or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › 3D is here to stay says Captain 3D!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D is here to stay says Captain 3D! - Page 3

post #61 of 114
"The world is 3D not 2D"
Well undoubtfully the univers is 3D, but that is not the matter.
The matter is we are perceiving the world in 2D, so for us the world is 2d stereoscopic. The fact you can assume what you see is certainly 3D does not change the fact that what you see is 2D.
if you need to make sure something is in 3D (or even see behind an object, you need to move and get another view, this other view and move can be as small as just focusing eye from the foreground to the background)
Stereoscopy just allows our brain to build some distance scale between objects, but that still not 3D, lets say perspective view.
When you get sufficient knowledge of the scene (several 2D views, from several points) your brain can reconstruct the volume, but you still cannot see it, just imagine.
that is where memory comes into the game.
You probably have so many different views of usual object in you brain, that you can feel the volume with even a partial view of the object. That is why pictures and drawings are more than a thousand words.
if i show you a detail from an object , at an unknown scale , and you can not identify it, there is no way you can tell what it is, what shape, size or even volume it gets.
if i show you a circle and tell you it is a wheel, you can probably draw or sculpt a full car (inlcuding non-visible details, like what is under the hood) without seeing it.
The problem is this nice feature from our brain is also pretty dangerous, since we can easily assume things, even if our eyes are showing something else (optical illusions are great for this, except they should not be called optical illusion but brain illusion).
that is where movies and paintings are different than sculpture. 2D arts are asking a lot more from our brain, and since we have different ressources/experiences stored in our brain, the result of looking at a picture certainly brings different result. That is why, great movies are trying to create emotions instead depicting scenes. Emotions are shared among people easily, you just need to trig the right thing in audience.
Part of that is contained in the picture, but only a few percent, a lot is also in the music, in the story, in the dialogue etc....
That is surely giving more volume to the picture than any other optical trick.
On the other hand, stereoscopy bring us a view closer to reality than pure 2D, so there is no reason to skip, else we would also skipped stereo audio, color movie, HD picture...
We already have cameras that can shoot a scene and let you make focus afterward (Light Field Camera). We could imagine some personal viewing display, allowing you to see a stereoscopic picture while monitoring your eye to know how deep you are looking at. So the display would mimic focus exactly the way we see in reality.
add stereoscopy, not with only 2 cameras but with 5 or 7 (it is already a requirement for glassless stereo display), and you could even slightly move your head to feel the parallax effect, while still preserving the director's view.
With that, you can say there would be absolutely no way to differentiate a movie from a real view.
post #62 of 114
Quote:


The fact you can assume what you see is certainly 3D does not change the fact that what you see is 2D.

For purpose of discussion 3D=stereographic imaging.
Speak for yourself. I have two eyes and a brain which works to create the visual 3D memory. My vision is 3D! So, don't tell me I only see in 2D. Each eye individually only sees in 2D but my visual sense is created by 2 eyes and a brain which works in 3D.


Not being able to see behind objects does not mean you can't see in 3D. If you could see through and behind objects that would be more like x-ray vision. LOL!

Shooting video in 3D stereography can be done to look very natural to normal 2 eye human vision or it can be shot to distort reality into a stereo image that compresses or expands reality. That is where using wider stereo base from average 65mm and using extra wide angle or telephoto lenses affect and distort reality. This is not to mean that distorti8ng reality is a bad thing. It just means it looks surreal. Reality vision prevents me from seeing microscopic images but a microscope allows me to peer into that world and using a binocular microscope, I see it in 3D. The same thing when I shoot a mountain range with hyper stereo base of 150 ft and use 18mm lenses, I compress the landscape into a photo width but preserve a scaled z depth as well. It's not natural. It's surreal. but done carefully it is an artistic representation of the real world.

Stereo videography can also be used to create gimmicks and special visual effects. Also, this is not always a bad thing, but maybe just another unnatural piece of eye candy.
post #63 of 114
How about we differentiate the difference between the real world (3D) and the presentation of stereoscopic 3D movies as S3D. That way there would be no confusion as to what we are referring to. 2D would be things like normal movies, book illistrations, photographs, magazines and paintings/drawing/etc.
post #64 of 114
Lets make this even more simple. since this is a stereoscopic 3D forum most people think of 3D as the incorporation of a second eye to provide stereopsis and convergence depth cues.

So it only makes sense for the majority, to call mono 2D and stereo 3D.

Real life two eyes
Motion pictures 2 eyes
-------------------------
Real life one eye
Motion pictures one eye
Still pictures one eye

Anyone who tries to call mono real life "3D" just has an axe to grind. If you're going to call that 3D, then so is a mono movie and mono photo, as they are not missing any real significant depth cues versus mono real life. That leaves virtually nothing to call 2D though.

I cant imagine having this conversation EVERY $&@$ing time, so let's just drop it. It's futile. Only the most eloquent of speakers should venture into that semantic territory. It is not for those with inflated egos to toss around casually, Lee. It only creates confusion, as evidenced in the last few posts.
post #65 of 114
Lee- that is a good idea. "S3D". I like that and will probably begin to use it.

I have always thought of 3D imaging as a presentation art form. Objects in the real world are all in 3 dimensional except a few, like shadows, which are 2D but may occupy 3D space.

If you ( cakefoo) like to microanalize the terminology and what they represent there is a good book on the subject of 3D that goes into all forms of what we call 3D, how we perceive it and finally how we make it. It is 3D Moviemaking, by Bernard Mendiburo. He goes from the very simple to very complex with lots of illustrations and even an included DVD that describes the geometric relationships of how to create stereo imaging and how to define the limits. Nearly all my understanding of the subject is addressed by Mendiburo. But your last paragraph makes the best sense to me and that is let's just drop it. I'm happy to let people know where they can read up on all aspects of the subject as the ground has already been covered, if they feel ambitious enough to learn from the experts. All I want to do is learn how to do it and make my stories I do in video have that 3rd dimensional quality.
post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Lets make this even more simple. since this is a stereoscopic 3D forum most people think of 3D as the incorporation of a second eye to provide stereopsis and convergence depth cues.

So it only makes sense for the majority, to call mono 2D and stereo 3D.

Real life two eyes
Motion pictures 2 eyes
-------------------------
Real life one eye
Motion pictures one eye
Still pictures one eye

Anyone who tries to call mono real life "3D" just has an axe to grind. If you're going to call that 3D, then so is a mono movie and mono photo, as they are not missing any real significant depth cues versus mono real life. That leaves virtually nothing to call 2D though.

I cant imagine having this conversation EVERY $&@$ing time, so let's just drop it. It's futile. Only the most eloquent of speakers should venture into that semantic territory. It is not for those with inflated egos to toss around casually, Lee. It only creates confusion, as evidenced in the last few posts.

Like I said, examples of 2D:

Theaterical movies
Television
Computer Screens
Books
Smart Phones
Tablets
Magazines
Photographs
Paintings
Drawings

If any of the above are presented in stereoscopic 3D (glasses based or Auto 3D), then they would be in the category of S3D. And real life would be 3D. . . . or 3-D to make a bigger differentiation.

Not confusing at all.
post #67 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Like I said, examples of 2D:

Theaterical movies
Television
Computer Screens
Books
Smart Phones
Tablets
Magazines
Photographs
Paintings
Drawings

Those are 2D. Ok. But what is 3D to this board? Binocular 3D, obviously. So when you refer to mono depth perception as "3D," it confuses people who haven't studied the wikipedia on depth perception, aka 99% of the population.

You can't just use "3D" when referring to mono real life eyesight and expect the person to understand you. It's arrogant and inconsiderate. People waste a lot of time writing long posts because it's not common knowledge. I myself even as recently as a few months ago found it strange to call mono real life "3D." I still think it's deceptive and leads to confusion but I at least understand that a depth cue is obviously data about the third dimension and therefore technically you have the three dimensions. People don't pick that up immediately though. They need the wiki entry on depth perception.
post #68 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Those are 2D. Ok. But what is 3D to this board? Binocular 3D, obviously. So when you refer to mono depth perception as "3D," it confuses people who haven't studied the wikipedia on depth perception, aka 99% of the population.

What is 3D on this board? Very simple - S3D - either presented using glasses or no glasses (Auto 3D)

Do you really believe that if you lose an eye, the world looks like a flat magazine ad? Yes you lose depth cues but you do not lose depth altogether. An example of losing depth cues would be reaching for a door knob and being an inch too short because you misjudged the distance the door knob is from your hand.
post #69 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

If any of the above are presented in stereoscopic 3D (glasses based or Auto 3D), then they would be in the category of S3D. And real life would be 3D. . . . or 3-D to make a bigger differentiation.

Not confusing at all.

I'm confused (seriously, not trying to be snide), where is binocular vision in real life left in this equation? Do you think there's no need in differentiating 3D in the real world, one eye vs two? Do we have to call it S3D-Real or something?
post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I'm confused (seriously, not trying to be snide), where is binocular vision in real life left in this equation? Do you think there's no need in differentiating 3D in the real world, one eye vs two? Do we have to call it S3D-Real or something?

Binocular and Mono Vision in the real world would be 3-D. No, I do not think it is necessary to differentiate between having two eyes or one. Would you differentiate if a person was Color Blind?

I gave a list of content that is 2D in post #66

Do you need a list for S3D? It would be the same as 2D except you would either be required to wear glasses or be looking at a special no glasses display called an Autostereoscopic Display (Auto 3D).

A person with Mono Vision (one eye) cannot see S3D. They would be classified as Stereo Blind
post #71 of 114
This is a 2D photograph of a real world (3-D) car.



This is an S3D movie. Requires either a 3DTV with glasses or an Auto 3D display



This is an S3D photograph. Requires special glasses (anaglyph Red/Cyan)

post #72 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What is 3D on this board? Very simple - S3D - either presented using glasses or no glasses (Auto 3D)

Do you really believe that if you lose an eye, the world looks like a flat magazine ad? Yes you lose depth cues but you do not lose depth altogether. An example of losing depth cues would be reaching for a door knob and being an inch too short because you misjudged the distance the door knob is from your hand.

compared to what we call 2D films, the real world with one eye open only adds accommodation. So do these people all a favor and just leave the trivial technicalities for less interesting conversations.
post #73 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

compared to what we call 2D films, the real world with one eye open only adds accommodation. So do these people all a favor and just leave the trivial technicalities for less interesting conversations.

Frankly, I don't know why we are even discussing people with one eye. They can't see stereoscopic images. By introducing people with Mono Vision - THAT is confusing. Just leave them out of the discussion and everything is fine.
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Binocular and Mono Vision in the real world would be 3-D. No, I do not think it is necessary to differentiate between having two eyes or one.

This I can't accept. I didn't turn out to be an evolutionary biologist but I got enough higher education in the subject to know that we wouldn't have binocular vision if it didn't make a difference. S3D is the perfect demonstration of how much a difference a second forward facing eye makes. If it didn't make a difference, we wouldn't even be a bunch of infighting 3D enthusiasts in the first place! We certainly didn't evolve binocular vision for the sake of 3D Blu-rays. We have it for the significant difference it makes in the real world.

If applicable, I'll make the Creationist argument too: God wouldn't give us binocular vision if it didn't make a difference.
post #75 of 114
According to Wikipedia- and I wholeheartedly agree in my experience as a human with 2 eyes- binocular vision allows "precise depth perception," whereas with monocular vision, "depth perception is limited." I would hesitate to call monocular vision "3D" since the perception of that third dimension is not very precise.

To clarify, here are the monocular depth cues:

Quote:


* Motion parallax - When an observer moves, the apparent relative motion of several stationary objects against a background gives hints about their relative distance. If information about the direction and velocity of movement is known, motion parallax can provide absolute depth information[2]. This effect can be seen clearly when driving in a car nearby things pass quickly, while far off objects appear stationary. Some animals that lack binocular vision due to wide placement of the eyes employ parallax more explicitly than humans for depth cueing (e.g., some types of birds, which bob their heads to achieve motion parallax, and squirrels, which move in lines orthogonal to an object of interest to do the same).1

Single camera video provides this depth cue when the camera is moving.

Quote:


* Depth from motion - One form of depth from motion, kinetic depth perception, is determined by dynamically changing object size. As objects in motion become smaller, they appear to recede into the distance or move farther away; objects in motion that appear to be getting larger seem to be coming closer. Using kinetic depth perception enables the brain to calculate time to crash distance (aka time to collision or time to contact - TTC) at a particular velocity. When driving, we are constantly judging the dynamically changing headway (TTC) by kinetic depth perception.

Single camera video provides this depth cue when the camera is moving.

Quote:


* Perspective - The property of parallel lines converging at infinity allows us to reconstruct the relative distance of two parts of an object, or of landscape features.

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue.

Quote:


* Relative size - If two objects are known to be the same size (e.g., two trees) but their absolute size is unknown, relative size cues can provide information about the relative depth of the two objects. If one subtends a larger visual angle on the retina than the other, the object which subtends the larger visual angle appears closer.

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue.

Quote:


* Familiar size - Since the visual angle of an object projected onto the retina decreases with distance, this information can be combined with previous knowledge of the objects size to determine the absolute depth of the object. For example, people are generally familiar with the size of an average automobile. This prior knowledge can be combined with information about the angle it subtends on the retina to determine the absolute depth of an automobile in a scene.

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue.

Quote:


* Aerial perspective - Due to light scattering by the atmosphere, objects that are a great distance away have lower luminance contrast and lower color saturation. In computer graphics, this is called "distance fog". The foreground has high contrast; the background has low contrast. Objects differing only in their contrast with a background appear to be at different depths.[3] The color of distant objects are also shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum (e.g., distance mountains). Some painters, notably Cezanne, employ "warm" pigments (red, yellow and orange) to bring features forward towards the viewer, and "cool" ones (blue, violet, and blue-green) to indicate the part of a form that curves away from the picture plane.

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue.

Quote:


* Accommodation - This is an oculomotor cue for depth perception. When we try to focus on far away objects, the ciliary muscles stretches the eye lens, making it thinner. The kinesthetic sensations of the contracting and relaxing ciliary muscles (intraocular muscles) is sent to the visual cortex where it is used for interpreting distance/depth.

The only cue not possible with single camera video or photography yet, but becomes useless after just 10 feet and does not have anywhere near as much accuracy as binocular cues.

Quote:


* Occlusion (also referred to as interposition) - Occlusion (blocking the sight) of objects by others is also a clue which provides information about relative distance. However, this information only allows the observer to create a "ranking" of relative nearness.

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue.

Quote:


* Peripheral vision - At the outer extremes of the visual field, parallel lines become curved, as in a photo taken through a fish-eye lens. This effect, although it's usually eliminated from both art and photos by the cropping or framing of a picture, greatly enhances the viewer's sense of being positioned within a real, three dimensional space. (Classical perspective has no use for this so-called "distortion", although in fact the "distortions" strictly obey optical laws and provide perfectly valid visual information, just as classical perspective does for the part of the field of vision that falls within its frame.)

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue if the lens has a relatively wide angle.

Quote:


* Texture gradient - Suppose you are standing on a gravel road. The gravel near you can be clearly seen in terms of shape, size and colour. As your vision shifts towards the distant road the texture cannot be clearly differentiated.

Single camera video and photography provide this depth cue.

And binocular cues- it's funny there are only a couple but they play a humongous role:

Quote:


# Stereopsis or retinal (binocular) disparity - Animals that have their eyes placed frontally can also use information derived from the different projection of objects onto each retina to judge depth. By using two images of the same scene obtained from slightly different angles, it is possible to triangulate the distance to an object with a high degree of accuracy. If an object is far away, the disparity of that image falling on both retinas will be small. If the object is close or near, the disparity will be large. It is stereopsis that tricks people into thinking they perceive depth when viewing Magic Eyes, Autostereograms, 3-D movies and stereoscopic photos.

# Convergence - This is a binocular oculomotor cue for distance/depth perception. By virtue of stereopsis the two eye balls focus on the same object. In doing so they converge. The convergence will stretch the extraocular muscles. As happens with the monocular accommodation cue, kinesthetic sensations from these extraocular muscles also help in depth/distance perception. The angle of convergence is smaller when the eye is fixating on far away objects. Convergence is effective for distances less than 10 meters.[citation needed]
post #76 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

This I can't accept. I didn't turn out to be an evolutionary biologist but I got enough higher education in the subject to know that we wouldn't have binocular vision if it didn't make a difference. S3D is the perfect demonstration of how much a difference a second forward facing eye makes. If it didn't make a difference, we wouldn't even be a bunch of infighting 3D enthusiasts in the first place! We certainly didn't evolve binocular vision for the sake of 3D Blu-rays. We have it for the significant difference it makes in the real world.

If applicable, I'll make the Creationist argument too: God wouldn't give us binocular vision if it didn't make a difference.

I never said they were the same. I specifically said that having binocular vision then losing an eye so that now you have monocular vision, you do lose depth cues. But for anyone to say that if you only have one eye you have lost the ability to see the real world in 3-D and now only see it in 2D is utter nonsense.

And again, a person with monocular vision cannot see stereoscopic images (S3D). That is impossible.
post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

But for anyone to say that if you only have one eye you have lost the ability to see the real world in 3-D and now only see it in 2D is utter nonsense.

I think your definitions of 2D/3D are inconsistent if not arbitrary. In the real world, there are plenty of depth cues you can see with one eye. No one disputes this. You choose define it as 3D. Fine, so far so good. Now take a non-stereoscopic movie. It too has plenty of depth cues that you can see with one eye (or two). This, however, you call 2D. What?
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

to say that if you only have one eye you have lost the ability to see the real world in 3-D and now only see it in 2D is utter nonsense.

Then images and videos taken with a single camera are 3D too, leaving almost nothing left to call 2D. At that point it becomes almost pointless to have the 2D term. And yet I see it used all the time.

It's less confusing to say we still perceive depth with a single eye, and just leave it at that. Nobody is benefiting from you also calling it 3D. It only leads to people not knowing what you're talking about and you handling it like a broken record, repeating yourself over and over like as if with repetition it will make it any easier to understand. You should know by now that something is missing.
post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Do you really believe that if you lose an eye, the world looks like a flat magazine ad?

Not quite. A magazine ad has a static perspective, but it still has depth cues. Moving pictures/reality provide the "motion parallax" and "depth from motion" cues, hence they are superior for perceiving depth than still 2D photos. But I still wouldn't call 2D video "3D" or real life with one eye "3D," because it's just not a widely enough understood concept, and just leads to confusion. I'm quite content saying "We perceive depth with one eye" than to say "we see 3D with one eye no no yes yes blah blah this that bicker bicker semantics etc." Until you can do it without confusing people, then you should treat it with more care. The way you do it you don't explain, you don't answer our questions.
post #80 of 114
that is why, all this mumbling is useless.
The real world is in 3D, we know it, but we got nothing in our vision apparel that allows to get it. All the clues we get are in 2D because our vision system is 2D (light focused on a plane-retina) and there is no information in light that can capture distance. So our brain is reconstructing the world in 3D from several indirect informations, and we strongly believe that we SEE in 3D when we only PERCEIVE 3D.
Egyptian were drawing flat, then we learn to draw with perspective, then we got stereoscopic. Soon we will get technology that feeds pictures to our eyes that contains all the requirements to fool our brain enough, so it can make no difference with real world.
For instance only the naive is fooled by stereoscopic picture and says "Uh, that's 3D" (in fact he wants to say"it looks REAL" but as soon his brain learn that it is not REAL, stereoscopy goes back to the 2D world category, in the drawer called "cool illusions".
So the semantic is not to say what is 3D or 2D, it is to say "is the brain fooled enough to make you believe you are seeing the real world instead a picture of it".
I think that subtle difference is important because our brain knows we can act or be impacted in real word, while we cannot on a record of it.
So we have a different behavior depending our brain identifying what is REAL and what is not. That is also why first 3D moving were abusing of the "popping out of the screen" effect, because you it was funny to see people stepping back, or trying to grab part of the picture.
That is also why some live event (mainly circus or sport) have a different taste if they are recorded or not ,because in a live event , it could happen something, while in a record , we know the story is already fixed. (in the same way , we don't like spoiler for movie, because it is less fun to know the end of the story)
That is why we can look at a war film calmly seated in a theater or at two people kissing, such thing we would surely not do in a real world.
Now with computer, it is not impossible we could build real time virtual world than does not only look REAL, but also we can act (change the course of things like in real world)
Sci-fi already has explored this field with movie (avatar being great on that side) where characters could even die in the real world if they are killed in the virtual one (then erasing frontier between real and virtual). Recently, people have build a room for gamer, were you see the game 360 deg in 3D, can walk and get hit by real bullet (paint ball).
So it think each of us are evolving from "Great 3D movies", to "That stereoscopic stuff" to "that's just a 2d gimmick" at different moment and speed
so even if we speak from the same thing, we do not understand or describe it the same, and there s no such thing a 3D picture (out of a sculpture).
let's speak about different level of representing Real world, even if the ultimate way of representing real world is to build it.
post #81 of 114
nosys70, it seems you're not a native English speaker, but you make a lot of great points and interesting observations. Thanks for being brave about your English, because I found your post very wise.

As you say, all this 2D vs 3D stuff is useless, because what really matters is whether it looks real or not. If it looks real, we want to call it 3D. If it doesn't look real despite being stereoscopic, we want to call it a 2D illusion. You're right, we're all seeing the same thing but calling it very different things.
post #82 of 114
Other things to consider-

While stereography requires two good eyes to see, two eyes are not required to view all forms of 3D imaging. 3D imaging can also be achieved through two other artistic presentations of a 2D shape. One is perspective and another is divided into two styles called offset shadow and drop shadow. Color level shading could also be considered a 3rd form of 3D but I see this as related to shadowing. Location of the shadowing and where the perspective is in a 2D image gives the impression of depth of pop. Offset shadowing is always used to pop a 2D shape off the backdrop. in 3D art instruction the level of fuzziness of the shadow is used to define the level of difuse light in a drawing. All of these illusions of 3D can be seen by a person with one eye.
post #83 of 114
Uh, anyway, another way that stereoscopic 3D photography doesn't look "real" is the pop-up book effect, where an image looks like a series of flat 2D planes arranged in layers. Our vision of the real world doesn't do this.

Was watching the new Harold & Kumar movie last night, and it had a lot of this (at least on my projector).
post #84 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Uh, anyway, another way that stereoscopic 3D photography doesn't look "real" is the pop-up book effect, where an image looks like a series of flat 2D planes arranged in layers. Our vision of the real world doesn't do this.

Was watching the new Harold & Kumar movie last night, and it had a lot of this (at least on my projector).

I'm starting to think you have problems with your stereo vision. The only time I get the pop-up book effect is when the movie has been converted and even then not always depending on the scene being converted. For anything shot or rendered in 3D I get the looking through a window effect with the occasional pop-out from the screen.

Or maybe it has something do with the borders of the screen causing a disconnect with your brain interpreting the image?

One thing is clear is that not everyone sees 3D movies the same way which is why you get so much arguing about the merits of 3D in general.
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Uh, anyway, another way that stereoscopic 3D photography doesn't look "real" is the pop-up book effect, where an image looks like a series of flat 2D planes arranged in layers.

The use of long zoom lenses causes the cardboard cutouts.
Quote:


Was watching the new Harold & Kumar movie last night, and it had a lot of this (at least on my projector).

Well for one, H&K is about the gimmick moments. They really skimped on the other 90% of the footage. It looked so bad there's no doubt in my mind that it was a postconversion.
post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotan View Post

I'm starting to think you have problems with your stereo vision. The only time I get the pop-up book effect is when the movie has been converted and even then not always depending on the scene being converted. For anything shot or rendered in 3D I get the looking through a window effect with the occasional pop-out from the screen.

Or maybe it has something do with the borders of the screen causing a disconnect with your brain interpreting the image?

One thing is clear is that not everyone sees 3D movies the same way which is why you get so much arguing about the merits of 3D in general.

Well as you said, the popup book effect CAN exist in SOME films in SOME scenes. But it's on a case by case basis and has everything to do with the talent, not the technology. Josh keeps bringing up these case by case issues and making them out to be more representative of 3D when they're really just a byproduct of inexperienced 2D cinematographers trying to apply their prior knowledge of tele lenses to a medium that it doesn't translate to very well.
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Well for one, H&K is about the gimmick moments. They really skimped on the other 90% of the footage. It looked so bad there's no doubt in my mind that it was a postconversion.

Harold and Kumar was shot in 3D with Panavision Genesis cameras and 3D Element Technica rigs.

http://www.panavision.com/spotlight/...stmas-theaters
post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Well as you said, the popup book effect CAN exist in SOME films in SOME scenes. But it's on a case by case basis and has everything to do with the talent, not the technology. Josh keeps bringing up these case by case issues and making them out to be more representative of 3D when they're really just a byproduct of inexperienced 2D cinematographers trying to apply their prior knowledge of tele lenses to a medium that it doesn't translate to very well.

Yes, except he said "another way that stereoscopic 3D photography doesn't look "real"" clearly meaning 3D movies in general, not specific cases. Plus he then also brought up Harold and Kumar as an example of this effect however that was shot in 3D and based on reviews I've read has very good 3D. I have it but haven't watched it yet. I'll pop it in tonight.
post #89 of 114
That doesn't rule out the ugly scenes being the result of postconversion. Movies mix native and postconversion all the time, just to different degrees. H&K looked like a postconversion most of the time. I couldn't help but notice inconsistencies in the way things were being layered. I kept thinking, "That layer shouldn't be there."
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotan View Post

Yes, except he said "another way that stereoscopic 3D photography doesn't look "real"" clearly meaning 3D movies in general, not specific cases.

Pretty much every live action 3D movie I've seen has had some degree of pop-up effect and/or miniaturization. Some are better than others, of course. CG animation tends to have a more natural sense of depth.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › 3D is here to stay says Captain 3D!