Avatar 2, 3, 4 and Five! Glasses Free 3D the next phase? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 81 Old 06-04-2018, 11:07 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Mlxxx-

You cite some interesting special scenes you find objectionable with 3D conversion. I would only object to 3D conversion when it is done sloppily. Most I have seen in the past 2 years has been very well done.

With twin cameras you always have compromise. The stage depth is the controlling factor, not the camera system. I discovered this long ago early in my 3D shooting hobby. It doesn't matter what IA you use, parallel or toe in cameras, or lens focal length, the stage depth of near object and far object limits the quality. I pretty much resolved the problem by shooting with three cameras ( technically it was 4 ) For the long range I used twin NEX5n with an IA as much as 26" IA and 12 to 16mm lenses, then when an object got into the scene that was near by like 5 ft away, I caught that shot with my Z10K mounted between the two NEX 5N cameras. But even this was a compromise. It only allowed me to shoot both at the same time and then cut to the other in post when the 3D system no longer worked.

Even now with the latest 3D cameras I have for 360VR in 3D the 3D effect is lost on objects that are closer than 2 ft. this is due to the I.O. of 65mm. When this happens the 3D co longer converges to a single object in your vision. The left and right tend to come apart from the 3D shape. But converge to 3D illusion if the object moves to 4-5 ft and more away.


3DBOB- That is very depressing news on 3D at IMAX. I have only gone to the movies a couple times in the past 3 years. Disney theaters on board a cruise ship where the 3D presentation is pretty good. Plus IMAX 3D at World Golf Village. They run the 3D versions at 4PM of most movies.

When a 3D enthusiast has a decent 3D home theater there is no desire unless it is a presentation I can't duplicate, like IMAX 3D. Today, I still collect media with 3D BluRay and 4KUHD. Doing this I end up with an unused, unneeded 2D BluRay which I give away to my family who does not have a 3D TV. I can play 3D versions of movies from any region and all my 1080p content 2D or 3D is upconverted to 4K by the Sony Projector so it really looks better than the IMAX 3D for sharpness detail and depth.

3D may be leaving the movie theaters but I see the new direction of 3D moving to HMD. HMD's do not always need to be 360VR viewing which is mostly low resolution. I can view top/bottom full frame in my HMD on a virtual theater screen in 4K 3D. The limitation there is the lenses quality. Some HMD devices are better than others. But the movie is played in an app that appears like a virtual 3D movie theater you are seated in the best seat in the house and your movie program is on a flat screen in front in good 3D 4K. If you glance to the side or behind you you see the empty seats all around. I can feed the movie with HDMI cable or load it as an MP4 file on an micro SD card.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 81 Old 06-05-2018, 07:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Toe-in, not needed and should be avoided generally. I really only used it when doing macro with the AX100 rig but there's only so much toe-in you can do and you get really bad keystoning. Have to check the shots more to see if any problems come up and only so much correction you can do in post. For shots 3 feet away or more it isn't needed. This would only apply to side by side rigs of course.

I used to think that I.A. was better on wider spaced cameras like my 3DA1 vs a TD10 but it really doesn't come into play that much. When you consider over under rigs they can adjust from 0 I.A. (2D) usually up to 5 inches or more. These all in one 3D cameras, they've already been optimally spaced for the lens and sensor combination they provide and you'll get decent 3D effect throughout their range. You have to adjust your shot to their sweet spots but for the most part you can get good 3D with them with a little bit of planning each time. With over under rigs the I.A. can be adjusted on the rig to your scene without having to adjust placement of the rig, but there is so much more you have to consider with those, a lot more can go wrong if you're not careful.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #33 of 81 Old 06-05-2018, 10:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
With twin cameras you always have compromise. The stage depth is the controlling factor, not the camera system. I discovered this long ago early in my 3D shooting hobby. It doesn't matter what IA you use, parallel or toe in cameras, or lens focal length, the stage depth of near object and far object limits the quality. I pretty much resolved the problem by shooting with three cameras ( technically it was 4 ) For the long range I used twin NEX5n with an IA as much as 26" IA and 12 to 16mm lenses, then when an object got into the scene that was near by like 5 ft away, I caught that shot with my Z10K mounted between the two NEX 5N cameras. But even this was a compromise. It only allowed me to shoot both at the same time and then cut to the other in post when the 3D system no longer worked.
Even with simulated 3D from 2D footage there are questions about what virtual interaxial distance to use where a scene includes near and far objects. A common approach seems to be decide on a "distance of interest", adjust the convergence so that the Left and Right views coincide at that distance, and then blur anything that is too close or too distant for comfortable stereoscopic viewing.

There is something visceral for me with twin camera capture at short range, and with the special types of scenes I mentioned. I find my eyes "drinking in" the 3D in a way that rarely happens with simulations from 2D real world capture.

As for the general standard of a typical post-conversion these days it strikes me as competent, but it rarely gives me the exhilarating feeling I get from time to time with twin camera capture.

[I was very impressed by the post-conversion to 3D of Titanic (a meticulous effort I understand); but left lukewarm by the post-conversion of Terminator 2.]
MLXXX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 81 Old 06-05-2018, 10:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
The distortion I refer to with 30p with True Motion turned on, yes, if filmed in 60p would not be there because you have true frame information there and True Motion would be turned off, using native frames instead. Of course 60p isn't enough either, it still shows a considerable amount of judder in fast scenes.
Yes, 60p 3D although a big improvement, is still not really sufficient for fast scenes. But it may a practical frame rate to aim for at this stage, for use in conjunction with emerging 3D 4K display devices.
MLXXX is offline  
post #35 of 81 Old 06-05-2018, 12:38 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Even with simulated 3D from 2D footage there are questions about what virtual interaxial distance to use where a scene includes near and far objects. A common approach seems to be decide on a "distance of interest", adjust the convergence so that the Left and Right views coincide at that distance, and then blur anything that is too close or too distant for comfortable stereoscopic viewing.


The software I saw demoed did not work that way. There was no bluring of the objects or background out of range. Generally the issue with twin cameras is the objects too close become separated, lacking convergence to a 3D illusion while the objects deep in the distance go flat (2D). I have indeed seen the bluring of distant background or close foreground but I always assumed that was the way it was shot in 2D using a narrow depth of field lens. Using a rack focus is a common practice with 2D movie making. With 3D in mind that is normally avoided. But a post conversion where 3D was not considered by the Director at the time, then we find racking out of focus often in play and has to be tolerated in the conversion. At best conversion mapping can add motion blur of objects in motion if needed.

Post conversion is a mapping process of the objects in the scene with motion tracking. A distant object in focus background can be mapped on the Z axis to be distant and still achieve depth in the distant scenery. This is done with perspective mapping of known shapes in a 2 D scene. At the same time foreground objects can be mapped in the foreground without a lens exaggerating the in your face to the point it loses convergence in 3D space. I think if you actually sat and watched a 3D artist do the mapping of post conversion software the light would come on and you would see how they do it. Twin virtual cameras are used in the final step after all objects of importance are mapped.

This video can explain in more detail with a simple scene. You can skip ahead to where the actual instructional begins.


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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #36 of 81 Old 06-05-2018, 06:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
I think if you actually sat and watched a 3D artist do the mapping of post conversion software the light would come on and you would see how they do it.
I read about what you are describing some years ago. I note too that the technique can be applied to tweak actual twin camera footage.
MLXXX is offline  
post #37 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 07:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1140 Post(s)
Liked: 627
Great video, Don. It's interesting to realize that the final result of 3D conversion is an animated movie, not a regular film, with every frame computed by a computer farm working day and night for many months. Here are more links that provide an easy to understand perspective of what it takes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...e-to-3d-anyway
Probably, the best step-by-step walk-thru I've read: http://flavorwire.com/382554/jurassi...mes-a-3d-movie
Another good view of making Jurassic Park. Interesting that many of the dinosaurs were animatronics or rubber-suits and not cgi back then. http://3defence.blogspot.com/2013/04...c-park-3d.html

9.5 months and 700 people--yikes! The cost was $10 million, some of which was used for marketing, apparently, and this was 5 years ago with costs going up and up. This is why Disney and others are questioning the need for 3D.

If you are a Jurassic Park fan, this is a fun read. https://www.sliptalk.com/jurassic-park-facts/

We have to understand that the technology to convert has also progressed well beyond what was done for Titanic and Jurassic Park.

If you ever wondered why it's taking so long for Avatar sequels, you have to understand that it took 15 years to make the original!
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...15-years-92231
3DBob is offline  
post #38 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 08:41 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Bob- my point was that there is a misconception that shooting 3D video with real twin cameras is better than a 2D to 3D conversion ( as it is done with a big budget ) but in fact, a twin camera system suffers a compromise in the scene that results in several artifacts that just cannot be fixed. However, the same artifacts can be fixed with adjustments to the depth mapping in software in a 2D to 3D conversion.

For example, I can fix a breakup of 3D convergence in the foreground when shooting wider IA to achieve 3D depth in the background by using wider field of view lenses but now I just generated the miniaturization artifact ( combination of wide angle and wider IA). The scene now looks unnatural but at least converges. Thus, a compromise.

Using the same shot in 2D and then using a 2D to 3D conversion process allows the mapper to adjust that image so that the scene is shot with a progressive depth mapping that allows depth of the distant background and converged foreground while not miniaturizing the scene. No glass camera lens can achieve that. It's why some movies using 2D to 3D conversion look better than traditional twin camera shooting.

As technology advances, the use of A.I. processing to do the labor, we are seeing better conversions, attention to detail, and with faster computers to render the scene, 3D may become less costly.

Today's 3D conversions like Thor: Ragnarok compared to Titanic is a prime example of how much better it has become. Titanic looked almost cartoon like (like lego movies ) compared to the realistic scenes in Thor. Marvel is doing it right and those 2D to 3D conversions are some of the most perfect projects we have today.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #39 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 09:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1140 Post(s)
Liked: 627
Yeah, Don, I understood your points. Of course, the original Avatar took a lot of post processing similar to conversion to get it to look right because it also pushed the cgi envelope as well. And other native twin camera 3D movies have gone through the same post process. Considering the cost of both, what it takes to do twin-camera and the anomalies of twin-camera, it's probably going to be conversions from now on, except for the Avatar series, which I'm thinking will actually flop because of the expectations for it, and the fact that 3D conversions are so advanced now and the cgi is getting very real looking. Yeah, glasses free would be nice, but twin cameras are not a necessity for glasses free. This is where I scratch my head. We are thinking that Cameron and Christie Digital are going to come up with some new combined technology, when in fact, any 3D movie could be shown glasses free. The investment could be made now, but alas, Cameron is the only one that seems to want the investment to be made and probably has to put up his own money, not the studios to get it done. Now that IMAX is moving away from 3D, it will really deter the use of twin cameras, since non-cgi earth touring, safari, exploration movies were the perfect twin-camera IMAX 3D venue.
3DBob is offline  
post #40 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
As a big fan of Star Wars series, I still make the trip to World Golf Village IMAX to see it in 3D. The quality is excellent and the performance is an experience I can't get at home in my HT. When conversions were new I was not a fan of them but the technology has greatly improved to the point I now can see the advantage of the level of control, especially since there is no longer a need to blur or crop out parts of the scene that fail in the 3D illusion we get with the twin cameras. Meanwhile, I still am a fan of amateur 3D film making and enjoy the less than perfect movies I do with twin cameras. For the car, I love my TD-10, for traditional 3D shooting, I use the Z10K, for quick shots and stills, I keep the Panasonic 3D1 on my belt, and for some things I love my Vuze 360VR 3D. My latest public video there is a drive up Las Vegas Blvd in 360VR 3D. But Hollywood movies, especially SciFi, I really like 3D on disk in my Home Theater. Those look great in 2D to 3D conversions.

I do believe that VR is going to be the new future for 3D. Goggles will get smaller and more comfortable and combined with AR using gloves with motion detection, a whole new interactive genre is possible, especially for movie themed games. 3D is an integral piece of the format.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #41 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 06:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
I'd just add some further comments regarding the viewer experience for simulated 3D productions. Much appears to depend on the effort put into the conversion. Here are my own subjective assessments for a selection of films:

1. Alice in Wonderland 3D (2010)
Average to below average quality. Artefacts often noticeable. (Available conversion technology was less sophisticated.)

2. Titanic 3D conversion (2012)
High quality. Realistic 3D depth. Attention to detail in close-ups of human faces. (Much manual painting in of missing detail, frame by frame.) Unable to deal with the complex chaotic motion of swirling water.

3. Jurassic Park 3D conversion (2013)
Above average quality. Somewhat exaggerated 3D depth used in much of the movie. Close up views of faces appeared flat.


4. Terminator 2: Judgment Day 3D conversion (2017)
Average quality. This conversion is "competent", and representative of typical conversions these days. It doesn't provide a rich 3D view in close-ups. It was perhaps challenging to convert because of the large number of action scenes. [Speculation: low motivation to convert with the same attention to detail that was given to Titanic, because audience interest in 3D was perceived to have waned.]

________

For an example of the outstanding quality available with twin camera 3D, I wouldn't go past the opening scenes of wildlife in Life of Pi (2012). [The movie subsequently includes some extremely sophisticated and life-like CGI generated 3D animation.]

I've been disappointed in the simulated 3D of a number of movies that have come out in recent years. I assume that the conversion workflow has become streamlined with the improvements available in software, and that the painstaking manual painting in of missing detail used in the past for close-ups has been replaced with algorithms that approximate. It has got to the point where I query the value of bothering to go to a 3D cinema session rather than a 2D session.

For me the most satisfying 3D is achieved by:
  • Capturing real world scenes with twin cameras
  • Adjusting the captured views if and when required by sophisticated 3D depth mapping software to "tweak" the 3D effect
  • For sci-fi movies and other movies needing special effects, in selected scenes adding in CGI that computer generates both the Left and Right views.

I look forward to basic 3D depth re-mapping software becoming available at low cost for amateur use. There are some family 3D videos I shot a few years ago that have excessively wide 3D disparity, as the subjects were too close to the twin-lens 3D camera. I'd like to be able to process this footage so as to make it comfortable to view, and more realistic looking in its 3D depth.
Frank714 likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #42 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 10:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
I look forward to basic 3D depth re-mapping software becoming available at low cost for amateur use. There are some family 3D videos I shot a few years ago that have excessively wide 3D disparity, as the subjects were too close to the twin-lens 3D camera. I'd like to be able to process this footage so as to make it comfortable to view, and more realistic looking in its 3D depth.
Would depend on how close and how far the lenses are but I find that VP can generally clean up most adjustments needed for correction. I've shot a few scenes where the disparity was set wrong and I was able to correct it for a comfortable view where it was unwatchable before. Again, depending how close, the stereo adjustments will only go so far.

I've also shot extreme closeups in 3D with the intention of just using 2D for those segments, like closeups of texts to read, rather than make the in-menu switch to 2D before filming. The transition of 3D to 2D to 3D seemed fluid and clean but it would depend on the background too, works better against flat backgrounds where you have zero depth.

On converted 3D movies, I recently watched Top Gun again. I have to say, it's not bad. There's room for improvement for sure but overall I do think the 3D works for this one. I need to give I, Robot another view. They used that proprietary JVC software that was supposed to take over the market...(crickets). Yeah, I don't think software alone is going to do it. But it's been awhile since I've seen it in 3D, might not be as bad as I remember.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #43 of 81 Old 06-06-2018, 10:43 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
I'd just add some further comments regarding the viewer experience for simulated 3D productions. Much appears to depend on the effort put into the conversion.

I look forward to basic 3D depth re-mapping software becoming available at low cost for amateur use. There are some family 3D videos I shot a few years ago that have excessively wide 3D disparity, as the subjects were too close to the twin-lens 3D camera. I'd like to be able to process this footage so as to make it comfortable to view, and more realistic looking in its 3D depth.
Yes, obviously the budget for conversion is in play and can limit obvious compromises in the process.

I have mixed feelings of owning software to do 3D mapping from a 2D scene, unless it is effective in doing the hands on work with A.I. I use motion tracking now in Premiere Pro. It works well but I still have to set the key frames for abrupt changes in direction of the object. I recently used it to blur out a license plate of a car and it followed the movement of that plate very well with only 2 boundary points of 4 corner key frames.

When I first started to shoot wide IA 3D, I made lots of mistakes, but soon learned to use a 3D calculator and range finder spotter's scope so I knew what close and distant ranges would work for my scene's range. Sometimes the scene made it impossible so that's when I began shooting with a second system, a 3D camera with tighter IA and wide angle lenses at the same time. Now I could cut back and forth between the two 3D systems and the issues were eliminated.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #44 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 12:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dfa973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: EU
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1181 Post(s)
Liked: 1203
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Yeah, glasses free would be nice, but twin cameras are not a necessity for glasses free. This is where I scratch my head. We are thinking that Cameron and Christie Digital are going to come up with some new combined technology, when in fact, any 3D movie could be shown glasses free. The investment could be made now, but alas, Cameron is the only one that seems to want the investment to be made and probably has to put up his own money, not the studios to get it done.
Sadly, Cameron and Christie Digital are not moving toward autostereoscopy (glasses-free 3D) with the Avatar 2 movie, but to better Laser projectors, with the same polarized glasses we know, but with brighter images, maybe HDR-like, Wide Colour Gamma image presentation. Maybe some HFR in selected cinemas with those better Laser projectors.

Autostereoscopic Avatar 2 is just wishful thinking at this time.

I'm sure that Cameron would like to present his new movies in an autostereoscopic cinema, but right now there is no sign that this will be possible.

Why? Because there is no known autostereoscopic cinema, no proven technology that can present glasses-free 3D images in a cinema sitting, on a very large screen, with many peoples spread all over long distances, left-right and front-back, on a slanted floor.

What we have now are small (around 55") autostereoscopic screens (LCD/OLED based) that can maintain autostereoscopy for smaller distances and smaller audiences, like Ultra-D or old Philips WOWvx displays. Most displays have sitting limits, like 46 (Philips WOWvx) or 64. Ultra-D displays have 26 "zones" for now (4K panel, on an 8K panel maybe more zones).

Even microLED Cinema screen from Samsung is using the same polarized filters and classic passive glasses to display the 3D image...

Last edited by dfa973; 06-07-2018 at 12:28 AM.
dfa973 is online now  
post #45 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 12:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Would depend on how close and how far the lenses are but I find that VP can generally clean up most adjustments needed for correction. I've shot a few scenes where the disparity was set wrong and I was able to correct it for a comfortable view where it was unwatchable before. Again, depending how close, the stereo adjustments will only go so far.
Just adjusting the convergence (horizontal displacement) can make many scenes more comfortable to view. In addition in some cases I've cropped out large chunks of the image that were either too close or too distant, compared with the distance of interest.

Quote:
I've also shot extreme closeups in 3D with the intention of just using 2D for those segments, like closeups of texts to read, rather than make the in-menu switch to 2D before filming. The transition of 3D to 2D to 3D seemed fluid and clean but it would depend on the background too, works better against flat backgrounds where you have zero depth.
Yes and in a case like that the 2D segment could be manually set to a non-zero Z axis value, to help preserve the illusion of 3D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Sometimes the scene made it impossible so that's when I began shooting with a second system, a 3D camera with tighter IA and wide angle lenses at the same time. Now I could cut back and forth between the two 3D systems and the issues were eliminated.
That would certainly add a lot of freedom and flexibility

[Some purists argue we shouldn't use wider IAs for more distant subjects (they should look flat, or near flat, as per natural human vision), but there are many examples in 2D movie-making of using lenses to provide images beyond the capability of natural vision! Why shouldn't 3D videography have the same freedom?]
MLXXX is offline  
post #46 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 05:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1140 Post(s)
Liked: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
I look forward to basic 3D depth re-mapping software becoming available at low cost for amateur use. There are some family 3D videos I shot a few years ago that have excessively wide 3D disparity, as the subjects were too close to the twin-lens 3D camera. I'd like to be able to process this footage so as to make it comfortable to view, and more realistic looking in its 3D depth.
Of course you can adjust the window on close ups in most video editing software (ie. Edius, Powerdirector, etc.), it just will move the subject into the window. But that isn't necessarily bad, as it allows you to perceive the subject as being in your room.
3DBob is offline  
post #47 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 06:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Of course you can adjust the window on close ups in most video editing software (ie. Edius, Powerdirector, etc.), it just will move the subject into the window. But that isn't necessarily bad, as it allows you to perceive the subject as being in your room.
The footage I wish to reduce the 3D depth of includes the following scene:
  • Guests seated at a long table. 3D camera positioned near one end of the table. Guests at that end appear to have extremely broad shoulders. And the Left Right disparity is extreme.

I want to keep all of the guests in view in the final edit.

Because it's a static scene, it wouldn't be too hard to work out a clearly defined depth map. With appropriate software the whole scene could then be "warped" to reduce the apparent 3D depth for the guests near the camera. It would be as if the 3D camera had been located a bit further away.

I don't think any of the standard linear editors such as VP or Edius can do this type of sophisticated depth-map-based manipulation.
MLXXX is offline  
post #48 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 06:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1140 Post(s)
Liked: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
The footage I wish to reduce the 3D depth of includes the following scene:
  • Guests seated at a long table. 3D camera positioned near one end of the table. Guests at that end appear to have extremely broad shoulders. And the Left Right disparity is extreme.

I want to keep all of the guests in view in the final edit.

Because it's a static scene, it wouldn't be too hard to work out a clearly defined depth map. With appropriate software the whole scene could then be "warped" to reduce the apparent 3D depth for the guests near the camera. It would be as if the 3D camera had been located a bit further away.

I don't think any of the standard linear editors such as VP or Edius can do this type of sophisticated depth-map-based manipulation.
3DMedia has an app for creating 3D from 2D or adjusting 3D objects in 3D images. I have used it and it works to some extent, but doing the same for video is problematic of course. I use their 3D Composer to watch and do light editing to my 3D stills mostly. http://3dmedia.com/products/3dcomposer-page.html This company is run by one person is very hard to get hold of, though.
3DBob is offline  
post #49 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 10:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1140 Post(s)
Liked: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
Sadly, Cameron and Christie Digital are not moving toward autostereoscopy (glasses-free 3D) with the Avatar 2 movie, but to better Laser projectors, with the same polarized glasses we know, but with brighter images, maybe HDR-like, Wide Colour Gamma image presentation. Maybe some HFR in selected cinemas with those better Laser projectors.

Autostereoscopic Avatar 2 is just wishful thinking at this time.

I'm sure that Cameron would like to present his new movies in an autostereoscopic cinema, but right now there is no sign that this will be possible.

Why? Because there is no known autostereoscopic cinema, no proven technology that can present glasses-free 3D images in a cinema sitting, on a very large screen, with many peoples spread all over long distances, left-right and front-back, on a slanted floor.

What we have now are small (around 55") autostereoscopic screens (LCD/OLED based) that can maintain autostereoscopy for smaller distances and smaller audiences, like Ultra-D or old Philips WOWvx displays. Most displays have sitting limits, like 46 (Philips WOWvx) or 64. Ultra-D displays have 26 "zones" for now (4K panel, on an 8K panel maybe more zones).

Even microLED Cinema screen from Samsung is using the same polarized filters and classic passive glasses to display the 3D image...
This is the actual quote from Cameron: "I'm going to push. Not only for better tools, workflow, high dynamic range (HDR) and high frame rates (HFR) --- the things we are working toward. I'm still very bullish on 3D, but we need brighter projection, and ultimately I think it can happen --- with no glasses. We'll get there."

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/10/jam...te-1201741677/ Also note the comment about high frame rate that did not go well with the showing of "Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk."

I actually listened in on a live conversation with Cameron last year and he basically said that again. He is working with Christie Digital to come up with the new glassless technology. He said they are very close to a solution: https://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/

And this: http://news.mit.edu/2016/glasses-fre...ger-scale-0725 Note at the bottom who is funding the work.
Click on the Related Paper lower right if you really want to know how it's done...

Another: https://www.ireviews.com/news/2017/0...-3d-technology A lot of hype and speculation in all of this of course. Given Cameron wants to release Avatar 2 in 2020, they would have to have the technology pretty much ready now to implement, but as always, who is going to make the investment and does this really affect all of us 3D watchers or just a very few in select venues--my guess.
3DBob is offline  
post #50 of 81 Old 06-07-2018, 12:59 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
I don't think any of the standard linear editors such as VP or Edius can do this type of sophisticated depth-map-based manipulation.
Those are all linear horizontal adjustments so they just push the scene forward and back.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #51 of 81 Old 06-08-2018, 12:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dfa973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: EU
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1181 Post(s)
Liked: 1203
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
This is the actual quote from Cameron: "I'm going to push. Not only for better tools, workflow, high dynamic range (HDR) and high frame rates (HFR) --- the things we are working toward. I'm still very bullish on 3D, but we need brighter projection, and ultimately I think it can happen --- with no glasses. We'll get there."
"We'll get there." This is key. In the future. Yes. But not now. Not for Avatar 2. Maybe Avatar 5. MAYBE!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
I actually listened in on a live conversation with Cameron last year and he basically said that again. He is working with Christie Digital to come up with the new glassless technology. He said they are very close to a solution: https://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/
No actual solution from Christie Digital with new glassless technology on their site, actually, if you search "glassless" on their entire site you found NOTHING, no result. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
If you watch their 3D section of videos, you will found that all their new tech for giant screens, RGB Laser projectors and other 3D tech, all the people that are using their products are WEARING GLASSES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
From the cited URL, at the bottom:
"Cinema 3D isn’t particularly practical at the moment: The team’s prototype requires 50 sets of mirrors and lenses, and yet is just barely larger than a pad of paper. But, in theory, the technology could work in any context in which 3-D visuals would be shown to multiple people at the same time, such as billboards or storefront advertisements. Matusik says that the team hopes to build a larger version of the display and to further refine the optics to continue to improve the image resolution."
It remains to be seen whether the approach is financially feasible enough to scale up to a full-blown theater,” says Matusik. “But we are optimistic that this is an important next step in developing glasses-free 3-D for large spaces like movie theaters and auditoriums.”


After 2 years, no working solution. No 3D Cinema that actually works with no glasses. Not a single one in the whole world, just for showcasing the technology. None.

So, do not expect a 3D glassless presentation of Avatar 2.
A brighter, smoother, less dimmer, more natural colours, YES, but with glasses!
dfa973 is online now  
post #52 of 81 Old 06-08-2018, 02:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
So, do not expect a 3D glassless presentation of Avatar 2.
A brighter, smoother, less dimmer, more natural colours, YES, but with glasses!
I think that is right.

And even a brighter image will not necessarily come easily because of challenges in suppressing visible crosstalk whether the technology is:
  • active glasses alternating rapidly and cleanly
  • a screen faithfully reflecting polarized light
  • passive glasses with narrowband colour filters (Dolby 3D).
dfa973 likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #53 of 81 Old 06-08-2018, 03:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Those are all linear horizontal adjustments so they just push the scene forward and back.
Yes, simply pushing the scene forwards or backwards on the Z-axis is only a very basic adjustment.

The instructional video you provided a few posts back is a good illustration of the extreme attention to detail required to set up a conversion from 2D to 3D even with a fixed camera position, relatively fixed background, and a single human being walking and stooping down. In the detailed stages of the frame by frame animation, the closer an object has moved to the camera position, the greater the need to warp its appearance to achieve realism. In a cheap and nasty conversion the new Virtual camera view of a foreground object could be made identical to the old Original camera view but displaced horizontally in accordance with a depth map.

In a higher quality conversion, the new Virtual camera view of a foreground object would partially erase one side of the object, and add in detail for the other side. For example, in the case of a human face in the foreground, and assuming the original camera view is used as stereo Left and a virtual camera view is created for stereo Right, the virtual camera view could involve
  • erasing part of the actor's right ear (on the left of the screen from the audience's viewpoint),
  • providing a new perspective for the actor's left ear, and
  • creating a view of the left side of the actor's head that extends further back than captured by the real world camera.

In a very advanced conversion, the human head of a particular actor could be CGI modelled in full so that it could be rotated at will to any orientation by the animator, and still appear to be the head of the actor. And then there is the modelling of how an actor walks (and even talks).

Although it may take a lot of effort to create a comprehensive CGI version of a particular actor it could in the long run make a conversion to 3D easier, if a very high standard of 3D realism is being aimed for. (And it could be used to create selected original footage without the presence of the actor.)

Anyway, I seem to have been pushing this thread way off-topic.
MLXXX is offline  
post #54 of 81 Old 06-08-2018, 09:13 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Jeff, Keep in mind that video was from about 6 years ago, but was the software I sat in on in a seminar at NAB. I haven't kept up with what they have available today. I'm sure some of that has been automated and also new features for quality and accuracy added.


On another off topic note- I started to edit my Monument Valley 3D video yesterday and the first surprise was that Adobe Premiere Pro has eliminated the 3D stereoscopic editing. Of course they now have the best 3D stereoscopic editing for 360VR. Apparently CS5 was the last time it was capable and then only with an expensive plugin. So I jumped over to Vegas Pro v13 and after it crashed a half dozen times on my new computer under win 10, I then installed Edius 7.53 and it is running fine so far. The stereoscopic adjustments seems much better than what we had in Vegas Pro v13. I shot this project back in 2012 with 2 TD-10's, Panasonic Z10K and twin NEX-5n's for wide IA. A couple shots I needed to do a little Horizontal disparity manual adjustment but most of the twin cams with 1 meter and 1/3 meter IA is pairing up nicely. I used 18mm and 55mm lenses. Only problem I have was my mistake / failure to sync all the camera's time clocks so putting the clips in order is becoming a challenge.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #55 of 81 Old 06-08-2018, 09:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa973 View Post
"We'll get there." This is key. In the future. Yes. But not now. Not for Avatar 2. Maybe Avatar 5. MAYBE!!!!


No actual solution from Christie Digital with new glassless technology on their site, actually, if you search "glassless" on their entire site you found NOTHING, no result. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
If you watch their 3D section of videos, you will found that all their new tech for giant screens, RGB Laser projectors and other 3D tech, all the people that are using their products are WEARING GLASSES.



From the cited URL, at the bottom:
"Cinema 3D isn’t particularly practical at the moment: The team’s prototype requires 50 sets of mirrors and lenses, and yet is just barely larger than a pad of paper. But, in theory, the technology could work in any context in which 3-D visuals would be shown to multiple people at the same time, such as billboards or storefront advertisements. Matusik says that the team hopes to build a larger version of the display and to further refine the optics to continue to improve the image resolution."
It remains to be seen whether the approach is financially feasible enough to scale up to a full-blown theater,” says Matusik. “But we are optimistic that this is an important next step in developing glasses-free 3-D for large spaces like movie theaters and auditoriums.”


After 2 years, no working solution. No 3D Cinema that actually works with no glasses. Not a single one in the whole world, just for showcasing the technology. None.

So, do not expect a 3D glassless presentation of Avatar 2.
A brighter, smoother, less dimmer, more natural colours, YES, but with glasses!
I don't think anyone expected glasses-free 3D for Avatar 2. It's still an emerging technology, one that must be designed and built. Cameron never suggested that any of the Avatar sequels would be in 3D just that it was the next step to take. The MIT article is just there to show that they are coming up with ways to work it out.

However, something else to consider is the LED cinema-sized screens they're coming up with which products like these seem to come out of nowhere and they're unveiled. Rather than projection screen a brightly lit LED with 2D and 3D options. Of course the cost on this one, anyone can guess. How much longer before they add glasses free? There are commercially available glasses-free screens right now up to 65".

Samsung 33.8' x 17.7' LED 3D screen:
https://news.samsung.com/global/sams...in-switzerland

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #56 of 81 Old 06-09-2018, 08:47 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,971
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Tom, I saw one of these on the Grand Princess cruise ship in March. The screen filled the whole back wall of the stage. It was constructed of 270 panels, each presenting 4K video. On our last night of the cruise several panels went out and the entire system had to be shut down and rebooted mid performance. I don't know if it was 3D capable but the brightness and resolution looked great. I'm guessing it was 30 ft high and 75 ft wide. The outdoor screens located over the pool area are smaller and not as high resolution as the stage screen.

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, TIVO Edge OTA; Apple TV 4K. Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is online now  
post #57 of 81 Old 06-09-2018, 10:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Yeah, there's that option too, I couldn't find the link for it though. This Samsung model, is just a single panel (4K total pixels) not the multi panel system, correct? And the Samsung is 3D. I assume it's active shutter. I've have to dig around for a link on the multi panel system. I thought it was LG, can't remember now but yeah, individual 4K screens combined into one large screen. Projectors may be on their way out and glasses-free would just be a large scale version of UltraD.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #58 of 81 Old 05-08-2019, 10:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Wait for it...Yes, Avatar 2 has been pushed back another year. Now scheduled for Dec. 17th 2021. I've lost count how many times it's been pushed back, '16, '17, '18, '19, '20 at least 5 times now. Well, maybe we will have glasses-free 3D by the time the movie comes out, might get pushed back again, who knows?

And Disney will be alternating releases of Avatar and Star Wars during that time, '21 Avatar 2, '22 Star Wars X, '23 Avatar 3, '24 Star Wars XI, '25 Avatar 4, '26 Star Wars XII, '27 Avatar 5.

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 05-08-2019 at 10:49 PM.
tomtastic is offline  
post #59 of 81 Old 05-09-2019, 05:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1140 Post(s)
Liked: 627
Cameron has said in the past, one reason for the delay was to get underwater photography right since that is a large part of the sequels. He said, he's been working on that for years and finally has it figured out, and he is also filming parts of all the Avatar sequels at the same time. That is an interesting reason for delaying, since Aquaman did their underwater shots without water, and they worked fine.
3DBob is offline  
post #60 of 81 Old 05-06-2020, 10:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Why Avatar 2-5 is going to break records

I've gone back and forth on whether or not Avatar will break any new records and I think that it definitely will. One of the biggest reasons is the Lord of the Rings idea, the first big feature to do this that I recall. Filming all segments back to back and releasing them over a period of time. Returning every year or every other year to follow up on the story has huge economic potential. This ensures a fanbase and investors upfront so we don't have to wonder if there will be a followup movie or if the studio will sit on it for years until it's too late. I must admit, I rather liked viewing The Hobbit in theaters when there was a returning story to pick up on for a number of years.

The next reason is the story is almost certainly going to be better and more involved. And 4 films! Why bother with a trilogy any more? Avatar 2 will probably be the next biggest movie of all time (followed by Avatar 5). There really isn't anything on the list for the foreseeable future until Dec. 2021. By then, the pandemic will likely be behind us and people will be ready to get out and see movies again. That spells good news for Avatar 2. Avatar 5 wrapping things up might be just as big if not even bigger.

Now, that doesn't mean people aren't going to movies again until 2021, but on the realm of 2bn or more like Avatar and Avengers End Game, it will take something like Avatar 2 to reach those expectations and I think it can. Another reason Avatar 2 will break records is that Avatar is a world franchise and not an American one. Star Wars is more limited because of this and didn't perform as well as Avatar overseas.

And lastly, 3D. 3D really helped the first Avatar film. I think there was a vast amount of viewers who at that time couldn't see 3D at home and so re-viewed Avatar in theaters. Now ironically, here we are again. 3D has wained in home theater sales and the 3D option has been removed from flat panels since 2016. By late 2021, it will be like 2009 all over again. The best and only way (for most) to view Avatar 2 will be in theaters in 3D.

Now of course, there's some that don't like 3D and the glasses and with Covid-19 there's going to be resistance to at least 3D glasses that are reused. So that's a big unknown on 3D there that wasn't there before.

So asking if any of the Avatar films will be in glasses-free 3D again? I doubt it. Unless they come out with a large flat panel system and then it would be very limited release. i don't see projection working for glasses-free 3D anytime soon. But I think there will be new interest in 3D by late 2021. It won't be like 2009. But it might get the ball moving again.
rdarcy and dfa973 like this.

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 05-06-2020 at 10:14 AM.
tomtastic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

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