When small interaxials just don't cut it! - Page 37

Roger, what screen do you use in editing to set your horizontal disparity for depth?

I use a Vizio 32" Passive and sit about 5' away. It's a secondary monitor in my system. Then, when I am done I render a 3D iso 1080 24p file and play that in my HT using a Sony VPL VW90ES front projector on a 110" diagonal screen.

I often run into the problem that my 3D does not look good on the larger screen after looking flawless on the 32" screen. I haven't found a work flow to calibrate the 3D yet so what I do on the 32" vizio always looks good on the big front projector. This problem is not peculiar to wide stereobase as my 3D with the TD10 on some scenes also has trouble looking perfect on the projector.

BTW- the above Bellagio fountains YT video is now looking perfect on both but I've been working for weeks on a much longer project getting it to look good on the larger screen.

Don, I edit on my Acer passive laptop, which has a 15.5in screen. I view it from about 3ft away, which probably gives a similar apparent size to your 32in at 5ft. My final viewings are on my 42" Samsung active tv from about 7ft. The larger screen tends to give a greater depth than my smaller editing screen, so when I am setting the horizontal disparity for each scene, I reduce slightly from what appears to be perfect at the editing stage. This is purely rule of thumb, but has definitely reduced some of the minor depth problems that I was previously seeing on the bigger screen.

I would expect that with a 110in screen, any disparity that looks right on the 32in would need a reduction to give the same effect on the larger. There is probably a mathematical formula for working out %D against screen size and viewing distance, but I have no idea what it is. I probably wouldn't be able to get my head round it if I did.

There is a fascinating article on 'roundness' here http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/315roundness.html If you haven't already seen it, you may find that the information is quite relevant to getting good depth without cardboarding on the sort of subjects that you are filming.

Incidentally, I am fairly limited in my viewing space for experimenting with bigger screens as I live on a boat, but being a great environment for wildlife, I will be taking a lot of twin rig, wide base footage in the spring, using the 18x telephoto on my Panasonic rig. That should teach me a lot about stereo base and avoiding cardboarding.

Roger

Don, I edit on my Acer passive laptop, which has a 15.5in screen. I view it from about 3ft away, which probably gives a similar apparent size to your 32in at 5ft. My final viewings are on my 42" Samsung active tv from about 7ft. The larger screen tends to give a greater depth than my smaller editing screen, so when I am setting the horizontal disparity for each scene, I reduce slightly from what appears to be perfect at the editing stage. This is purely rule of thumb, but has definitely reduced some of the minor depth problems that I was previously seeing on the bigger screen.

I would expect that with a 110in screen, any disparity that looks right on the 32in would need a reduction to give the same effect on the larger. There is probably a mathematical formula for working out %D against screen size and viewing distance, but I have no idea what it is. I probably wouldn't be able to get my head round it if I did.

There is a fascinating article on 'roundness' here http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/315roundness.html If you haven't already seen it, you may find that the information is quite relevant to getting good depth without cardboarding on the sort of subjects that you are filming.

Incidentally, I am fairly limited in my viewing space for experimenting with bigger screens as I live on a boat, but being a great environment for wildlife, I will be taking a lot of twin rig, wide base footage in the spring, using the 18x telephoto on my Panasonic rig. That should teach me a lot about stereo base and avoiding cardboarding.

Roger

Thanks for the suggestion on the horizontal reduction. For some reason I had been doing the opposite and it hasn't worked out. I will try your approach on my next second pass editing. I have a 2.5 hour long timeline I need to get down to 60 minutes for pace and I saw lots of 3D problems too that need fixing.

On wide stereobase, I have a laser range finder to measure distance to near objects in the shot to determine IA settings. This measurement is entered into a stereographic calculator I use on my ipad in the field. This becomes critical when shooting hyper stereobase landscapes. Since I don't use a field 3D monitor, the measurement of objects in my scene help avoid trouble later when I pair the two camera's footage.
For example, in the Bellagio production I failed to check the near objects and they were in the shot and do not work well in 3D but they are dark so I allowed it. In the second number, I moved my rig to avoid the near object. For wider stereobase the near objects may present a problem even though they are 100, 300 and 500 ft away. This is especially true when shooting telephoto like your 18x system. If not careful you may suffer disappointment later when you pair the footage.

Thanks for the link and reference. Looks like interesting reading.

The roundness artikel but also the other sides on that webpage are great readings. Unfortunately not any more in the hand of the author. But it is still a good source for the formulas behind s3D, and a good training to understand what is going on really.

This new video was made with interaxial 28cm, with two camcorders Panasonic Lumix LX7.

Thank you!
Milton

This new video was made with interaxial 80cm, with two camcorders Panasonic Lumix LX7. Color correction was made.

Long:

Short:

Thank you!
Milton