Well, I am not sure if I get your point really - but I try to analyse what I think about the points. And for sure I am a practical but not a theoretical oriented guy. So there is a lot of math behind that, for sure, but I have not found the time and willingness to go into that really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andrey.g.smolin 
The convergence method (not parallel axis) and parallel shift method (for parallel axis) is not same method (not same result after postpro correction).
For sure that is true. But both methods are recommended and possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andrey.g.smolin 
You can have approximately same result for not deep 3D volume (room). For 3D deep space (street for example) the convergence method result in increasing of the parallax of infinity object (incorrect value).
There is something that has been called "depth bracket" by beloved Mendiburu. As far as I understood, one major point how to adjust that is to decide above the interocular distance. But for sure there is no way how you can come up with a correct parallax of infinity objects if you do not adjust the axis in a parallel way. But I think that is not the question really, for some reasons: first you have to decide what depth position and depth bracket you want to have. That can be calculated by using different programms - the Z10000 is the first camcorder that comes up with such a calculation internally, but there are tables and software tools to do that. So from that side the convergence angle you adjust for a street or landscape shooting must be different to a shooting in the short distance. Second, there is something like a stereoscopic comfort zone. According to where we put the sceen plane with parallax zero, there is a limited range before and behind that screen plane. So adjusting the convergence is not wrong nor right, but must care about that comfort zone. The third aspect is the human being eys. We are able to see something about 30 m in 3D really - so our sterescopic depth perception is very limited in really. Objects that are far away will be arranged by our brains using other depth cues - relative size for example.
So, if you wish to set the two camera axes to parallel, your 3D picutre will be 100 percent in front of the screen, and the only perfect overlapping will be the ones at an infinite distance to the cameras. Knowing that the comfort zone is near to the screen, there is the risk that near objects are outside the comfort zone maybe
I think that most people do not shoot with a fixed convergence only, and setting the convergence to parallel axis in a general way, will take out one of the creative adjustment parameters - the position of the screen plane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andrey.g.smolin 
3D video file must have correct parallax for any distance because you want see any objects at any distance at any time.
To my opinion, that is no correct parallax for any distance. Maybe in a mathematical sence only - or whatever a correct parallax is. But the most important concept is that of the stereoscopic comfort zone. To avoid or minimise or control the stress that we put on the audience. And if that is fine, the overall 3D production is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andrey.g.smolin 
Concerning adjusting the convergence in the postpro. You can't change axis angle (projection on matrix) in the postpro.
True - but you can adjust parallax and that is enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andrey.g.smolin 
Convergence method is good for short distance (speaker at studio (wall at short distance) shooting) because it is clear to convergence method for our eyes for short distance.
True, and that is why all consumer and prosumer camcorders like the TD10, the TD1 but also the Z10000 uses convergence controlls. Given there limited IO (even for the Z10000), that is in line with the fact that they will deliver fine results in a depth bracket of mybe 0,5-30/40 m only. For landscapes shootings I would tend to use two independend camcorders and a 3D sbs rig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andrey.g.smolin 
Parallel axis method (plus electronic shift at camcorder) is more universal and important mode. Professional camcorders (for example Sony PMW-TD300) have two mode. Camcorder that have only convergence mode is not universal 3D camcorder.
Who said that there is an universal 3D camcorder, if we are talking about consumer babies like the TD10, TD1 or even the Z10000? To my opinion, also professional camcorder like the TD300 are not universel, given their limited possiblities of IO. The camcorder can be used for specific setting, everybody who tells you a different story has not even understood the basics of 3D movie making. If you want an "unversal 3D camcorder", the most universal setting will always be two independent camcorders, a good 3D rig that suits your needs for the distance you go for, a good controller.
Control-L will be the consumer solution, there are more professional settings in the Canon world for example. But for sure the price is then twice or even higher, compared to the Z10000 that we are talking here. Even pixel shifting - if that is right what you say for the TD10 what I do not know, but maybe that is right - even pixel shifting will be no anwer really, since for a "real" 3D setting the control of the IO is more important compared with the control of the convergence.
So we should be realistic about how and when we use what hardware for a production. The hobbit uses about 45 reds, all kind of sbs or mirrow rags - and by the way that adjust conververgence for sure, using differential pictures during shooting. You can see that in the hobbit production videos, there at 2:25 min in a quite good way:
http://video.golem.de/audio-video/63...he-hobbit.html