or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Source Components › When small interaxials just don't cut it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When small interaxials just don't cut it! - Page 30

post #871 of 1087
I tried another "clean" install of Vegas 11, and now (at least for the time being) I can once again use Virtual Clone Drive to mount iso files. I went back to Virtual Clone Drive for mounting iso's because the DVDFab iso tool usually wouldn't allow me to mount iso files burned in Vegas 11. Commercial 3D iso files mounted OK, just not my own.
post #872 of 1087
But does Vegas behaves here mor stable, Joe?
post #873 of 1087
I still get random crashes, but I can get work done. I just save very frequently. I put together a couple of short demo videos for Cyclopital3D this past week. The first one (showing the effects of the JVC stereo base extender) I did with Cineform intermediates from my TD1. I had numerous crashes. The second one I did by converting the JVC mp4 files to m2ts files (highest bitrate allowable) in PowerDirector 10. (I outlined the workflow in the JVC thread.) Vegas 11 crashed a lot less. A side benefit was that the size of the m2ts 3D files was just a tiny bit larger than the mp4 originals (unlike the enormous Cineform intermediates). So far, image quality doesn't seem to take too big a hit. When Edius 6.5 is released, all this drama should be behind me. biggrin.gif

Wolfgang,

I'd like to pick your brain for your favorite Panasonic Z10k settings. When Ken Burgess of Cyclopital3D finishes the Panny stereo base extender, he'll be sending me my camera. I'm anxious to compare the image quality to the JVC, but I know it's much more versatile in terms of the look of the image that can be captured. Since you've been working with it for several months, I'm hoping you've developed a "baseline" that you're happy with. Maybe I could start there before experimenting further.
post #874 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Full 1920 by 1080 per eye using passive?
I say, YES.


Example:
Dual camcorders shooting at 60I rendered as 1920 by 1080 @ 60P in top and bottom format such that each field from either camera is used for both top and bottom progressive frame.
Every 1/60th of a second the full output of both camcorders is displayed IE: 1920 by 540 (every other line)
I have tried this and the resulting 3D video looks great.
post #875 of 1087
Here's my thinking on that. When our 1080p monitors show a 1920x540 interlaced field, what we're actually seeing is that image scaled to a 1920x1080 frame by the display. That scaled image looks better and sharper because the display is interpolating the missing pixels to create 60 full frames of 1920x1080 per second (in a similar fashion as a SbS image is scaled up to full HD). With a passive display, since every other line is missing, we're seeing 60 1920x540 frames per second. All you have to do is get close to see the difference. There are jaggies in the passive image that are not there in an active display. I agree that it looks great, and it is definitely much easier on the eyes, but you have to back up several feet to be fooled into thinking it's a full resolution image.
post #876 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Here's my thinking on that. When our 1080p monitors show a 1920x540 interlaced field, what we're actually seeing is that image scaled to a 1920x1080 frame by the display. That scaled image looks better and sharper because the display is interpolating the missing pixels to create 60 full frames of 1920x1080 per second (in a similar fashion as a SbS image is scaled up to full HD). With a passive display, since every other line is missing, we're seeing 60 1920x540 frames per second. All you have to do is get close to see the difference. There are jaggies in the passive image that are not there in an active display. I agree that it looks great, and it is definitely much easier on the eyes, but you have to back up several feet to be fooled into thinking it's a full resolution image.

That's not what I'm talking about.
The source material comes from twin cameras recording interlaced video at 1920 by 1080 @ 60 fields per second.
This is input to Vegas in this case and rendered as 1080P 60 (frames per second) in the top and bottom format
It is displayed by the passive television at 60 progressive frames per second.
Each progressive frame contains either the odd fields from both cameras or the even fields.
Nothing is interlaced.
All the video information from both cameras is displayed on a passive monitor.
At any one time, the left eye sees every field from the left camera and the right eye sees every field from the right cameras. This process repeats 60 times per second.
The way I see it, the full resolution is maintained all the way from the cameras to the passive display.
post #877 of 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Wolfgang,
I'd like to pick your brain for your favorite Panasonic Z10k settings. When Ken Burgess of Cyclopital3D finishes the Panny stereo base extender, he'll be sending me my camera. I'm anxious to compare the image quality to the JVC, but I know it's much more versatile in terms of the look of the image that can be captured. Since you've been working with it for several months, I'm hoping you've developed a "baseline" that you're happy with. Maybe I could start there before experimenting further.

I think you are talking about scene files - or how to use the camera itself?

The first problem with scene files is that it is a lot about personal taste - what I like is maybe not at all what you like. The second issue is, that the scene file one wants to have should be seen as tool to express something - take only the examples of movies where they take out a lot of red to give the movie a cold feeling - so to express a specific feeling. So different user end up with different looks and different scene files. The third issue is that is it complex to develop scene files - since one need the understanding of the parameters. One can start with what is published for other cameras, but you have to adjust it to your own wishes. And the last issue is that it is hard work really to develop scene files and takes time. I have spend some time to do so, but have not developed a lot since I do not have the time really.

For the basics about that you find here some infomation (the explaination of the settings in general terms):
http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=panasonic%20professional%20scene%20file%20settings&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvinfo.net%2Fforum%2Fattachments%2Fpanasonic-avccam-camcorders%2F12714d1244766370-scene-file-thoughts-panasonic-hmc150-scene-file-doc.pdf&ei=8xveTpShI8Lm4QTU8uHRBg&usg=AFQjCNFU61ysTqMSNJZyS3WLnxbYhPpd9A

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/04/06/af100-scene-files-created-by-abelcine/

and this book is fine too:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/

and that link is great: http://www.filmrocks.com/film_resources.html

especially the part "Looks from Panasonic and Barry Green's book".

BUT that is all not for the Z10K.

What I like are following settings:

SCENE NAME :FILM Modified
DETAIL LEVEL: 0
V DETAIL LEVEL: 0
DETAIL CORING : 0
CHROMA LEVEL: -1
CHROMA PHASE: 0
COLOR TEMP: -2
MASTER PED: -3
A.IRIS LEVEL: -2

GAMMA : B.PRESS
KNEE: MID
MATRIX: NORM2
SKIN TONE DTL : OFF

but as said : I do not know if you will like that too!
post #878 of 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

That's not what I'm talking about.
The source material comes from twin cameras recording interlaced video at 1920 by 1080 @ 60 fields per second.
This is input to Vegas in this case and rendered as 1080P 60 (frames per second) in the top and bottom format
It is displayed by the passive television at 60 progressive frames per second.
Each progressive frame contains either the odd fields from both cameras or the even fields.
Nothing is interlaced.
All the video information from both cameras is displayed on a passive monitor.
At any one time, the left eye sees every field from the left camera and the right eye sees every field from the right cameras. This process repeats 60 times per second.
The way I see it, the full resolution is maintained all the way from the cameras to the passive display.

I'm going to have to think about that. I'm still not getting how that makes a difference in what we see during any given 1/60th of a second interval. confused.gif I'll be back after I finish a little 3D experiment I'm doing. biggrin.gif
post #879 of 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfgang S. View Post

I think you are talking about scene files - or how to use the camera itself?
The first problem with scene files is that it is a lot about personal taste - what I like is maybe not at all what you like. The second issue is, that the scene file one wants to have should be seen as tool to express something - take only the examples of movies where they take out a lot of red to give the movie a cold feeling - so to express a specific feeling. So different user end up with different looks and different scene files. The third issue is that is it complex to develop scene files - since one need the understanding of the parameters. One can start with what is published for other cameras, but you have to adjust it to your own wishes. And the last issue is that it is hard work really to develop scene files and takes time. I have spend some time to do so, but have not developed a lot since I do not have the time really.
For the basics about that you find here some infomation (the explaination of the settings in general terms):
http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=panasonic%20professional%20scene%20file%20settings&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvinfo.net%2Fforum%2Fattachments%2Fpanasonic-avccam-camcorders%2F12714d1244766370-scene-file-thoughts-panasonic-hmc150-scene-file-doc.pdf&ei=8xveTpShI8Lm4QTU8uHRBg&usg=AFQjCNFU61ysTqMSNJZyS3WLnxbYhPpd9A
http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/04/06/af100-scene-files-created-by-abelcine/
and this book is fine too:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/
and that link is great: http://www.filmrocks.com/film_resources.html
especially the part "Looks from Panasonic and Barry Green's book".
BUT that is all not for the Z10K.
What I like are following settings:
SCENE NAME :FILM Modified
DETAIL LEVEL: 0
V DETAIL LEVEL: 0
DETAIL CORING : 0
CHROMA LEVEL: -1
CHROMA PHASE: 0
COLOR TEMP: -2
MASTER PED: -3
A.IRIS LEVEL: -2
GAMMA : B.PRESS
KNEE: MID
MATRIX: NORM2
SKIN TONE DTL : OFF
but as said : I do not know if you will like that too!

Thanks, Wolfgang.
post #880 of 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I'm going to have to think about that. I'm still not getting how that makes a difference in what we see during any given 1/60th of a second interval. confused.gif I'll be back after I finish a little 3D experiment I'm doing. biggrin.gif

ditto, Joe. biggrin.gif Including the experiment part which I am doing with twin NEX5 cameras. I'm sure your experiment is different. smile.gif

But, I'm in a different camp on this. I accept SBS half as being half resolution, period! I look to the future when I will have a 4K passive and have full resolution at today's standard or 1920x1080. The debate on fooling the brain into believing half is full is mostly a waste of time, IMHO. So, with that said you all can have fun with the debate.
post #881 of 1087
I have to run now, but I'll continue the "debate" with Frank later. biggrin.gif I agree, though, that what we see on screen is what's really important. And after a few days with this passive set, I'm sold on it for my editing display, no matter the resolution. My aging eyes aren't what they used to be anyway. biggrin.gif
post #882 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

ditto, Joe. biggrin.gif Including the experiment part which I am doing with twin NEX5 cameras. I'm sure your experiment is different. smile.gif
But, I'm in a different camp on this. I accept SBS half as being half resolution, period! I look to the future when I will have a 4K passive and have full resolution at today's standard or 1920x1080. The debate on fooling the brain into believing half is full is mostly a waste of time, IMHO. So, with that said you all can have fun with the debate.
What part of my explanation is it that you guys are having a problem with exactly?
I also accept SBS half as being at best, half resolution.
I'm saying that 1080P60 top and bottom is the equivalent of 1080I 3D if it's sourced from dual 1080i left and right sources and is viewable at the full 1080i3D resolution on a passive display.
Seems quite clear to me.....rolleyes.gif
post #883 of 1087
Hey, Frank. It took me a couple of minutes to grasp exactly what you were saying. I agree (if I understand how this stuff works - a big "if" biggrin.gif): for the 1080 60i 3D video that you're creating, you will see all the information on screen that was captured. So, it's true full HD 3D. No loss of information. I don't argue that for 1080 60i 3D the way you watch it.

That said, can we agree that what a person sees with a passive display (like these LG LCDs anyway) consists of a series of fields, not frames? In other words, because the FPR layer filters out every other line of the display, the maximum information on the screen for a period of 1/120th of a second is only 1920x540 lines. In an active 3D TV, the display scales the 1920x540 field to a full 1920x1080 frame, every 1/120th sec. So, the information on the screen for that time consists of half original and half interpolated pixels, just as a SbS image consists of 960x1080 pixels scaled up to full 1920x1080 3D for display. That's what's happening when I watch footage from my JVC TD1 directly out of the camcorder at 60i. The display always scales each of those 1920x540 fields up to 1920x1080 FRAMES. That's why it looks so frickin' awesome. For each eye, I see 60 full HD 3D frames every 1/120th of a second. From a distance, many people won't be able to tell the difference between the two, but especially on hard diagonal lines the difference is there. I don't think Blu-ray 3D at 24fps (I know, you hate it biggrin.gif) works the same way. But even if LG works some magic and is able to reproduce all the original information from the original film frame with 3:2 pulldown, the appearance is not as smooth as active 3D. At least it isn't to me. And the closer you get, the more obvious it is.

But as I said, I'm sold on passive now. You got me thinking, and after giving it a chance, I really like it. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. That's the most important thing for me.
post #884 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Hey, Frank. It took me a couple of minutes to grasp exactly what you were saying. I agree (if I understand how this stuff works - a big "if" biggrin.gif): for the 1080 60i 3D video that you're creating, you will see all the information on screen that was captured. So, it's true full HD 3D. No loss of information. I don't argue that for 1080 60i 3D the way you watch it.
That said, can we agree that what a person sees with a passive display (like these LG LCDs anyway) consists of a series of fields, not frames? In other words, because the FPR layer filters out every other line of the display, the maximum information on the screen for a period of 1/120th of a second is only 1920x540 lines. In an active 3D TV, the display scales the 1920x540 field to a full 1920x1080 frame, every 1/120th sec. So, the information on the screen for that time consists of half original and half interpolated pixels, just as a SbS image consists of 960x1080 pixels scaled up to full 1920x1080 3D for display. That's what's happening when I watch footage from my JVC TD1 directly out of the camcorder at 60i. The display always scales each of those 1920x540 fields up to 1920x1080 FRAMES. That's why it looks so frickin' awesome. For each eye, I see 60 full HD 3D frames every 1/120th of a second. From a distance, many people won't be able to tell the difference between the two, but especially on hard diagonal lines the difference is there. I don't think Blu-ray 3D at 24fps (I know, you hate it biggrin.gif) works the same way. But even if LG works some magic and is able to reproduce all the original information from the original film frame with 3:2 pulldown, the appearance is not as smooth as active 3D. At least it isn't to me. And the closer you get, the more obvious it is.
But as I said, I'm sold on passive now. You got me thinking, and after giving it a chance, I really like it. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. That's the most important thing for me.

Hummmm. Quite a bit here I don't think is correct.
Let me start by stating that a passive display doesn't display anything in just 1/120th of a second. You must be referring to an active display which does this with 60 FPS content
The passive circularly polarized displays display whole frames 60 times per second even if they say 120 hertz on them.rolleyes.gif
Anyway, enough of this....
I shot a 3D video of my Parrot Drone 2 this afternoon and rendered it using this method and the result is absolutely stunning on my new LG 65LM6200.
Clearly more detailed then any 3D Blu-Ray I've seen..
I'm rendering everything in this format now.

Uploading now for those who are curious.
post #885 of 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Hummmm. Quite a bit here I don't think is correct.
Let me start by stating that a passive display doesn't display anything in just 1/120th of a second. You must be referring to an active display which does this with 60 FPS content
The passive circularly polarized displays display whole frames 60 times per second even if they say 120 hertz on them.rolleyes.gif
Anyway, enough of this....
I shot a 3D video of my Parrot Drone 2 this afternoon and rendered it using this method and the result is absolutely stunning on my new LG 65LM6200.
Clearly more detailed then any 3D Blu-Ray I've seen..
I'm rendering everything in this format now.
Uploading now for those who are curious.

A 120hz display, no matter if it's passive or active, "writes" 120 images to the screen (either all at once or line by line) every second. In the case of 60i 3D, 60 of those frames are the right eye and 60 are the left eye. So, a passive set DOES display something in 1/120th of a second - one "complete" image. I don't understand what you mean when you say it doesn't. confused.gif With a passive display, that frame is really just a field, since the FPR means that only half the lines of a full 1920x1080 can be shown during that 1/120th of a second. That's why I look forward to the 4k displays, which will be able to display a full 1080 lines at once, even with an FPR on the screen. That should be a thing of real beauty. biggrin.gif

Blu-ray 3D at 24p (most commercial discs) is displayed differently on 120hz sets. Since there are only 24fps (48fps for both eyes), frames are repeated either 2 or 3 times each in order to reach 120. 12 frames x 2 = 24. 12 frames x 3 = 36. 24 + 36 = 60 frames for the left eye, and 60 for the right. Some sets display at multiples of 24 so that there is no need for repetition (maybe the 240hz LGs?), but I suspect the LG uses the standard algorithms to put a frame up on the screen. Even if they use some special math to display the whole frame (by breaking it into two fields in software) the dark horizontal lines are still there during a Blu-ray 3D movie, and to me it doesn't look as clean and detailed up close as an active set. Again, all you have to do is get within a few inches to see the jaggies that are created. But that doesn't matter if the viewing experience is good. And as much as the lines bothered me the first couple of days, I've grown to like the set's other qualities enough to offset that.

I'm open to being proved wrong about this, so if I'm getting the math or the perception wrong, I'm all ears as to why. smile.gif

Will you be posting the video you're rendering? I'll watch in on my LG. biggrin.gif
post #886 of 1087
Thread Starter 
My point about the 120 hertz is simply that that number is meaningless as far as what I'm talking about.
For me, the 4K display will be nice in that it will make the image smoother without gaps but won't increase the resolution since it's already maxed out.
I don'[t see any gaps in the image from my normal seating position however so I'm good with this LG for now.

The video is rendered and uploading to my Dropbox at the moment.
It was shot with my dual Canon HF-G10s at 1/1000th sec . Try that at 24 frames per second! eek.gif
Watching it on the LG with smoothing turned on is amazing to watch.

I'll post the link when it's done.
post #887 of 1087
I look forward to it.
post #888 of 1087
Thread Starter 
post #889 of 1087
Watching that video on the LG passive display was awesome, Frank!! I think in terms of image quality it's the best top/bottom video I've ever seen, and one of the best non-frame packed videos period. I've found the sweet spot with this LG in my computer room - almost dead center of the screen, about 7 feet away. Almost no ghosting and a really "solid" feel to objects. "Pop-out video" really pops! I'm so glad I took your advice. Now that I've found the right conditions for viewing, I love this TV.
post #890 of 1087
Quote:
For me, the 4K display will be nice in that it will make the image smoother without gaps but won't increase the resolution since it's already maxed out.
I don'[t see any gaps in the image from my normal seating position however so I'm good with this LG for now.

When one is currently seeing the best hes ever seen it's difficult to imagine better unless there is a major flaw in the present viewing ( your gaps) but until you put a top quality image on screen aside the 4K and then also an 8K screen you can't really imaging it being better in detail. I have seen this comparison and saw first hand that the 4K is a solution to the FPR passive problem of cutting resolution in half. I saw the difference and it is stunning. The 8K screen with 4K and 8K images was indeed an experimental display but the 4K models were presented as 2012 production models soon ready for sale when I saw them back in January. The comparison was dramatic enough that I made my decision then to wait out the release time and for the cost to come down a bit. Of course, I discovered what Frank and Joe are now seeing a year ago with my Vizio 32" FPR. That is for an editing monitor, using passive glasses is really the best of all worlds. I do find it slick that you all are using a larger passive panel but find the sweet spot a bit farther away than I do with my 32" For me the sweet spot is about 5 ft dead center.

As a reminder, I don't have any immediate plans to replace this 32" vizio in the edit room. I'm happy with it for editing, even with the visible black line gaps. My plans for 4K passive is for the Home Theater and the wall behind my electric roll down screen will support a 65" panel so that is my plan-- to mount a 4K 65" in the home theater for 3D. JVC now sells a 4K 3D projector ( I've seen it) but it is still active glasses and for 3D in the home theater, I really do want passive. To date, no passive projector, 2K or 4K is matching the quality of active glasses projected image, even in the theater, but, I haven't seen the new Dolby 3D yet. Regardless, if the JVC 3D 4K is any clue, we're a long way from a good quality at a competitive price I can afford for 3D passive projection. Sony also has a good 4K projector but it was not 3D nor passive. IMO, the LG 4k passive is the best of breed for 3D passive quality. And Frank, there is a big difference, visually, no matter how you bend the numbers. For me it's worth the wait.
post #891 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Watching that video on the LG passive display was awesome, Frank!! I think in terms of image quality it's the best top/bottom video I've ever seen, and one of the best non-frame packed videos period. I've found the sweet spot with this LG in my computer room - almost dead center of the screen, about 7 feet away. Almost no ghosting and a really "solid" feel to objects. "Pop-out video" really pops! I'm so glad I took your advice. Now that I've found the right conditions for viewing, I love this TV.

Would love to hear your opinion on the quality of the Parrot Drone 2.0 video on your home theater projector. wink.gif
Parrot Drone 2.0 Same link as above.
Perhaps I'll try shooting a similar video at 24P and 1/1000th and render it as a full 1080P per eye 3D video to compare it.
That might prove interesting...
post #892 of 1087
Frank, the production of the quadcopter was nicely done! Couple questions-
1. What was the IA you shot this at.?
2. What setting did you use for the Canon cameras? 1080 60p or 1080 60i?

I saw you were very careful to avoid too many windows violations in the negative parallax content on screen. There were a couple in the beginning with trees along the sidelines and throughout the video for brief moments where the quadcopter was up close and then went off screen but you made them very brief. Still it was a good lesson for me to see how the entire production looked more comfortable without excessive window violations in areas I tried to do with the Valley of Fire, such as across the ground, bringing that out in front. You maintained that well behind the screen frame throughout the video.

This presents a conundrum for me. I can play it safe and comfortable but then don't get the look and feel of being there. Or make it look real, like it did when I was there but make the video difficult for other people with 3D sensitivity to watch. Your quad copter did look comfortable to watch but I never got the feeling that I was there, rather like I was watching a video on TV.

Regarding the black lines- Yes, I could see them vary plainly in the blue sky and white clouds on my 32" vizio sitting at 5 ft. I don't think your video makes any difference in the lines with TB vs. SBS. I saw the same thing here with my own renderings. Later, I plan to view your quadcopter on my projector in the HT with the Sony which is a 240 Hz display. The Vizio is only 60 Hz but the motion looked smooth. I think 24fps will simpley look like other 24 fps video and the motion be just a bit choppy. Rendering on the New Vegas V11 vs. V10 does give me far less conversion artifacts but there is no getting around the fact that 24 is just less than 60 for smooth flow.

Looking forward to seeing the one at 24 fps as a comparison.
post #893 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Frank, the production of the quadcopter was nicely done! Couple questions-
1. What was the IA you shot this at.?
2. What setting did you use for the Canon cameras? 1080 60p or 1080 60i?
I saw you were very careful to avoid too many windows violations in the negative parallax content on screen. There were a couple in the beginning with trees along the sidelines and throughout the video for brief moments where the quadcopter was up close and then went off screen but you made them very brief. Still it was a good lesson for me to see how the entire production looked more comfortable without excessive window violations in areas I tried to do with the Valley of Fire, such as across the ground, bringing that out in front. You maintained that well behind the screen frame throughout the video.
This presents a conundrum for me. I can play it safe and comfortable but then don't get the look and feel of being there. Or make it look real, like it did when I was there but make the video difficult for other people with 3D sensitivity to watch. Your quad copter did look comfortable to watch but I never got the feeling that I was there, rather like I was watching a video on TV.
Regarding the black lines- Yes, I could see them vary plainly in the blue sky and white clouds on my 32" vizio sitting at 5 ft. I don't think your video makes any difference in the lines with TB vs. SBS. I saw the same thing here with my own renderings. Later, I plan to view your quadcopter on my projector in the HT with the Sony which is a 240 Hz display. The Vizio is only 60 Hz but the motion looked smooth. I think 24fps will simpley look like other 24 fps video and the motion be just a bit choppy. Rendering on the New Vegas V11 vs. V10 does give me far less conversion artifacts but there is no getting around the fact that 24 is just less than 60 for smooth flow.
Looking forward to seeing the one at 24 fps as a comparison.
Thanks Don, smile.gif
The camera separation was 3.5 inches and the HF-G10 camcorders do not have a 60P mode so I shot at 60i.
Naturally the black horizontal lines are still there since the odd and even fields from the source are displayed on the same row on a passive display using this method.

Concerning your VOF, since crosstalk is non existent on the LG 65LM6200, I am able to push back the foreground window violations on most but not all of your shots and still make it comfortable to watch with a great sense of being there. Of course, since the 3 percent divergence RULE is violated by a significant factor it will give some people problems.
That's life.wink.gif
post #894 of 1087
With 3.5" IA you were still getting good separation at what appeared to be about 200 ft away. According to my calculator, I do see that many of my shots were too aggressive. In the future, I will be backing off the IA when I see foreground images in the frame. Plus the use of the Laser range finder to measure distance and the calculator to give me actual IA for the shot will put me back in the safe zone, hopefully.

I also noted that you used the wmv codec to render your T/B. I used to use that too until a few months ago when I saw it was resulting in a more noisy / dirty image. I went back to rendering to m2ts for a cleaner image. The only problem with this is you cant do DD5.1 unless going to iso in the burn disk menu. But here we're mostly concerned with 3D image, not sound in DD5.1.
post #895 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

With 3.5" IA you were still getting good separation at what appeared to be about 200 ft away. According to my calculator, I do see that many of my shots were too aggressive. In the future, I will be backing off the IA when I see foreground images in the frame. Plus the use of the Laser range finder to measure distance and the calculator to give me actual IA for the shot will put me back in the safe zone, hopefully.
I also noted that you used the wmv codec to render your T/B. I used to use that too until a few months ago when I saw it was resulting in a more noisy / dirty image. I went back to rendering to m2ts for a cleaner image. The only problem with this is you cant do DD5.1 unless going to iso in the burn disk menu. But here we're mostly concerned with 3D image, not sound in DD5.1.

I used the WMV codec because it was the only one I could find that would let me set progressive at 59.94. I also set the bit rate at 16mbps
I don't see any noise in the image at all.
post #896 of 1087
Thread Starter 
I was incorrect. I just checked again and found that I can indeed render using the AVCHD format at 59.94 progressive so I'm rendering now to check it out.
post #897 of 1087
Thread Starter 
I just thought of another interesting test to do:
Take 3D video from the Sony TD-10 and render it as top and bottom 1080P60 and compare the playback quality to the quality playing straight from the camcorder via HDMI.
post #898 of 1087
That will be interesting to see if converting your full res recording to 1/2 R and then having the TV convert it back again. If there is any difference in PQ it will be interesting to know if the difference is no longer visiable at a specific distance.
post #899 of 1087
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

That will be interesting to see if converting your full res recording to 1/2 R and then having the TV convert it back again. If there is any difference in PQ it will be interesting to know if the difference is no longer visiable at a specific distance.
Where does this 1/2 R come from?
My point is that you are not losing any resolution whatsoever.
Each of the 60 frames per second top and bottom video contains both input fields from the left and right camera.
Nothing is lost..
post #900 of 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Would love to hear your opinion on the quality of the Parrot Drone 2.0 video on your home theater projector. wink.gif
Parrot Drone 2.0 Same link as above.
Perhaps I'll try shooting a similar video at 24P and 1/1000th and render it as a full 1080P per eye 3D video to compare it.
That might prove interesting...

My home theater projector right now is an Epson 6010, which is latest gen 3D LCD. I watched the Parrot Drone video on it and it looked really good. Not as bright or quite as sharp looking as the LG, but still very good. (The projector is 110", instead of 42", so it would show the flaws more.) Ghosting was about the same as the LG, which I can't seem to eliminate completely on this 5800, no matter where I sit. Maybe the 6200 will be better. I get it tomorrow. The Epson is the best projector I've seen in terms of ghosting, except for DLP. This video would have given my JVC 3D projectors fits. I had the RS40 and the RS45. Both of them were bad with dark ghosting (and the RS45 was HORRIBLE) - like the copter against the bright blue sky. Your video would have been unwatchable on the JVCs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Source Components
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Source Components › When small interaxials just don't cut it!