used 60 full frames per second to give your eyes a lot more information about an movement of an object. Moving objects give away their depth by the change in ange over time compared to other objects in view. Our brains have been taight over many years to understand all of the distance cues together. Chopping time into 24 frames per second is way too slow and we lose a lot of fine detail motion information. Larger motions and moderate speed motion still does give s some depth cues though, and this does cause a problem for stereo 3D. If the depth cue from stereo vision does not match the depth cue you get from motion paralax, your brain knows something is wrong. The size of the screen and the seating distance effects this and makes it so the contant is a compromise for "avaerage" theatres. Most likely it will be way off when put onto a tiny 50 inch screen in a home. At a theatre, the 2.5 inches between your eyes is a very small fraction of screen width, but at just 40 inches wide or so, the width between your eyes is a much larger fraction of screen width. I have seen the effect of the opposite, content made on a 40 inch plazma was ripping my eyes out on a 60 foot wide screen.
Stereographers get around this by adjusting the convergence ever so slightly going from theater to smaller screens, and vice versa.
post #132 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Here is the problem with 3D:

S3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with glasses. The brain combines them to make 3D.

AS3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with no glasses and the brain combines them to make 3D

Both methods are unnatural as far as human vision. We see 3D images with either eye. A person who only has one eye still sees in 3D. Just close one of yours to mimic this. That person can not see either S3D or AS3D

Human Vision - Uses seperate L & R 3D images

The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN.
In what way do we see 3D with a single eye in reality?
post #133 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

In what way do we see 3D with a single eye in reality?

The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.
post #134 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.

Very interesting. I thought that you had to have at least 2 eyes to see 3D in the real world. Ideally, 3 eyes would be better (one above the other two) but how could you wear glasses.
post #135 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.

We've established that you are saying people can see in 3D with one eye. But what way do we see 3D in real life with one eye, and how is it different from a monoscopic movie?

Quote:


The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN

Resolution, size and framerate don't increase depth perception. They increase immersion, which 3D is also about.
post #136 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

We've established that you are saying people can see in 3D with one eye. But what way do we see 3D in real life with one eye, and how is it different from a monoscopic movie?

Not understanding you. Real Life is 3D. Movies are 2D. 3D movies consist of two offset 2D frames.

Quote:


Resolution, size and framerate don't increase depth perception. They increase immersion, which 3D is also about.

Using high resolution and high frame rate allows for an increase of depth of field when shooting.
post #137 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Not understanding you. Real Life is 3D. Movies are 2D. 3D movies consist of two offset 2D frames.

There are plenty of depth cues to give us a good idea of the third dimension in 2D photography. The only way real life is better than movies is that we are in the driver's seat controlling focal length and lateral head movements, whereas the director/DOP is controlling the movie's visuals.

We have two 2D cameras in our head. We can control the focal length (accommodation) and truck the cameras laterally by moving our body, and with both eyes open we can toe the cameras in and out to convergence on things and identify their Z axis location without the need of slow head movements or focal adjustments.

Quote:


Using high resolution and high frame rate allows for an increase of depth of field when shooting.

What do you base this on? Please explain. Use photography terms.
post #138 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

There are plenty of depth cues to give us a good idea of the third dimension in 2D photography. The only way real life is better than movies is that we are in the driver's seat controlling focal length and lateral head movements, whereas the director/DOP is controlling the movie's visuals.

You are using a mechanical lens which has severe limitations when compared to the eyeball's lens. Our eyes give us infinite focus, something a camera lens can't.

The depth that people see when watching a 2D movies is simply an illusion based on the contrast ratio. A movie screen has two measurements; length and width. It has no depth.

Quote:


We have two 2D cameras in our head. We can control the focal length (accommodation) and truck the cameras laterally by moving our body, and with both eyes open we can toe the cameras in and out to convergence on things and identify their Z axis location without the need of slow head movements or focal adjustments.

I disagree. We have two 3D cameras in our head not 2D.

Quote:


What do you base this on? Please explain. Use photography terms.

Using a greater range of F-Stops. Increasing the Dynamic Range. Using slower film especially in low lighting situations. The ability to increase focus as you increase depth of field.

Did you ever see Showscan Cakefoo?
post #139 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You are using a mechanical lens which has severe limitations when compared to the eyeball's lens. Our eyes give us infinite focus, something a camera lens can't.

Huh? A camera can have shallow depth of field, deep depth of field, whichever it wants. It can focus on something far away or an inch away.

Quote:


The depth that people see when watching a 2D movies is simply an illusion based on the contrast ratio. A movie screen has two measurements; length and width. It has no depth.

just contrast ratio? How about shallow depth of field? How about motion parallax? How about occlusion? Perspective?



Quote:


I disagree. We have two 3D cameras in our head not 2D.

Yes, you keep saying that. And I keep asking you to explain yourself. And you just keep repeating it. That's not explaining.


Quote:


Using a greater range of F-Stops. Increasing the Dynamic Range. Using slower film especially in low lighting situations. The ability to increase focus as you increase depth of field.

Did you ever see Showscan Cakefoo?

Shooting at higher fps means you have to use a faster shutter speed, leaving less time for exposure, reducing brightness, and requiring a wider aperture, causing a shallower depth of field. Showscan is about framerate (60fps) and film stock (65mm), improving clarity and eliminating flicker. Nothing about depth. Absolutely nothing. You've just made that up along with everything else.

Your opinions on 3D are strange, I'll be nice and put it like that.
post #140 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Huh? A camera can have shallow depth of field, deep depth of field, whichever it wants. It can focus on something far away or an inch away.

Not with a single lens. Plus shot a close up and anything in the background is totally out of focus. The human eye doesn't do that. If you are looking at someone standing 3 feet away from you, anything behind them is still in focus.

Quote:


just contrast ratio? How about shallow depth of field? How about motion parallax? How about occlusion? Perspective?

Not anywheres near as conclusive as the contrast ratio is.


Quote:


Yes, you keep saying that. And I keep asking you to explain yourself. And you just keep repeating it. That's not explaining.

I have explained it. You refuse to accept the explaination because it disagrees with yours.

Quote:


Shooting at higher fps means you have to use a faster shutter speed, leaving less time for exposure, reducing brightness, and requiring a wider aperture, causing a shallower depth of field. Showscan is about framerate (60fps) and film stock (65mm), improving clarity and eliminating flicker. Nothing about depth. Absolutely nothing. You've just made that up along with everything else.

No I didn't. It was one of the benefits that was realized after the process was put into use.

So you haven't seen Showscan have you?
post #141 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I have explained it. You refuse to accept the explaination because it disagrees with yours.

No? I refuse to accept the explanation because it is full of holes.

You said, "Our eyes give us infinite focus, something a camera lens can't." Which is false. You then adjusted it to, "..with a single lens." Why should that matter? Switch lenses, take the shot. Next setup, choose the best lens for the job. Edited together everything is seamless. It should be a plus that cameras have that interchangeable lens flexibility, but you've made it into a negative somehow. Please explain.

Our eyes have a finite control over depth of field. A camera lens can really crank the depth of field very shallow or very deep, and can focus on very near things or very far. Our eyes can't focus on macro stuff, it can't control the depth of field, just focal length.

Quote:


It was one of the benefits that was realized after the process was put into use.

Please explain "the ability to increase focus as you increase depth of field." You mean distant objects becoming clear as you increase depth of field? That doesn't make sense to me in terms of why that's better for discerning one plane from the other-- shallower depth of field, not deeper is what queues depth.
post #142 of 200
The most popular myth about 3D is that it's all about things coming at your head, or the "I hate 3D but I haven't tried it lately" whiners. I just find it odd that people, especially those in the film industry, don't take the time to see what all the hype is truly about.

Quote:


C-3PO actor Anthony Daniels says he has "a problem with sitting in my own sitting room and being surprised by things coming into the room. I don't expect things to come out my television!"

Star Wars' stunt co-ordinator Nick Gillard is surprisingly not keen on 3D either, saying "I hate 3D!" and that even in 2D, he wasn't that impressed by James Cameron's Avatar: "I saw Avatar on non-3D and I thought it was pretty average."

http://gizmodo.com/5830261/c+3po-hates-3dtv-too



So we have people hating 3D because a theme park ride or cheesy horror movie gave them the impression that popout is all they're about; and we have people hating 3D without even sampling the most game-changing 3D in film history.
post #143 of 200
Thread Starter 
Cakefoo: So you haven't seen Showscan have you?
post #144 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Cakefoo: So you haven't seen Showscan have you?
No. All I know is what I've read, and it all conflicts with what you've said.

P.S. The depth "advantages" you cite are referred to in the "downsides" section of this article: http://www.barbeefilm.com/showscan%2...It%20Works.htm

The shallower depth of field is a result of opening the aperture to let more light in to compensate for the lower exposure caused by the faster shutter speeds required.

In other words, the depth-related effects of the Showscan system were not done for artistic reasons, and can easily be replicated in non-Showscan systems.

You really hurt your credibility when you said we see 3D with one eye, and then dodged my requests for a thorough explanation. The fact is you can't give a more thorough explanation because you just don't know what you're talking about.
post #145 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

No. All I know is what I've read, and it all conflicts with what you've said.

P.S. The depth "advantages" you cite are referred to in the "downsides" section of this article: http://www.barbeefilm.com/showscan%2...It%20Works.htm

The shallower depth of field is a result of opening the aperture to let more light in to compensate for the lower exposure caused by the faster shutter speeds required.

In other words, the depth-related effects of the Showscan system were not done for artistic reasons, and can easily be replicated in non-Showscan systems.

Well - I have seen Showscan and from your link:

Quote:


As with any technology, SHOWSCAN has advantages and disadvantages. On the screen, SHOWSCAN is all advantages.

Quote:


You really hurt your credibility when you said we see 3D with one eye, and then dodged my requests for a thorough explanation. The fact is you can't give a more thorough explanation because you just don't know what you're talking about.

So you honestly believe that only having a single eye means you see the world with zero depth?

Talk about a loss of credibility!
post #146 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Well - I have seen Showscan and from your link:

"On the downside of the equation, the increased frame-rate takes light away from the negative. One and one quarter stops to be exact. Also in 65mm there is the approximate doubling of the focal length of the lenses, with the attendant shorter depth of field, for any given shot. This, coupled with the exposure loss can be troublesome, since you end up working at longer focal lengths with larger apertures than you might in 35mm."

It's obviously not all advantages.
Quote:


So you honestly believe that only having a single eye means you see the world with zero depth?

Talk about a loss of credibility!

I'm not saying you lost credibility for saying we see 3D with one eye; it was the sequence that it spawned, of me asking for more detail and you responding with non-answers and such. You continue to ignore everything I've said and asked of you. You're too childish to have a technical conversation with, as you never expand on anything I ask you to. I apparently caught you off-guard when you thought you could just say whatever you want and expect the gullible to nod in agreement. Stop pretending to be some hotshot expert on 3D. If you're such an expert, my requests for detailed technical explanations would be of no challenge to you and you'd be happy to share the wealth of knowledge and expertise. I inquired of you and you failed miserably.
post #147 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

"On the downside of the equation, the increased frame-rate takes light away from the negative. One and one quarter stops to be exact. Also in 65mm there is the approximate doubling of the focal length of the lenses, with the attendant shorter depth of field, for any given shot. This, coupled with the exposure loss can be troublesome, since you end up working at longer focal lengths with larger apertures than you might in 35mm."

It's obviously not all advantages.

The light loss was compensated by the super brite lamp that Showscan projectors used. And longer focal lengths equal more of the background in focus no?

I would have had more respect for you if you had seen Showscan with your own eyes as i did , then just thinking you kown what it looked like simply by reading stuff off the internet.

Quote:
I'm not saying you lost credibility for saying we see 3D with one eye; it was the sequence that it spawned, of me asking for more detail and you responding with non-answers and such. You continue to ignore everything I've said and asked of you. You're too childish to have a technical conversation with, as you never expand on anything I ask you to. I apparently caught you off-guard when you thought you could just say whatever you want and expect the gullible to nod in agreement. Stop pretending to be some hotshot expert on 3D. If you're such an expert, my requests for detailed technical explanations would be of no challenge to you and you'd be happy to share the wealth of knowledge and expertise. I inquired of you and you failed miserably.

Your failure is not taking into account common sense. That and a simple lookup on Google explains how a person with one eye sees. You caught me at nothing. Don't flatter yourself on something that didn't happen. Sorry to deny you the ego stroke you seem to desperately need.
post #148 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

longer focal lengths equal more of the background in focus no?

No.

Quote:


Your failure is not taking into account common sense. That and a simple lookup on Google explains how a person with one eye sees.

I don't need to Google how the eye sees. I already know. You just need to tell me what you find to be so drastically different in the human eye compared to a camera. Because frankly, the only advantage my eye has over a recorded image is the ability to control the muscles used for accommodation, which only has an effective range of a few feet, and requires the scene to be slow-moving or static so as not to add motion blur. Binocular vision is far more effective, as I can detect the dimensionality of a complex network of leaves and branches pretty much instantly. It's also why I can juggle 3 fast moving objects at a time. As a kid I'd close one eye and I'd always fumble the next ball that came down.
post #149 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Here is the problem with 3D:

S3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with glasses. The brain combines them to make 3D.

AS3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with no glasses and the brain combines them to make 3D

Both methods are unnatural as far as human vision. We see 3D images with either eye. A person who only has one eye still sees in 3D. Just close one of yours to mimic this. That person can not see either S3D or AS3D

Human Vision - Uses seperate L & R 3D images

The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN.

I kind of see what you're saying, as there are tons of depth clues that one eye can see, but calling that 3D is quite a stretch. Let's try this together: hold out your index fingers and point them at each other about a foot away. Close one eye. Now try to put the tips of your fingers together. Oops! I missed! But my one eye is 3D!!?!

Of course that one eye still has a number of depth clues so there's a good chance you were able to put your finger tips together (we're also aided by a non-visual sense, where our brain knows where our body parts are, so you can walk without watching your legs). Regardless, it's limited clues and there's a fair chance your finger tips will glide right by. Try it again with both eyes open. Try it 100 times, you'll never miss. This is (full) 3D. The addition of a second disparate image is a powerful clue. Don't cheapen it or suggest that one eye is just as good. We would not have evolved to have two front facing eyes if one eye could do the job.
post #150 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I kind of see what you're saying, as there are tons of depth clues that one eye can see, but calling that 3D is quite a stretch. Let's try this together: hold out your index fingers and point them at each other about a foot away. Close one eye. Now try to put the tips of your fingers together. Oops! I missed! But my one eye is 3D!!?!

Of course that one eye still has a number of depth clues so there's a good chance you were able to put your finger tips together (we're also aided by a non-visual sense, where our brain knows where our body parts are, so you can walk without watching your legs). Regardless, it's limited clues and there's a fair chance your finger tips will glide right by. Try it again with both eyes open. Try it 100 times, you'll never miss. This is (full) 3D. The addition of a second disparate image is a powerful clue. Don't cheapen it or suggest that one eye is just as good. We would not have evolved to have two front facing eyes if one eye could do the job.

Not a very good test, IMO. I could touch my figers every time. Try this (to eliminate "body part knowledge"). Place your remote control on the table in front of you. With one eye closed, choose a button, then try to touch it with your finger. Repeat with random buttons.

I never missed with that test either.

Now, go to a batting cage...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Popular Myths About 3D