or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Problem with current cinematographic technology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Problem with current cinematographic technology

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
To start with:
there are no 2D movies ever projected at public cinemas. Human perceive a screen at real distance and that establishes the third dimension. The only way to see the screen in 2D is to observe it with one eye only with out moving the head position and orientation relative to screen. Movies recorded with single camera have many 3D cues like perspective, motion, shading and etc. The correct and most natural way of viewing 3D movies made with single camera is to seat at the same distance as the original camera thus matching both view angles. This way one sees undistorted perspective. The problem with that is the use of zooming which was conveniently adopted to overcome expensive camera systems. The zoomed scenes are extremely unnatural and confusing to viewer. Grossly mismatched perspective makes it difficult to asses object's depth position and excessive motion speed of characters feather distorts the reality of the scene. The correct way of shooting single camera AKA 2D movies is to establish no object zone in front of the camera equal to viewing distance of sweet spot viewer position to screen. This way if the object or an actor is about to intersect the screen position, it or his size would be that of real size and thus perceived as natural and not confusingly enlarged. The new movie techniques should give up on making unnatural scenes trough elimination of zooming. The correct way to replace zoom is to move the camera AKA dolly the camera. Now, because the legacy of single camera movie making techniques have perpetuated into stereoscopic cinematography, new problems have emerged and instead of correction the industry again has chosen to use convenient techniques that partially eliminate those problems by introducing total distortion in depth. The now famous AVATAR has not a single scene that is geometrically correct and perceived as natural with real size and position. Instead when one sees zoomed face of a human actor intersecting stereo window (usually at screen distance) then face is perceived as gigantic and it's motion as excessive as if the actor was made out of Styrofoam. The background and foreground are misplaced by placing it close to screen surface, the techniques AKA normalizing the depth of a scene makes all objects distorted and viewer is never able to experience natural immersion. The only concern of stereoscopic movie makers is the excessive parallax that can create painful eye strains. They are not interested in creating natural undistorted stereoscopic scene content. Such attitude will block any process of general S3D technology adoption. At the same time it leaves room for competition which is emerging and focused on delivering true stereoscopic experience to new technology cinemas, home theaters and all other stereoscopic media formats and sizes. The stereoscopic picture and movie technology has being with us for over a century and it's about time we make it correct and as enjoyable as our natural stereoscopic vision is. So, next time when you look at stereoscopic image or movie ask your self: am I seeing the scene in it's natural size shape and position?

Mathew Orman

http://www.*******************-usa.com/
post #2 of 17
I let the director decide such things. Then I get to decide if I like it or not.

Movies certainly are not about being real.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I let the director decide such things. Then I get to decide if I like it or not.

Movies certainly are not about being real.

So if the director decides never to show you realistic content
then you will never know if you like it or not.

Also, if the unreal magic thing is geometry distortion only
then why infest every movie with it.

Mathew Orman
post #4 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

To start with:
there are no 2D movies ever projected at public cinemas.....am I seeing the scene in it's natural size shape and position?

Mathew Orman

http://www.*******************-usa.com/

Man, you need paragraph breaks to make that readable.
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmalter0 View Post

Man, you need paragraph breaks to make that readable.

Sorry, I've tried to make it visible on single page.

Mathew Orman
post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

So if the director decides never to show you realistic content
then you will never know if you like it or not.

Also, if the unreal magic thing is geometry distortion only
then why infest every movie with it.

Mathew Orman

Sure if that's what I like. I mean, some people are way into animated movies. I consider myself a big time movie buff. I don't like all movies. I like some flicks a lot. Can you give me an example of some title that gets your blessing in this regard?

Is it better? I dunno.... Better is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
post #7 of 17
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Focus puller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller

Yes, that requires narrow DOF long FL lenses.
It would be OK if normal 40 deg lens was used at all times.
With CGI content there is no problem with focus puller as DOF is a simple depth dependent blurring algorithm.
The DOF is a natural phenomena and a pleasent effect to watch but human eye works diferently.
When one focuses on the background the foreground is out of focus but when focusing on a finger in front of one's nose the bacground is in perfect focus
which is why cross eye viewing technique yields such sharp images.

Mathew Orman
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

Yes, that requires narrow DOF long FL lenses.
It would be OK if normal 40 deg lens was used at all times.
With CGI content there is no problem with focus puller as DOF is a simple depth dependent blurring algorithm.
The DOF is a natural phenomena and a pleasent effect to watch but human eye works diferently.
When one focuses on the background the foreground is out of focus but when focusing on a finger in front of one's nose the bacground is in perfect focus
which is why cross eye viewing technique yields such sharp images.

Mathew Orman

There is no comparison between the human eye lens and a camera lens. Our eyes are designed to capture all images - foreground and background in focus no matter the distance between the two.

And if you have been on a movie set, you will see the most valued toola the DP uses is a tape measure and a roll of gaffing/duct tape
post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

Sure if that's what I like. I mean, some people are way into animated movies. I consider myself a big time movie buff. I don't like all movies. I like some flicks a lot. Can you give me an example of some title that gets your blessing in this regard?

Is it better? I dunno.... Better is certainly in the eye of the beholder.

No, i have not seen a single one that would have all cuts using prime lens of normal FOV like 40 deg.
But there are many that have a lot of such.
Also I know of one that was totally shot with telephoto and
head held camera and that is and ongoing soap-opera on major Polish television channel called POLSAT.
The name of the show is "HOTEL 52".
If I watch it for more than 5 min. my stomach wants to return it's content:-)

Mathew Orman
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There is no comparison between the human eye lens and a camera lens. Our eyes are designed to capture all images - foreground and background in focus no matter the distance between the two.

And if you have been on a movie set, you will see the most valued toola the DP uses is a tape measure and a roll of gaffing/duct tape

These day anyone can be a DP and even I am, on my own projects.

Sooner or latter the industry will have to switch from Gimmick 3D to Realistic 3D if they want to see any acceptable returns on their investments.

Mathew Orman
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

These day anyone can be a DP and even I am, on my own projects.

Sooner or latter the industry will have to switch from Gimmick 3D to Realistic 3D if they want to see any acceptable returns on their investments.

Mathew Orman

Realistic 3D? That's an oxymoron

Using ANY tech that starts with twin views and requires glasses is nothing more than an illusion created by our brain from the seperate images are eyes see.

The ONLY film format ever to get even close to how we see is the long defunct Showscan - 70mm @ 60 frames/sec
post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Realistic 3D? That's an oxymoron

Using ANY tech that starts with twin views and requires glasses is nothing more than an illusion created by our brain from the seperate images are eyes see.

The ONLY film format ever to get even close to how we see is the long defunct Showscan - 70mm @ 60 frames/sec

I guess you've never seen a realistic immersion in stereoscopic scene.
It must be pretty good illusion if one can measure objects in from of a monitor screen wit a caliper and confirm the specified dimension.
Two camera mounted on ones head and stereoscopic HMD
with realistic and undistorted projection geometry lets you walk just as good as when using your eyes only.
Try walking with distorted telephoto images :-)

Mathew Orman
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

I guess you've never seen a realistic immersion in stereoscopic scene.
It must be pretty good illusion if one can measure objects in from of a monitor screen wit a caliper and confirm the specified dimension.
Two camera mounted on ones head and stereoscopic HMD
with realistic and undistorted projection geometry lets you walk just as good as when using your eyes only.
Try walking with distorted telephoto images :-)

Mathew Orman

What? Some carefully lit and staged static scene? That isn't what 3D movies are about.
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What? Some carefully lit and staged static scene? That isn't what 3D movies are about.

Why static scene or special light?
All one need is a real stereoscopic camera and real stereoscopic display system which matches the cameras geometry. Distorted geometry as a special effects?
No, thank you. I want to see the actors and the scene telling
the story without confusing gimmicks.

Mathew Orman
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by icester View Post

Why static scene or special light?
All one need is a real stereoscopic camera and real stereoscopic display system which matches the cameras geometry. Distorted geometry as a special effects?
No, thank you. I want to see the actors and the scene telling
the story without confusing gimmicks.

Mathew Orman

Here - you can argue with Jim

James Cameron demonstates Pace camera on G4

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1272006
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Here - you can argue with Jim

James Cameron demonstates Pace camera on G4

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1272006

I did address my post to him directly, but I do not believe he reads those comments.

Mathew Orman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Problem with current cinematographic technology