How to make proper 3D content. - Page 2

What this means "dig into walls, floor, or cut objects that are in front of screen..." is the stereo window shows a stereoscopic version of these three things, and not in one eye only?
That is the floor must be seen in a stereoscopic window, same for the walls, and same for the objects in front of the screen?

You don't understand what I'm asking you.
I am asking if these three things when filmed need to have stereo pairs: the floor, the objects in front of the screen, the walls. If not then they can be filmed with only one eye seeing them.

Thanks for the example about the actor in front of the screen.
Can I get two more examples of this cutting into objects?
I want a example using the floor and one for the walls. As I'm trying to imagine how these can be filmed wrong but I'm drawing a blank.

I looked and saw the objects besie the left and right wall could be moved so one eye saw the object on that wall and the other eye did not because the parallax cut it off.

That is what I was asking before.
If there is a stereoscopic picture, both sides need to be seen when showing the floor, the walls and object beside the walls, and the objects in front of the screen.

Edit, I will describe what I'm saying this way: comparing apples to apples.
The floor, walls, objects in front of the screen need a stereoscopic pair to compare.

You did say the floor, the walls and the objects in front of the screen.
Then you gave a example of in front of the screen.
Then I asked you to give examples of the floor and walls.

You then told me to make my own answer by using some sw and some pictures and then use my own invented explaination. Which I did then told you my inventive explaination.
I asked you first to give me the correct answer.
I then did what you said and tried to make my own answer.

Just so you know how it is in the order of events. I'm not out to invent this 3D technology, I asked you for a direct detailed technical example of the floor and walls which you brought up.

This gimmick stereo is not what I want either. I asked you for a descriptive explaination.
Please don't ask me to invent my own answers by self teaching myself using sw I'm not familiar with.

I have a question for you Mr.Orman. Is there a way to find the correct parallax to use when converting 2D to 3D. I would crop the picture to make it negative parallax but I am not sure how to make the parallax correct?

That sounds too complicated for me then. I'll just leave that discussion alone. Thank you anyway, Mr.Orman.

There is a middle ground on how to get a round 3D picture when talking about percieved 3D depth. There is gimmick and if you want to know how to do this so the result is pleasing the read below.

The video need to be in stereo, but there is a catch there.
The catch is just because it's in stereo doesn't mean it looks like it is.
To get the stereo picture to look like it's 3D you need to sit a distance from the display you think your audience will sit, then make the content use parallax so the stereo is visible.

The proper way to do this is to have a seating distance your audience will sit (40 degrees hfov), whatever angle from whatever size display (48 inches diagonal) - And then have the camera set to use the stereo interocular (65 mm) distance the eyes are apart.

But that's not the only way, there is gimmick too, and that is where the camera is not set at the proper interocular width apart.
Then the person making the video only needs to sit at the intended distance from the display (you choose the distance the display is viewed by the audience), looking at the intended display size (you choose the display size the audience will watch the content on), and then set the stereo window to what they think is right (sitting at that distance looking at that size display you use you judgement on the 3D effect). Although this is gimmick it is what would work.

Simply having a stereo 3D video isn't good enough, it has to be set to a distance from a intended display so the person making the video thinks the 3D effect is what they want.

The proper way to shoot 3D isn't gimmick and is detailed in the first post, but not everybody wants to do it that way so I'm showing a alternative/gimmick method.

Maybe icester can provide some material so people can test how the floor, walls, ceiling, and people can get cut off. The last time I tried when I talked to icester I had no material and tried with some picture I got off the internet, so I couldn't understand what he was seeing.

Maybe icester can provide some test material so people can use the stereophoto maker sw and see the mistakes icester mentioned, because it's not clear yet with the free pictures online.

I see the floor seem to zoom out of the screen when I adjust the horizontal slider in stereophoto maker.

I added some more to my added comment in the first post.
I will post below what I have added to the first post.
________________________________________________________

The above was for Mr.Orman to discuss the making of 3D with Mr.Bloggs, but sofar nobody has wanted to talk to him about making 3D, until now when I read Walter Murch talk about 3D: link

So after reading Walters letter to Roger Ebert I sat down and wrote the following below (I hope Mr.Orman doesn't get upset that somebody else's ideas are presented here besides his own):

3D is the perception of real distance when looking at the screen, 2D accomplished this.
"Once the x- and y-axis are specified, they determine the line along which the z-axis should lie" - wikipedia, Cartesian coordinate system.
This means once you've established the 2D x and y coordinates the z axis may exist.
2D video x and y axis brings a perception that the z axis exists, and this affiliation is seen even though there is only x and y axis.

When you see the z axis but it removes you from the story's immersion, it's because it's showing that the z axis is seen.

Test to show you 3D.
1.) Hold two fingers in front of your left or right eye and form a plus sign +, now you see how to hold your left and right hands, thumbs facing your face, in front of your left or right eye. Remember to keep both eyes open even though your holding your hands in front of only one eye.
2.) Open your computer and Notepad, make notepad full screen and then look at the white screen made by Notepad with your hands in a plus sign +, as described in step one.
3.) Now to see the 3D effect poke your thumb out towards your eye, so the thumb is pointing right in front of your eye, this is the z axis.
Now try without your thumb pointing in front of your eye, this is the x and y axis.

If your trying to see what's going on in Notepad, when your thumb pokes out it takes your attention away from the Notepad screen, doesn't it?

Presbyopia: is a age related eye disorder. What Presbyopia does to the eyes is it progressively diminishes the eyes ability to focus on near objects.

The problem of 3D TV, is that the audience must focus accommodation their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is.

Most people over the age of 50 lose the ability to link convergence and accommodation cues, due to Presbyopia.
All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

When the convergence changes, the eyes focus there. With Presbyopia the convergence changes, the convergence will be further in, but the focus cannot follow it.
This makes the mind concentrate on the convergence and not on the focus.
How this fits into films is if the mind concentrates on convergence and not focus the person identifies the video as 3D, or immersive, but if the mind focuses on the convergence and focus at the same time then there is zero parallax and so no 3D effect or immersion from positive and negative parallax.
The young eyes can see convergence and focus at close range, but the old eyes cannot because of Presbyopia, so the old eyes have the effect that 3D offers, and not 2D.

The Brechtian trick described by Walter Murch.
"Brecht created an influential theory of theatre, the epic theatre, wherein a play should not cause the spectator to emotionally identify with the action before him or her, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the actions on the stage.

For this purpose, Brecht employed the use of techniques that remind the spectator that the play is a representation of reality and not reality itself [...]. Such techniques included the direct address by actors to the audience, exaggerated, unnatural stage lighting, the use of song, and explanatory placards." - wikipedia.

To fix this Brechtian effect the z axis brings to video, you wave the z axis back and forth, gently: this waving motion breaks the focus on the z axis and then the focus goes back to the x and y axis presentation.
It matters if you wave the z axis in a 360 degree circle as compared to moving in either the x or y directions.
When you wave the z axis in a circle the focus remains on the z axis, but wave the z axis in either the x or y axis direction and the focus moves away from the z axis.
To test this, do the 3D test described before, but this time wave the hands around to the left and right, then up and down, then in a circle -You will see the Notepad screen becomes more or less visible.

Back to discussing 3D displays now, on a volumetric 3D video, the z axis when shown can be put into context of the x and y axis, because the eyes look at the z axis, then they look at the x and y axis.
To move the eyes from the z to the x and y axis, and keep focus, the eyes do not move in a circular direction - like your rolling your eyeballs in your head.

So, to define what 3D effect is : The mind concentrates on the convergence, then back to the focus and convergence, because concentrating on only the convergence and not convergence and focus may create the Brechtian distraction: not being able to focus on the convergence and accomodation seen in 2D is not a good thing, it's old man eyes.

Wikipedia says the root word of Presbyopia is Old man + sightedness, it sets in at around 40+ years of age: some people think 3D is Awesome, so old man eyes may make the world look Awesome, making the concerns 2D brings moot.
　
To tell a story, contrast zero parallax with positive and negative parallax: the main story running time is made up of over the top Brechtian theater - when the plot driven part of the story is shown, it gives feedback to this. Seeing convergence and focus in a 3D film is seeing 2D, or zero parallax - there is no Brechtian effect from the z axis, it's all story driven.
　
The story is told in z axis 3D, then 2D shows this story in a new light. In subliminal marketing, it may be that one characteristic of the topic subject is bolded and another characteristic is muted: the bolded characteristic is in 2D and the muted characteristic is in z axis 3D. 3D (Brechtian effect), gives a critical view of what happens in 2D.

Audio version