The 3D Fraud! - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 30Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 09:50 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,920
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1481 Post(s)
Liked: 437
tom- actually the MVC encoded 3D is a compressed image file as the base file and the dependent file is an instruction set to build an image file that is the second image. It's not just a more compressed image. If you wish to learn more I suggest looking up the actual tech specs for "2D Plus Delta Algorithm*" The original patent claims the 2D can be either left or right eye and the net result of the delta file is that it increases the disk space requirement to 130% - 160% of a 2D only and it is backward h.264 compatible.

*Edit- not to be confused with "2D plus depth map"


In a dual image 3D file set you have two compressed image files. I've never heard that the dependent file is an image file that is more compressed than the base file. The instruction set streams in sync with the base file and the audio. Pretty impressive design, just to save some space on the disk. It might also improve efficiency shifting the build of the second file to the player's hardware versus having to stream two full image files in sync from the disk. Those of us who edit complicated 3D storylines know all too well how taxing it can get streaming from a hard drive or even a SSD, especially the compute power required of streaming two 3D files ( four image streams) to do a simple dissolve transition in full quality and frame rate.

My 3D and 360VR videos and more
Don Landis HT System: Projector Sony VPL VW665ES Players: Samsung UBD K8500 OPPO BD93 Sony BDP S6200 All Regions Player Denon AVR S940, 7.1 JBL Professional series and Klipsch PS3, XBOX360, Dish VIP722K; 3D Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752

Last edited by Don Landis; 12-22-2015 at 09:55 AM.
Don Landis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 10:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Right, but I don't see in there where that would be considered a conversion. It's just taking the data from both streams, and eliminating where they share the same data for compression. If it were a conversion there would be data that was extrapolated from the left view, essentially "made up" data for the right. But MVC isn't making up data it's more like discarding waste.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #33 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 10:26 AM
Member
 
MCharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in the NWestern Nevada desert
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Right, but I don't see in there where that would be considered a conversion. It's just taking the data from both streams, and eliminating where they share the same data for compression. If it were a conversion there would be data that was extrapolated from the left view, essentially "made up" data for the right. But MVC isn't making up data it's more like discarding waste.
This is a very 'techie' discussion, but a simple fact is overlooked here...Fraud or no fraud, there *are* some of us, who enjoy 3D. Most of us, are *not* tech savvy, just enjoy the experience. Yes, there are some obvious 3D clunkers (The 3D conversion of TOP GUN comes to mind) and some have outstanding 3D (OZ, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL) but for the most part, 3D, for most of us, is fine. The differences in the types of 3D creation, are completely lost on us!

Now back to the *tech* discussion of 3D vs. 2D, etc . <<GRIN>>

MC
MCharlie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 10:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
MCharlie,
firstly, welcome to the forum. As you've seen, sometimes we can get into protracted discussions on how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin. We're kind of 3D nerds around here. More importantly, I'm glad to see- from your forum location info- that there are some of you NWestern Nevada desert folk who are into 3D and it's not just us Reno, big city folk-LOL!!

Last edited by Barry C; 12-22-2015 at 11:36 AM.
Barry C is offline  
post #35 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 01:53 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,920
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1481 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Actually, tom and I were having a side discussion on whether MVC is a conversion from 2D to 3D. My position on it is from the starting point of what is on the disk to what we see the 2D image file is converted to 3D for viewing. But Tom considers the origin may have been produced in 3D and all in between doesn't count as it is behind the scenes I suspect. The difference of opinion is not much different than a debate as to whether any conversion if real or fake. I prefer to call it an illusion. But, whether fraud or not is more of a legal debate. I'll let the lawyers argue that one- Barry? care to weigh in. Let my testimony remain, I'm happy if I am entertained.

I'm on break with the two grandsons, We just finished watching Thor 3D and Pixels 3D. This is a big day as the 4 year old can now wear the active glasses and enjoy 3D. The 7 year old graduated to the adult size glasses. They both had birthdays 2 weeks ago.

My 3D and 360VR videos and more
Don Landis HT System: Projector Sony VPL VW665ES Players: Samsung UBD K8500 OPPO BD93 Sony BDP S6200 All Regions Player Denon AVR S940, 7.1 JBL Professional series and Klipsch PS3, XBOX360, Dish VIP722K; 3D Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is offline  
post #36 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 03:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
But, whether fraud or not is more of a legal debate. I'll let the lawyers argue that one- Barry? care to weigh in. Let my testimony remain, I'm happy if I am entertained.

.
Geez Don, if you really want to pin me down here, I'd have to say, probably not fraud and even if deemed to be, it should fall under the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex.

First time I've had to think about this stuff since retiring from that 11 years ago! Now, I have a headache.

Last edited by Barry C; 12-22-2015 at 03:06 PM.
Barry C is offline  
post #37 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 04:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCharlie View Post
This is a very 'techie' discussion, but a simple fact is overlooked here...Fraud or no fraud, there *are* some of us, who enjoy 3D. Most of us, are *not* tech savvy, just enjoy the experience. Yes, there are some obvious 3D clunkers (The 3D conversion of TOP GUN comes to mind) and some have outstanding 3D (OZ, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL) but for the most part, 3D, for most of us, is fine. The differences in the types of 3D creation, are completely lost on us!

Now back to the *tech* discussion of 3D vs. 2D, etc . <<GRIN>>

MC
You've chosen your posts wisely. Your 14th post in 13 years on this forum could not have been more spot on.

ferl is offline  
post #38 of 93 Old 12-22-2015, 06:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Actually, tom and I were having a side discussion on whether MVC is a conversion from 2D to 3D. My position on it is from the starting point of what is on the disk to what we see the 2D image file is converted to 3D for viewing. But Tom considers the origin may have been produced in 3D and all in between doesn't count as it is behind the scenes I suspect. The difference of opinion is not much different than a debate as to whether any conversion if real or fake. I prefer to call it an illusion.
I would argue that MVC does not "convert" a 3D image from 2D any more than AVC "converts" video out of keyframes. MVC has the advantage of comparing multiple camera angles' similarities, but just like 2D codecs, MVC also references adjacent frames of the same eye. And it's not like one eye is exclusively feeding off the data in the other eye-- ultimately, each eye is comparing their encodes to their respective source images- and any differences that can't be accounted for by the efficiency algorithms can be supplemented with glorious, raw data.

Last edited by cakefoo; 12-22-2015 at 07:03 PM.
cakefoo is offline  
post #39 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 02:03 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Converging cameras isn't "wrong". I adjust convergence when needed and it works just fine without keystone distortion.
Keystone distortion with convergence is a geometric fact, not a debatable opinion. You have two unaligned axis (that cross each other) with perspective. So keystone distortion is inevitable. Even if you avoid to overdo it, that doesn't change the fact that there IS some distortion which always increases eyestrain. With parallel shooting however, whatever you do, you always have zero keystone distortion up to the maximum parallax tolerable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Really? Arachnids have 8 eyes. Praying mantis has 5. Scallops have 100 eyes.
Are you using examples of 7.1+ to show the Mono superiority ?
Nature has decided: You just have to look at the vast majority of species and especially at the most complex ones at the top of the food chain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Something else, don't take everything over at realorfake3d.com as fact. There are many errors on that site.
I'm going to make my own list from imdb and the other sites you mentioned, thanks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C View Post
I mearly point it out to demonstrate the fact that many fairly sophisticated 3D viewers find it acceptable and, in many cases, quite good.
Exactly. Why have an "acceptable and in many cases quite good" result with post-conversion, when you can have the best possible result with native 3D?
128k mp3 is also "acceptable" and in many cases "quite good" (when the sound is less complicated for example just like pseudo-3D). Would you accept paying the same amount for mp3 as with losslesss and without any indication on the label to distinguish it? Would you just listen and enjoy the "composition" and the "mucic arrangement"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C View Post
When you talk about native 2 camera 3D and parallax, as showing scenes more as nature intended, where the lines get blurred on all native 3D movies is in the post production process. What I mean by this is the raw 3D footage is, in many cases, readjusted stereoscopically. On my own content, I will often make stereoscopic adjustments in post to either add additional depth or pull elements forward into negative parallax when I feel it's appropriate- although most of the time I frame my shots for optimal negative parallax and rarely need to do this. Sometimes, I'll push them back to avoid problematic windows violations and other times just to add the perception of additional depth in farther away scenes. So, does that mean that the 3D is now a fraud, or is it an enhancement done to create a hightened sense of reality?
Of course not! (You confuse me with those audiophiles who pray for the unaltered divine sound in front of their holy cables! I'm not that type, I'm the practical, common sense type who likes the scientific way of thinking -not the religious one).
You can only change the window placement in post (not the parallax) -for the reasons you mentioned, which is part of the native 3D creative workflow, something you can either do while you shoot, or in post (or both) -the end result will be the same. The huge difference from post conversion is that with native, no matter what you do, you always have the full stereo information in your hands, NOT just a rough approximation or guesswork!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Something that has not been mentioned here but is true. Nearly all 3D BluRay 3D commercial disks take all 3D productions and publish the production as a 2D base file, plus an instruction set file to generate the second eye view, for the two eye stereocopic presentation. One way of looking at it is all 3D bluray movies regardless of how it is shot end up as a 2D and then use a particular 2D to 3D conversion algorithm to get the movie back to 3D stereoscopic view. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smilie" smilieid="1" class="inlineimg" border="0"> Albeit a near perfect conversion from the original, none the less, a conversion. The licensed 3D bluray standard is done this way, using a base image file and a dependent instruction set to create the additional eye view. Of course there are other ways to store and present the program, but the licensed <i>3D BluRay standard</i> is essentially a 2D to 3D conversion.
That is a data compression method, NOT a 2D to 3D conversion one, which is totally irrelevant. The compression is optimized around the fact that two views share same or similar information. So they create a base 2D file (Left view) and a delta (difference) file (the difference between the left and right view) to minimize repetition of data and thus achieve higher compression


Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
whether you recognize a production is produced from twin cameras, conversion from a single camera, the bottom line is whether you were entertained or not. If the knowledge that a movie was produced in a certain way, that disturbs you then the entertainment value is lost on you. Doesn't matter if everyone else is entertained, they are not you. We get it, once you know from tech specs a stereoscopic movie was not produced using your standards, you don't like it. But the majority of viewers don't care what camera was used, they care if they were entertained or not.

.................

I went to see IMAX Star Wars 7 yesterday and the last thing on my mind was how they made the film. For me, it was about the story. I believe nearly all the millions of people who went to see the movie this past weekend went to see the story, and didn't care how it was shot.
First, it is a scientific fact that a converted footage will always be worse than its native version done properly, so that's not just an opinion.
Second, you can't make valid conclusions about one parameter by mixing in more parameters. You can even tolerate poison if you mix it in small doses, that doesn't mean we should accept a poisoned food (which in fact we currently do unfortunately). Third, most people are OK with 128k mp3, because they don't know what they are missing. The same with the viewers. They pay their hard earned cach to buy a true 3D stereo TV only to be served without knowing with a rough 3D approximation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Even you have to recognize, the producers make a movie to appeal to please the general audience to be successful.
Yet they put money first, NOT quality. They won't invest in problem-solving and artistic or technical research to evolve cinema if it is uncertain that this will be reflected in more sales. They won't risk more money for more quality if they have a less risky alternative -which is why they prefer conversion. All other excuses are BS. Show me a problem that can't be solved today. They want to shoot 3 dimensions with the same amount of effort and cost they shoot 2 dimensions! This is how much they care about quality. And they make enough even with the crappiest movies (which is why so many movies are so bad).

Last edited by SoToS; 12-24-2015 at 02:39 PM.
SoToS is offline  
post #40 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 02:08 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeder View Post
Basically--my lame understanding is, capturing 3D is completely different than CGI'ed 3D.
No, it is exactly the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post
Lol. If 3d conversion is a fraud then you must hate ALL motion recordings, because every single one if them is a series if motionless photographs shown in sequence at varying rates.
Not very "real world" at all.
You didn't bother to read and understand before reply.
Fraud is the fact that you're not been informed whether you're buying lossless 3D or a rough pseudo-3D approximation.

If native 3D is really more difficult to shoot, if the 3D rigs are larger and weigh more, if the production time is indeed longer, if the post process is longer, if the 3D equipment is more expensive than 2D, if problems often occur that are difficult to solve, if it requires more skills and experience, then those difficulties alone indicate that converted 3D costs less and worth less so you should know what you're buying. If there was a distinction on the label, then everything would be fine as it would be your choice then.

Such a distinction would have caused a drop in the price of converted movies, even a slight one, because the customers who just bought their new 3D TV, wouldn't be as happy to buy a pseudo-3D blu ray. Just like you wouldn't be as happy to know that those DVD-A albums on the store are actually converted from stereo -not native multi channel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by film113 View Post
As for MAS MAX, that was intended to be shot natively. But the 3D cameras couldn't withstand the rigors of the dust-laden location so they had to go with the conversion option.
So only a single camera could withstand the windy-dusty conditions, not two right?
Such excuses are laughable. If there is too much wind, mount a fairing for example to minimize drag, the cost to modify a rig is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions $ budget they have. They simply don't care.

Last edited by SoToS; 12-24-2015 at 06:48 PM.
SoToS is offline  
post #41 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 04:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,347
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post

So only a single camera could withstand the windy-dusty conditions, not two right?
Such excuses are laughable. If there is too much wind, mount a fairing for example to minimize drag, the cost to modify a rig is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions $ budget they have. They simply don't care.
They actually had the 3D cameras on-set. Go through the BD extras for more on why they had to opt for a conversion. (the people didn't fare well with the dust and sand either.)
film113 is offline  
post #42 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 05:52 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3562
The OP has a valid point. Today we have the tools to do our own 2D>3D conversion, and the studios who are charging us with mediocre conversions should be ashamed of themselves.

It is an art indeed to film in 3D right from the starting plan, native with the best 3D cameras. Too many 3D films on Blu are simply a joke.

(((MMMerry 3DDD CCChristmas!!!)))
NorthSky is offline  
post #43 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 07:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
Keystone distortion with convergence is a geometric fact, not a debatable opinion. You have two unaligned axis (that cross each other) with perspective. So keystone distortion is inevitable. Even if you avoid to overdo it, that doesn't change the fact that there IS some distortion which always increases eyestrain. With parallel shooting however, whatever you do, you always have zero keystone distortion up to the maximum parallax tolerable.
I guess what I mean to say, yes it will happen, but no it isn't wrong. There is no one method is the best for shooting 3D that everyone should follow. It's still a work in progress. Anyone who has a 3D camcorder which is quite a few on here are shooting with converged (toe in) method. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard anyone complaining about how awful the distortion is when viewing the results. Parallel has problems too with unmatched window violations. Yes, you can oversample with 4k and push in to remove, not many doing that around here and if they are they're using the full resolution anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
Are you using examples of 7.1+ to show the Mono superiority ?
Nature has decided: You just have to look at the vast majority of species and especially at the most complex ones at the top of the food chain.
You said "all beings" and no nature hasn't decided, spiders aren't going to disappear from the planet anytime soon (I wish they would!). Along with that not all animals with two eyes see in stereo. Take birds (aside from birds of prey) and horses, they have very little depth perception. There are other methods besides stereo vision to perceive depth and distance and many species rely on them, including humans.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #44 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 08:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
The OP, I continue to feel has some excellent points and is obviously quite knowledgeable on this subject. I for one, while disagreeing with him with regards to his end conclusion, do so mostly on the absoluteness of his position. The following exchange between us summarizes this:

Originally Posted by Barry C View Post
I mearly point it out to demonstrate the fact that many fairly sophisticated 3D viewers find it acceptable and, in many cases, quite good.
Exactly. Why have an "acceptable and in many cases quite good" result with post-conversion, when you can have the best possible result with native 3D?

While in some, perhaps many cases, this may be true, it is not necessarily true in ALL cases. There are certainly some 3D conversions- some of which have been mentioned here- that I doubt would be improved if they were shot in native 3D. Conversely, there are some films that were shot in native 3D which probably would have looked better had they been shot in 2D and converted in post. I think that the people who do the post conversions, in many cases, may be artists in their own right- at least the good ones. This can also be said for the engineers who continue to refine the software to make this possible. So, bottom line is, I don't believe that you can categorically state that in every case that the best result will be obtained from native 3D content. A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you hands down but I've just seen too many great conversions to feel that way now. Like most things in life, there are very few absolutes. I'm certainly willing to give credit where credit is due.
Barry C is offline  
post #45 of 93 Old 12-24-2015, 08:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Yeah, I agree. A few years ago I was strongly against converted, but they've been improving more and more and I've been slowly coming around. In most cases I believe where you have heavy CGI is the deciding factor. I still find the converted ones a little shallow on depth and out of screen effects. Everyone has their opinion on out of screen. I like it if it's used right for the story and not repetitive. Take Jurassic World. I just viewed this one again and completely agree with my first review of the film. The depth appeared very minimum and layered. It worked better than 2D but I felt many scenes would have benefited from added depth and out of screen effects which I still didn't find any change on second viewing.

Getting back to whether converted is "fake 3D", really makes no sense. I call them native and converted, not real and fake although I may have at one point or another, after all, traditional 2D films are actually 3D. We perceive depth with other cues, like scale, familiarization, motion, perspective, even shallow DOP emphasizes depth, which is still used in 3D movies since they almost always have a 2D version and it's a style with which many movie goers recognize.

Traditionally stereoscopic "3D" movies have been filmed with two lenses but based on the current success of conversion (take Jurassic World, Star Wars EP VII and so many more), converted 3D movies far outweighs the success of all native 3D films at least up until Avatar and likely, will to this day. The majority of movies that are pushing 3D conversions are the action, Sci Fi Blockbuster variety. So with Star Wars becoming the most successful movie of all time, which it likely will, it will be a converted 3D movie, not native that takes the prize.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #46 of 93 Old 12-25-2015, 01:30 AM
Senior Member
 
relaxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 16
tomtastic:
"anyone who has a 3D camcorder which is quite a few on here are shooting with converged (toe in) method"


No, our cameras (TD1, TD10-20-30, etc) don't rotate their optics for converging. They always shoot parallel, and crop the wider than fullhd sensor.
relaxman is offline  
post #47 of 93 Old 12-25-2015, 02:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Well, I just looked on the Panasonic Z10k, I don't see the lenses moving with convergence adjustment. I just assumed they toed in for convergence, it makes sense. That means they don't toe in, but also they're cropping an already tiny sensor 1/4". So technically they're getting more sensor used in 2D? In 3D they would always be cropped, even at infinity convergence, correct?

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #48 of 93 Old 12-26-2015, 07:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
I just watched Pan, last night. Add this to the list of OUTSTANDING 3D conversions. Actually, before I ordered it, I read reviews which mentioned the 3D quality, so I bought, and watched it without checking to see if it was a conversion or native. While watching it, I decided that it was probably native 3D and only this morning checked and found out, it isn't. Another example, IMO, of a movie that wouldn't and couldn't be improved 3D wise if it was native. The 3D was incredibly immersive and the depth was great, as was the liberal use of well applied negative parallax.
EVERRET likes this.
Barry C is offline  
post #49 of 93 Old 12-26-2015, 10:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1084 Post(s)
Liked: 582
I'm just glad we have 3D movies, period. I was totally bored with Titanic when it first came out. I always thought it was shot in the wrong format for such an engaging subject. When they opened the mask and converted to 3D, I was blown away, and it's now one of my favorite 3D movies. The story...well it's still a little cheesy, but having the big boat in 3D in my basement is a great experience.


As for conversions in general, a friend of mine is constantly whining about how bad the 3D is for some movies. Every time I go to see what he's whining about, I find his left/right eye sync is backwards, and of course, the 3D is reversed so it looks awful. Does he realize that---no, even though I keep telling him to reverse sync it to see if that's the problem...some people just don't understand the technical side of watching it. My daughter doesn't like 3D because it gives her a headache, my wife finds it totally distracting...and my neighbor can never get his TV and glasses working properly. I personally feel that the industry just doesn't push enough into the audience-to-screen space to make it more fun. A giant dinosaur head reaching out from the screen would have been a screamer that would have packed even more people into the theaters to see Jurassic World--all my friends who saw it including myself thought they missed a real opportunity to make the movie even more spectacular. There are more considerations for enjoying 3D than whether the movie is native or converted.
3DBob is offline  
post #50 of 93 Old 12-26-2015, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
jrm21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
After having watched several 3D movies, I came to the conclusion that both 3D experience, 3D art and the 3D industry itself, are being ruined by those lame directors and producers who put money first, quality and art last, and are OK with massive public deception too.

There is no excuse in "converting" their new 2D movie supposedly to "3D" and then selling it with a "3D" label on it. Is it really 3D? Of course not. Therefore, it's a fraud on its own, with the cinefile consumers as the victims. They deceive the viewers, by not marking their inferior creation in order to be distinguished from a true 3D one, letting the unsuspicious buyers of their products think they are watching a true 3D movie, resulting in a disappointing experience, that most times doesn't even justify wearing that pair of glasses.

Like the converted movie "Insurgent" for example. Worse fake 3D I've seen so far.

And there is no excuse of making new "hybrid" films either, just because most of the film's running time is made with CGI. You invest so many resources in CGI and you can't shoot a few scenes with humans in proper 3D? That's ridiculous! Are you the push-button type of pseudo-artist or what?
(Only quoted the first half of the post).

Your's is an interesting opinion. It is not necessarily incorrect, since it is an opinion. Some of the logic used to make your point may fail when taken to its conclusion.

All movies are public deception. None of the "action" is actually happening. There are props on a manufactured set populated with people playing make-believe and reading from a script that (usually) someone else wrote.

Along the same lines, NONE of what you are watching is "3D," regardless of the system used to record/create it. It is all light projected onto a 2D surface using technology to trick the brain into the illusion of 3D.

The movie frames themselves are a deception... merely a series of still images flashing by so quickly as to give the illusion of motion.

So where do you draw the line? Is theater (live acting) more "real" or valid than a movie? It's still deception, but the "3D" is certainly real.

Even on the surface, it is certainly possible to make a bad movie with sub-standard 3d effects using the "real" method you advocate. It is just as possible to make a good movie with excellent 3d effects using the "fake" method you do not like.

If you can actually tell the difference between that good movie/effect and the bad movie/effect but fail to appreciate the better content/production simply because you don't approve of the method of production... that is unfortunate.

Personally I don't care how they got there. If the content is good and the effect is good, I will be entertained. Since that's the reason I watch movies (to be entertained) I consider it mission accomplished.

Same with the "hybrid" films with heavy CGI. I was very entertained by "Avatar" and enjoyed the visual effects. It would not have been possible to make that movie without CGI. I am sure I would have enjoyed it considerably less with "stop motion" effects and miniatures in place of CGI. Then again, wouldn't those other effects also be considered "cheating" and "deception." What about makeup, costumes, props, etc.? isn't deception the cornerstone of the medium?

Last edited by jrm21; 12-26-2015 at 02:33 PM.
jrm21 is offline  
post #51 of 93 Old 12-27-2015, 09:32 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm21
All movies are public deception [many more lines]
You need to read the rest of the thread too. I have already replied and explained my point in relation to "everything is fake anyway" view, numerous times incl. my current post, as for example in post #19

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I guess what I mean to say, yes it will happen, but no it isn't wrong. There is no one method is the best for shooting 3D that everyone should follow. It's still a work in progress. Anyone who has a 3D camcorder which is quite a few on here are shooting with converged (toe in) method. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard anyone complaining about how awful the distortion is when viewing the results. Parallel has problems too with unmatched window violations. Yes, you can oversample with 4k and push in to remove, not many doing that around here and if they are they're using the full resolution anyway.
Aside relaxman's reply to your "every one shoots converged", what's right and what's wrong is mostly dictated by your priorities. Priority #1 is obviously to have the best possible 3D with the minimum eyestrain, priority #2 is to have the maximum possible definition. With a pair of common HD cameras, the consequences of keystone distortion from convergence will be far more profound than the ~10% upscale you'll need, while with higher res sensors, you will not have any drawbacks at all, hence my claim "it is wrong to shoot converged".

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
You said "all beings" and no nature hasn't decided, spiders aren't going to disappear from the planet anytime soon (I wish they would!). Along with that not all animals with two eyes see in stereo. Take birds (aside from birds of prey) and horses, they have very little depth perception. There are other methods besides stereo vision to perceive depth and distance and many species rely on them, including humans.
I said "all beings" for word economy. "All beings" vs "the vast majority of beings" doesn't make any difference for my point, it is a fact that after hundreds of million years of evolution, stereo vision has prevailed as the main depth-perception method for the vast majority of species.
As for birds and horses, they do not have "little depth perception" they just have a smaller angle of visual overlap and therefore fewer degrees of stereo vision (60 degrees for horses), since their eyes are placed on the sides of their head. It is a matter of priority and a practical problem too: It would be impossible to have 360 degrees of stereo vision, that would require that each eye covered 360 degrees! (Horses would look uglier with a pair of ball-shaped eyes on top of "antennas" ). Both birds and horses see monoscopic at their sides and stereoscopic directly in front of them and that's all they need for their survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Traditionally stereoscopic "3D" movies have been filmed with two lenses but based on the current success of conversion (take Jurassic World, Star Wars EP VII and so many more), converted 3D movies far outweighs the success of all native 3D films at least up until Avatar and likely, will to this day. The majority of movies that are pushing 3D conversions are the action, Sci Fi Blockbuster variety. So with Star Wars becoming the most successful movie of all time, which it likely will, it will be a converted 3D movie, not native that takes the prize.
Mixed parameters again. Was Jurassic World a 3D success? Of course not, it was a failure -you just said it too a few lines back and many others who saw it. And how do you know film X wouldn't have provided a better 3D experience with native? Did you see both versions? Of course not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic
after all, traditional 2D films are actually 3D.
Yet they are NOT stereo and there is a term for non-stereo 3D content: 2.5D. So you could say that traditional films are 2.5D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C"
There are certainly some 3D conversions- some of which have been mentioned here- that I doubt would be improved if they were shot in native 3D. Conversely, there are some films that were shot in native 3D which probably would have looked better had they been shot in 2D and converted in post.
Sorry, these are totally arbitrary statements with no basis whatsoever other than "I doubt" and "probably".
......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C"
So, bottom line is, I don't believe that you can categorically state that in every case that the best result will be obtained from native 3D content. A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you hands down but I've just seen too many great conversions to feel that way now. Like most things in life, there are very few absolutes. I'm certainly willing to give credit where credit is due.
You can categorically state that in every case the best possible result can only be obtained from a lossless procedure vs a lossy one, whether you're talking about sound, or video. Note that I'm talking about the potential here, as if you do a lousy job eg in mastering audio, a proper mastering encoded in mp3 might sound better -or look better as in fake stereo. In that sense, lossy is always and always will be inferior to lossless, as the base for reaching the maximum potential. Lossless process wins over lossy, game over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob
I was totally bored with Titanic when it first came out. I always thought it was shot in the wrong format for such an engaging subject. When they opened the mask and converted to 3D, I was blown away, and it's now one of my favorite 3D movies.
It's on my list to watch, but here's what James Cameron have said about it:
'It's never going to look as good as if you shot it in 3D. But think of it as a sort of 2.8D'.

And that statement, from an expert and for a conversion that took 14 months and cost $18 million. So much for the "difficult" and "costly" native 3D process!
How many flat movies have enjoyed such investment in time and money for stereo conversion?

Also: "Schklair insisted cost was no barrier. “You do not need a big Hollywood budget to shoot in stereo. Any independent movie can do it.” He referred back to Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who appeared on day one of the summit, and said it only cost €1.5 million ($2 million) more to shoot Jeunet’s “The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet” in native stereo."
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/ja...rs-1201132122/

Last night I saw the converted movie "The Walk" -a great movie, and I found myself absorbed into the story, not paying much attention to 3D itself. The few times I consciously did pay attention, I found it to be quite good for a conversion. In retrospect though, I realized that 3D was just following, it was accompanying the movie, it never played a lead role as an expression medium, using the 3d dimension to attract attention and transfer intense feelings to the viewer. Maybe there were a couple of exceptions, but overall that's my 3D aftertaste from that movie, contrary to some other native 3D films I've seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob
My daughter doesn't like 3D because it gives her a headache, my wife finds it totally distracting...and my neighbor can never get his TV and glasses working properly.
Diagnosis: They all suffer from active-3Ditits! Cure: Exposure to passive 3D ASAP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob
I personally feel that the industry just doesn't push enough into the audience-to-screen space to make it more fun. A giant dinosaur head reaching out from the screen would have been a screamer that would have packed even more people into the theaters to see Jurassic World--all my friends who saw it including myself thought they missed a real opportunity to make the movie even more spectacular.
Agreed. A huge wasted potential and opportunity with that lousy conversion. See the opening scene of Transformers: Age of Extinction" at about 01:30 for a similar dino head (yet a calm one).

James Cameron: “Some filmmakers are too conservative. I think I was maybe even too conservative on ‘Avatar.’ I’m going to go deeper on the ‘Avatar’ sequels.”http://variety.com/2014/film/news/ja...rs-1201132122/

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob
There are more considerations for enjoying 3D than whether the movie is native or converted.
Of course. There is no need to say the obvious -eg a great mp3 song vs a bad flac song, but the fact remains that with flac (and native 3D) you can reach higher.

Last edited by SoToS; 12-27-2015 at 09:57 AM.
SoToS is offline  
post #52 of 93 Old 12-27-2015, 10:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1084 Post(s)
Liked: 582
Sotos: So much of the 3D movie industry is driven by the Chinese and foreign audiences today. You hear many directors and producers say they really wouldn't bother with 3D if it weren't for the foreign audiences, and some 3D movies are only released in 2D bluray here in the states. My point, regardless of the industry thinking, I'm just glad to have what we have as in a year or two the US market will probably shrink to just the 3D animated movies. Cameron waited too long for Avatar 2, and it's going to take a heck-of-a ride to make a movie that will again spur the industry back into native 3D again.
3DBob is offline  
post #53 of 93 Old 12-27-2015, 10:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
I said "all beings" for word economy. "All beings" vs "the vast majority of beings" doesn't make any difference for my point, it is a fact that after hundreds of million years of evolution, stereo vision has prevailed for the vast majority of species.
As for birds and horses, they do not have "little depth perception" they just have a smaller angle of visual overlap and therefore fewer degrees of stereo vision (60 degrees for horses), since their eyes are placed on the sides of their head. It is a matter of priority and a practical problem too: It would be impossible to have 360 degrees of stereo vision, that would require that each eye covered 360 degrees! (Horses would look uglier with a pair of ball-shaped eyes on top of "antennas" ). Both birds and horses see monoscopic at their sides and stereoscopic directly in front of them and that's all they need for their survival.
Lol, that means little depth perception, you're arguing for the sake of argument here. Birds don't rely on stereo vision, but have to turn their heads rapidly. They only have depth where their field of view overlaps equal little depth perception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
Mixed parameters again. Was Jurassic World a 3D success? Of course not, it was a failure -you just said it too a few lines back and many others who saw it. And how do you know film X wouldn't have provided a better 3D experience with native? Did you see both versions? Of course not.
I never said it was a failure, the movie did quite well financially. I found the 3D about the same as most 3D conversions. Some converted movies look better than others same as native. One thing I noticed while watching The Hobbit recently again was that the 3D looked very much like a conversion and honestly I couldn't tell it was any better that it was shot native.

There appears to be a conservative approach to 3D levels on both converted and native and they keeps things comfortable which means little or no leaping effects and minor positive convergence for deep depth. That may be why I don't find converted films as enjoyable, because I compare them to what is possible with 3D, not really just native because the same 3D levels are possible for both, but that they choose to narrow the range of the 3D. I find the best 3D actually away from Hollywood and in nature documentaries but there are a few that take advantage of 3D's full range.

One I saw recently was Silent Hill Revelation. Where there was ash fluttering in the sky this was made to pop out of screen, similar effects were used in The Hobbit but they chose to leave them inside the window. Maybe no-one would notice or care, but I like it when they use it.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #54 of 93 Old 12-27-2015, 01:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
There are certainly some 3D conversions- some of which have been mentioned here- that I doubt would be improved if they were shot in native 3D. Conversely, there are some films that were shot in native 3D which probably would have looked better had they been shot in 2D and converted in post.

Sorry, these are totally arbitrary statements with no basis whatsoever other than "I doubt" and "probably".

So, bottom line is, I don't believe that you can categorically state that in every case that the best result will be obtained from native 3D content. A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you hands down but I've just seen too many great conversions to feel that way now. Like most things in life, there are very few absolutes. I'm certainly willing to give credit where credit is due.

You can categorically state that in every case the best possible result can only be obtained from a lossless procedure vs a lossy one, whether you're talking about sound, or video. Note that I'm talking about the potential here, as if you do a lousy job eg in mastering audio, a proper mastering encoded in mp3 might sound better -or look better as in fake stereo. In that sense, lossy is always and always will be inferior to lossless, as the base for reaching the maximum potential. Lossless process wins over lossy, game over.

.
OK, since we're going to parse words here, I will revise my previous statement to:
There are certainly some 3D conversions- some of which have been mentioned here- that absolutely positively wouldn't be improved if they were shot in native 3D. Conversely, there are some films that were shot in native 3D which absolutely positively would have looked better had they been shot in 2D and converted in post.

Better now? Your problem is, is that you are stating your opinions as absolute gospel fact with nothing to go on but your beliefs, 3D & digital content theory, and random quotes from producers, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that anyone else, no matter how experienced with 3D shooting, viewing, and editing, may have a valid opinion. I, for one, see the silliness here, since neither you nor I will ever be able to see an actual head to head comparison which is why I avoid making the kind of grandiose absolutist -tongue and cheek- statements I just made above.

As for the notion of native 3D being lossless, I'm not sure if you've ever edited 3D but, if you had, you probably would have discovered that doing any stereoscopic adjustment, either forward or back in the stereo window, effectively results in some degree of cropping which basically then leaves you with lossy content. I seriously doubt that many native 3D movies aren't stereoscopically adjusted quite often in post rendering them lossy as well.

Again, I respect your opinion to a point, but at this juncture consider this discussion to be getting circular. Really not much more to be said. Suffice it to say that you have your opinion- and that's all it is- and we have ours, and in the grand scheme of things, nothing said here really matters anyway. So, I for one will continue to enjoy and be entertained by 3D movies which I think are done well, whether native or converted, just like I enjoyed and was entertained by the finely done 3D conversion in Pan which I watched a couple nights ago, and which I happen to think was a stellar conversion.

Last edited by Barry C; 12-27-2015 at 10:56 PM.
Barry C is offline  
post #55 of 93 Old 12-28-2015, 08:52 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoToS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic
Lol, that means little depth perception, you're arguing for the sake of argument here. Birds don't rely on stereo vision, but have to turn their heads rapidly. They only have depth where their field of view overlaps equal little depth perception.
That's because it is impossible to have 360 degrees stereo as I said, NOT because nature preferred another depth perception method over stereo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic
I never said it was a failure, the movie did quite well financially.
"The depth appeared very minimum and layered" sounds as a 3D failure to me.
A movie can be financially successful due to many factors, most of them not relating to quality, and certainly it doesn't imply 3D quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic
That may be why I don't find converted films as enjoyable, because I compare them to what is possible with 3D, not really just native because the same 3D levels are possible for both, but that they choose to narrow the range of the 3D.
Intense 3D requires more parallax and they can hardly extract adequate parallax from a flat movie, let alone a more intense one. So being conservative with conversions is mostly a limitation, but there are native films that have a swallow 3D effect too, due to the faint-hearted directors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C
OK, since we're going to parse words here, I will revise my previous statement to:
There are certainly some 3D conversions- some of which have been mentioned here- that absolutely positively wouldn't be improved if they were shot in native 3D. Conversely, there are some films that were shot in native 3D which absolutely positively would have looked better had they been shot in 2D and converted in post.

Better now?
No. You still don't provide any arguments to support your opinions -that was my point. Didn't intent to upset you either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C
Your problem is, is that you are stating your opinions as absolute gospel fact with nothing to go on but your beliefs, 3D & digital content theory, and random quotes from producers, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that anyone else, no matter how experienced with 3D shooting, viewing, and editing, may have a valid opinion.
Wrong. I'm not just stating my "opinions" and I'm not interested in just exchanging personal opinions, that would be pointless.
I'm interested in exchanging arguments about specific claims, suggestions etc and I'm doing so waiting for other members to either invalidate, accept or improve them, again using arguments. This process has nothing to do with beliefs (which I hate), it's purely scientific and can lead to universally accepted conclusions -if done properly (but the forum structure doesn't help at all for that purpose).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C
I, for one, see the silliness here, since neither you nor I will ever be able to see an actual head to head comparison which is why I avoid making the kind of grandiose absolutist -tongue and cheek- statements I just made above.
There is a difference in saying "This will happen" vs "This will happen because of this reason". Huge difference -whether you use "I doubt", "probably", or "definitely".
Also there is no need to see a head-to-head comparison to make valid conclusions. You have many other data to use, like the nature of each method, its differences in capabilities and efficiency and the process required -things we discuss here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C
As for the notion of native 3D being lossless, I'm not sure if you've ever edited 3D but, if you had, you probably would have discovered that doing any stereoscopic adjustment, either forward or back in the stereo window, effectively results in some degree of cropping which basically then leaves you with lossy content. I seriously doubt that many native 3D movies aren't stereoscopically adjusted quite often in post rendering them lossy as well.
I have already replied about this, I'm not a purist. By "lossless" I mean the perspective information for each eye, ie the parallax information you create by shooting native 3D vs the extremely inefficient, complex and expensive guesswork you have to do to extract two perspectives from a single perspective film.

Aligning the two perspectives doesn't change the perspective information itself, and cropping 5-10%, is just that, cropping, NOT distortion or deterioration.The remaining final image will contain undistorted parallax information, whatever the alignment or cropping. That is what I call "lossless". Compare this to the inefficient conversion alchemy.

Here's a link where the conversion process is explained with specific movie examples.
You'll see that for Titanic, it took 60 weeks and $18 million (as I have mentioned before). There were 400 artists working in the US company and 400 more in its division in India. This translates to about 10 million man-hours, NOT counting the artists in India!

I'm not against converting old movies, I consider it added value, even if imperfect. But shooting 2D today specifically for conversion, (even if 3D is "planned"), then spend millions of man-hours to create a second view, is outrageous, nothing else than pure paranoia!

But why directors still prefer this? I can only think of one reason: As my grandpa would say, directors -especially the older ones, are like old-donkeys: They can't learn a new path.
Instead of investing time to learn and evolve the art of stereo 3D, they shoot as they always did, avoiding the risk altogether and shift the weight of stereo cinematography to the various visual effects companies instead! That's shame to say the least.

This can only be resolved if there will be a new wave of directors that will shoot proper, intense and engaging native 3D, that conversions will have a hard time to compete with. That will differentiate proper native 3D from the inefficient artificial conversions, both in cost and quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob
Sotos: So much of the 3D movie industry is driven by the Chinese and foreign audiences today. You hear many directors and producers say they really wouldn't bother with 3D if it weren't for the foreign audiences, and some 3D movies are only released in 2D bluray here in the states. My point, regardless of the industry thinking, I'm just glad to have what we have as in a year or two the US market will probably shrink to just the 3D animated movies. Cameron waited too long for Avatar 2, and it's going to take a heck-of-a ride to make a movie that will again spur the industry back into native 3D again.
I've heard of this.That's another aspect of the old-donkey's syndrome I mentioned above. They don't want to change the way they shoot movies, they don't want to invest to something new and of course they only care about money, not art or quality. This leads to more mediocre 3D, which leads to less 3D sales and less investment -a vicious circle.
Conclusion: 3D will only succeed if it is highly engaging. Less than that, it doesn't justify the cost, or the inconvenience. That kind of 3D can only be obtained by shooting native and investing time and effort to evolve the stereo cinematography.

Last edited by SoToS; 12-28-2015 at 09:04 AM.
SoToS is offline  
post #56 of 93 Old 12-28-2015, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
That's because it is impossible to have 360 degrees stereo as I said, NOT because nature preferred another depth perception method over stereo.
My point was that not all species rely on depth perception, nature hasn't selected that method for all species which you originally were stating that "stereo" was the de facto method of vision, which it is not. You later changed that to "many" or whatever, fine. But you would presume to take the position that nature chose stereo vision because it is better. As I pointed out, every species has evolved to form vision that best suits its method of survival. Stereo vision is very common in mammals but even some specials that have two eyes use very little depth or color or like snakes sense temperature. What works for some species, doesn't for others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
"The depth appeared very minimum and layered" sounds as a 3D failure to me.
A movie can be financially successful due to many factors, most of them not relating to quality, and certainly it doesn't imply 3D quality.
I'd say it was about average. For awhile I've been reviewing 3D movies with minimal and layered look, if the 3D doesn't appear to pop out of screen or have very deep depth, but that is my preference in what "I" expect, not what a 3D movie should achieve. So failure: no. I just label them with my expectations.

Many scenes in The Hobbit appeared minimal and layered too, in fact most of it. Just watched all three over the weekend. I would say the 3D in Jurassic World wasn't any worse that those films and I'm really shocked that Jurassic World was in fact converted and achieved that level of 3D so in that respect, I'm very impressed.

I have a feeling, going forward, more directors may choose to go the converted route. I still would like to see native 3D movies, but with CGI, it's all fakery anyway. Calling converted fake is silly. 3D is fake, movies are fake. It's a stupid argument. Both are 3D. Get over it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
Intense 3D requires more parallax and they can hardly extract adequate parallax from a flat movie, let alone a more intense one. So being conservative with conversions is mostly a limitation, but there are native films that have a swallow 3D effect too, due to the faint-hearted directors.
There is no limitation on parallax with converted movies, I've seen converted films with a good deal of pop out 3D. The conversion studio sits down with the director before the work is started and they discuss how they want each scene to look. Clearly, Jurassic World was not given the go ahead for stuff flying out of the screen. I would have preferred some, just my opinion. But they have the ability to build the two streams with the desired disparity and paint in the missing information to make it work. Just because something is shot flat doesn't limit the amount of parallax that is desired. If that were the case, all converted movies would look the same, which they certainly do not.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #57 of 93 Old 12-28-2015, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
No. You still don't provide any arguments to support your opinions -that was my point. Didn't intent to upset you either.

Wrong. I'm not just stating my "opinions" and I'm not interested in just exchanging personal opinions, that would be pointless.
I'm interested in exchanging arguments about specific claims, suggestions etc and I'm doing so waiting for other members to either invalidate, accept or improve them, again using arguments. This process has nothing to do with beliefs (which I hate), it's purely scientific and can lead to universally accepted conclusions -if done properly (but the forum structure doesn't help at all for that purpose).
Not upset. I enjoy a passionate debate
It seems that you're expecting, or hoping, that we will be able to provide a specific textbook argument or mathematical formula to substantiate our position that a well done conversion can look as good as native 3D. Sorry, but we just can't provide it. However, what we can provide, and what I think you shouldn't be so dismissive of, is years of experience among several people here on this forum in viewing, and in some cases shooting and editing 3D. In other words empirical real world hands on experience. Some of us- myself included and particularly Don Landis- have extensive professional experience in digital content creation in both still and video, and people like 3D Bob have been shooting 3D in still form going back to the late 60s. This of course doesn't qualify us as having perceptions which are necessarily any better than anyone else's, but it is a fact.

In a couple of days, I'm heading to Yosemite to shoot Yosemite Valley in the snow for a planned Yosemite in Winter 3D project. I'll be putting several different 3D system combinations to work and, hopefully, will get some good content. However, as much as I hate to admit it, I suspect- or should I say I'm sure- that anything I can accomplish with native 3D could also be accomplished at this point by a well trained person using state of the are conversion methods.
Barry C is offline  
post #58 of 93 Old 12-28-2015, 10:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
I have already replied about this, I'm not a purist. By "lossless" I mean the perspective information for each eye, ie the parallax information you create by shooting native 3D vs the extremely inefficient, complex and expensive guesswork you have to do to extract two perspectives from a single perspective film.
It isn't any more expensive than native production anymore. When you take the added cost of the 3D equipment, stereographers and crew, extra time in setting up the rig and then the editing process which must be done for two streams, not one. Conversion is getting cheaper. The cost of Titanic at 18 million is the highest amount spent, not the average. In fact conversion is cheaper if the movie is heavy with CGI. Take Jurassic World, if they had to shoot in 3D then render the CGI for the left view then render the right view, then render a totally new view for the 2D version that would likely double or triple the cost of production. It's going to take new technology to develop the CGI around a 3D environment, which they don't do now. Again, another pointless argument since this won't change this decade and maybe not the next. Movies with heavy CGI are still going to be converted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoToS View Post
I'm not against converting old movies, I consider it added value, even if imperfect. But shooting 2D today specifically for conversion, (even if 3D is "planned"), then spend millions of man-hours to create a second view, is outrageous, nothing else than pure paranoia!
I think you might be surprised at the cost difference. It's not outrageously expensive vs. native, especially when you factor in the CGI limitation that exists today.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #59 of 93 Old 12-28-2015, 01:58 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3562
Did you guys see 'Pan' in 3D on Blu-ray?
NorthSky is offline  
post #60 of 93 Old 12-28-2015, 02:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Did you guys see 'Pan' in 3D on Blu-ray?
Yep, watched it a few nights ago. The 3D was great!! Healthy doses of negative parallax. Very entertaining and good sound track.
Barry C is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
converted-from-2D-to-3D , fake 3d , fraud , native 3d

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off