AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I was here when Don first uploaded his 3D Bloggie video of his grandson in the pool. I left because of the frustration over sharing 3D videos with others, most of whom hate wearing glasses to view any video. I got interested in RAW video, then big-sensor video, then 4K.

And now I have a big sensor 3D video device. The advantage of big sensors is that you can simulate 3D in 2D just with shallow DOF. So, shallow DOF and 3D is something special. And the color and dynamic range are superior to what small-sensor camcorders normally produce.

Anyway, here is my new (APS-C) 3D video (108030P, sbs):

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Nitpicking welcome, as usual

I have already replied on another forum, so I won't repeat it here:
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/5221/single-lens-3d#Item_17

Short version: Samsung lenses are not useful for moving subjects, as can be seen in many parts of the above video.

Damir
It is true that the technique used (rapid shifts across the lens) can result in artifacts for horizontally moving fast objects. It is a limitation, which is well known.

Btw, this is the typical response on 3D forums (less so here until now): people who have invested in their own elaborate and expensive set-ups (in this case this guy has synched GH4's) nitpick any other convenient device people use for 3D. When I posted Panasonic 3D1 videos, for example, on another forum there were constant criticisms about the short interocular distance, again mostly from people who had elaborate two-camera rigs. All they did was harp on this one shortcoming (and this guy of course mentions that one too - really?).

In the above video, fast moving subjects represent less than 2% of the footage, and are peripheral in the scenes they are in. Is there any comment on the rest of the 3D - besides again harping on the interocular distance? No. The guy just grabs one frame and shows the lack of synch where there were running children for brief moment (and provides a link to his own videos). Is the overall experience completely ruined by these brief moments? What's next, grabbing window violation frames?

And, I disagree strongly with the notion that shallow dof works against 3D.

Should I abandon shooting 3D with this device? Give up 3D, or shoot amateurish camcorder video or invest in a two full-frame camera rig?

I guess things have not changed in the 3D world, except it has shrunk. Not a surprise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
Mark, There are some interesting moments in your video. I watched on my passive 27" 3D monitor and it looked good. If there is a problem with compressed stereo such as this, it's the small depth-of-field in some shots. But it does work when objects of interest are close like bush/tree berries, objects near the damn, etc. I have several 3D cameras including the Panasonic 3D1 and now a twin gopro setup. Each one has it's strong points. Also, my 2D Panasonic DMC-ZS40 has a stereo option. You click the shutter and move the camera to the right for still 3D shots. The resulting MPO image sometimes works perfectly and sometimes not. I can see you are having a blast with the NX500. dpreview.com has a 3D forum and some shooters using the NX500. You might share your work with them. They are always willing to experiment with different cameras. But, there are always some who will try to spoil your day with pronouncements that what you are doing violates some proven universal accepted artistic truth--there is no truth in art, if there were, all impressionist painters would have been shot by now...including James Cameron (aka Avatar), who said that violating the 3D window was fine and sometimes required to artistic sake--OMG! hee, hee. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Mark, There are some interesting moments in your video. I watched on my passive 27" 3D monitor and it looked good. If there is a problem with compressed stereo such as this, it's the small depth-of-field in some shots. But it does work when objects of interest are close like bush/tree berries, objects near the damn, etc. I have several 3D cameras including the Panasonic 3D1 and now a twin gopro setup. Each one has it's strong points. Also, my 2D Panasonic DMC-ZS40 has a stereo option. You click the shutter and move the camera to the right for still 3D shots. The resulting MPO image sometimes works perfectly and sometimes not. I can see you are having a blast with the NX500. dpreview.com has a 3D forum and some shooters using the NX500. You might share your work with them. They are always willing to experiment with different cameras. But, there are always some who will try to spoil your day with pronouncements that what you are doing violates some proven universal accepted artistic truth--there is no truth in art, if there were, all impressionist painters would have been shot by now...including James Cameron (aka Avatar), who said that violating the 3D window was fine and sometimes required to artistic sake--OMG! hee, hee. :)

Thanks for this. Yes, there are many routes to 3D; what matters is the video that is produced. One learns the constraints, and works within them - with perfect convergence, no WV and must-have conspicuous 3D effects (which I really like) in every scene not the most compelling criteria for judging a video.


Btw, my original intent in returning to 3D was to shoot 3D using my GoPro Hero 4 Black (plus another, of course) - 3D in 4K! I am still waiting for the new dual case... I read your thread with interest, although it appears now to probably be only academic interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
It is true that the technique used (rapid shifts across the lens) can result in artifacts for horizontally moving fast objects. It is a limitation, which is well known.
I agree. You forgot to say that it also results in artifacts for vertically moving objects (for slanted as well, of course).

In the above video, fast moving subjects represent less than 2% of the footage, and are peripheral in the scenes they are in. Is there any comment on the rest of the 3D - besides again harping on the interocular distance? No. The guy just grabs one frame and shows the lack of synch where there were running children for brief moment (and provides a link to his own videos). Is the overall experience completely ruined by these brief moments? What's next, grabbing window violation frames?
If such scenes represent only 2% of the footage, why are they included? After I watched a little more than a half of the video I noticed several strange artifacts, so I simply grabbed the closest artifact and showed it. I can go through the video if you wish and show some "brief moments" which, for myself, spoiled otherwise very nice video. However, if something does not seem OK to me, I have to mention it. When I do something wrong with my pictures/videos my 3D colleagues are certainly not quiet. On the other hand, I am also sure that many members on this forum do not agree with me.
By the way, if there are some window violations they might be easily corrected, since overall depth is not so high.

And, I disagree strongly with the notion that shallow dof works against 3D.
Believe or not, I agree with you. Personally I like it, since it looks more artistic. However, I know many people (read: majority of 3D people I know) who do not like it, since "they cannot fuse some parts of the picture".

Should I abandon shooting 3D with this device? Give up 3D, or shoot amateurish camcorder video or invest in a two full-frame camera rig?
Why? Samsung lens have their strong and weak sides, like any other 3D solution. The weak one is that it's not good for moving subjects (artifacts) and for distant objects (2D). On the other hand I enjoyed the parts with mostly stationary and close objects/subjects, so you showed that it's possible to make very nice 3D video clips.

I guess things have not changed in the 3D world, except it has shrunk. Not a surprise.
My opinion is that to motivate people toward 3D, the only thing we can do is to do our best when making the shows.

Damir
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
We are/were hoping for a hero 4 3D dual case, but it doesn't look likely, that's why a few of us have decided to go with the existing dual case and two hero 3+ cameras. We can do 2.7k, which gives a very close image to 4k.

2.7K at 60 fps, medium FOV, on the Black 4 is superb. Let's hope...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
2.7K at 60 fps, medium FOV, on the Black 4 is superb. Let's hope...
Actually, it is my understanding that they don't even need a new case or cables for the GP4s to work with the current system. The only thing they need to do is update the firmware. Seems rather silly that they haven't done this. Last I checked, GP was non committal about this happenning.

Oh yea, 2.7K at 60fps, sure would be SWEET!!!!!! 4K I don't find as interesting though since it only works on wide modes and not medium or less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
4K I don't find as interesting though since it only works on wide modes and not medium or less.
With some lens modifications it might be useful. Unfortunately, it is not cheap and it involves a risk of damaging sensor. BlackMagic micro cinema cameras are interesting, since they have genlock input, but are relatively expensive and require external monitor(s).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I agree. You forgot to say that it also results in artifacts for vertically moving objects (for slanted as well, of course).



If such scenes represent only 2% of the footage, why are they included? After I watched a little more than a half of the video I noticed several strange artifacts, so I simply grabbed the closest artifact and showed it. I can go through the video if you wish and show some "brief moments" which, for myself, spoiled otherwise very nice video. However, if something does not seem OK to me, I have to mention it. When I do something wrong with my pictures/videos my 3D colleagues are certainly not quiet. On the other hand, I am also sure that many members on this forum do not agree with me.
By the way, if there are some window violations they might be easily corrected, since overall depth is not so high.


Believe or not, I agree with you. Personally I like it, since it looks more artistic. However, I know many people (read: majority of 3D people I know) who do not like it, since "they cannot fuse some parts of the picture".


Why? Samsung lens have their strong and weak sides, like any other 3D solution. The weak one is that it's not good for moving subjects (artifacts) and for distant objects (2D). On the other hand I enjoyed the parts with mostly stationary and close objects/subjects, so you showed that it's possible to make very nice 3D video clips.


My opinion is that to motivate people toward 3D, the only thing we can do is to do our best when making the shows.

Damir

Thanks for the response. I very much appreciate your taking the time to watch the video. And, naturally I agree with what you say. I think your first response was just overweighted to a singular defect, without attention to anything else, and of course it is fine to point them out but not very polite to only do that! And a downer to someone just coming back. You ask why keep the clips with artifacts in - because the overall clip is effective in my view. It's an artistic decision. The game is not to just avoid artifacts, though one obviously should try to minimize them.

Here is another NX500 video:


I deliberately left in two conspicuous movement artifacts:

1. A dog leaps up.

2. A dog's tail wags quickly L to R up close.

They illustrate what you have to watch for in using this technology. Again they are brief, so no one is going to be harmed by seeing them. And a real question is whether to remove the clips, which are otherwise of above average interest, or not.


These videos are experimental - I am trying out this technology and learning its quirks, and illustrating the possibilities for others. I am so far very pleased with the resolution and color - it really is superior to the camcorders, and I like shallow dof, just as I like 3D. And not because I am trying to be artsy! Note, I am avoiding shaky 3D video, which does make people sick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Mark, what editing app are you using? It really does a nice job. You are definitely getting the technique where it's interesting to watch. Good work!

Thanks. I am using Power Director 13. The main reason is that the NX500 videos are H265, and PD 13 is the only editor to work with this new standard codec natively. I output using XAVC S (H264) at 36Mbps.


I am trying to learn how to best use this equipment combo. Still waiting for the 3D update for the Hero 4 Black firmware!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
Mark, that was nice. I think your idea of shallow depth of field 3D is really effective. I like that effect:) So, if I understand this correctly, is this a 2D 3D conversion? If so, it was quite good. Also, if so, was it done in Power Director?

As far as Gopro doing the necessary firmware update for the 4 to work with the Dual Hero system, it still remains a mystery. It would sure be nice if Gopro would give some guidance one way or the other. I guess the most hopeful sign is that they haven't discontinued the GP Dual housing and sync cable kit. If they actually do it, I'd definitely have some temptation, not for the 4K, since that's only in the very wide format- which I don't care for- but for the 2.7K medium FOV at 60fps. Oh yea:):) Shooting 1080 60p narrow FOV and 2.7K 30P medium FOV are my two favorite GP formats! With a DVI connected active monitor, you can actually watch the 1080 60p with Power Director and Edius in 3D at full res 60p. A real treat!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,085 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Mark, that was nice. I think your idea of shallow depth of field 3D is really effective. I like that effect:) So, if I understand this correctly, is this a 2D 3D conversion? If so, it was quite good. Also, if so, was it done in Power Director?

As far as Gopro doing the necessary firmware update for the 4 to work with the Dual Hero system, it still remains a mystery. It would sure be nice if Gopro would give some guidance one way or the other. I guess the most hopeful sign is that they haven't discontinued the GP Dual housing and sync cable kit. If they actually do it, I'd definitely have some temptation, not for the 4K, since that's only in the very wide format- which I don't care for- but for the 2.7K medium FOV at 60fps. Oh yea:):) Shooting 1080 60p narrow FOV and 2.7K 30P medium FOV are my two favorite GP formats! With a DVI connected active monitor, you can actually watch the 1080 60p with Power Director and Edius in 3D at full res 60p. A real treat!

Thanks. But, this is not a conversion. This is real 3D that the camera takes (two views from two lenses, taken milliseconds apart at 60 fps to get a 108030p sbs 3D video). I am not doing any 3D processing in PD 13. I do like the shallow dof combined with true 3D that this camera/lens gives (as well as the rich colors and high resolution). 2.7K at medium FOV, 60fps is really great on my Hero 4 Black.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
Thanks. But, this is not a conversion. This is real 3D that the camera takes (two views from two lenses, taken milliseconds apart at 60 fps to get a 108030p sbs 3D video). I am not doing any 3D processing in PD 13. I do like the shallow dof combined with true 3D that this camera/lens gives (as well as the rich colors and high resolution). 2.7K at medium FOV, 60fps is really great on my Hero 4 Black.
Thanks for the clarification. Definitely had me puzzled, in that the 3D looked far better than anything I've ever found PD to be capable of in a conversion. Additionally, for whatever reason, the YT video on my system looked FAR sharper than most 3D YT generally does.

Since you seem to be a Cyberlink user, you need to be aware that the new PDVD version 15 no longer does SBS 3D. So in the event you have PDVD, you won't want to update to 15 if you want to watch SBS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
Here is another NX500 video:

http://youtu.be/l0A8eaG66zw

I deliberately left in two conspicuous movement artifacts:

1. A dog leaps up.

2. A dog's tail wags quickly L to R up close.

They illustrate what you have to watch for in using this technology. Again they are brief, so no one is going to be harmed by seeing them. And a real question is whether to remove the clips, which are otherwise of above average interest, or not.


These videos are experimental - I am trying out this technology and learning its quirks, and illustrating the possibilities for others. I am so far very pleased with the resolution and color - it really is superior to the camcorders, and I like shallow dof, just as I like 3D. And not because I am trying to be artsy! Note, I am avoiding shaky 3D video, which does make people sick.
I do like the resolution and colour, and the shallow depth of field. I also like the small effective interaxial distance* of the special 3D lens. I find the still scenes very easy on the eye for taking in 3D. I would have to say the still scenes are very impressive.

However I am a person very sensitive to lack of phase between left and right. So the two conspicuous movement artefacts you have specified are merely more obvious examples for me! As the dog runs along the grass before jumping up, there is complete breakdown in the 3D effect for my eyes. In the immediately following scene (at 1 min 50sec into the clip) the droplets from the fountain are very noticeably out of phase (admittedly an exacting test!). Shortly afterwards (at 2:09) I noticed some leaves blowing on the grass behind a block wall. For my vision the leaf movement was very noticeably out of phase and distracting.

I wondered what might happen if the frames were blended to blur the motion and bring it closer into synch. The right side seemed to lag by about half a frame. So I tried blending it with the frame ahead, thus more or less averaging out to equate with the capture time of the left side.** This improved the 3D viewing experience somewhat, for my eyes anyway, though the conspicuously artefacted scenes still looked very obviously artefacted!

I found the phase discrepancy less of a shock for the time the dog jumps. However this was at a cost: as the dog runs along the grass the 3D image is arguably worse in its appearance than in the 1080p youtube version.

A more sophisticated motion interpolation approach would be needed I think to correct effectively for the capture time discrepancy of the special 3D lens. Perhaps this matter has already been discussed in a thread for owners of the special 3D lens. I have not done any search.

_________

* Some 3D cameras have big interaxial distances, tending to create exaggerated 3D. For example, I find the Fuji Finepix RealD W3 hard to use indoors at moderate distances. Its 75mm interaxial distance is not compatible with its stereo lenses at a short range. Women can have very broad looking shoulders!

** There would no doubt be more efficient and elegant methods but I proceeded as follows:


Load the clip into VirtualDub
Load the video filter called "null" and configure it to crop away the 960 rightmost pixels
Set the video compression to Xvid
Set the video range end offset to 1
Save as Leftframes-endoffset1.avi

Change the "null" video filter configuration to crop away the 960 leftmost pixels
Load the video filter called "motion blur"
Set the video range end offset to 0, and start offset to 1
Save as Rightframesblended-startoffset1.avi

Using a simple text editor (such as notepad) create the following file:
v1=AVISource("C:\leftframes-endoffset1.avi")
v2=AVISource("C:\rightframesblended-startoffset1.avi")
stackhorizontal(v1,v2)

Save as Blendright.avs

[The extension ".avs" is for Avisynth files, a filetype VirtualDub can read.]

Open Blendright.avs using VirtualDub.
Delete any video filters. You can now see the processed video with right flame blur synchronising with the left frame clear image. This side by side video can then be saved using VirtualDub.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top