Thread: Is 3D dying

Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 218
  1. #101  
    Member Alec Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    96
    Ivan

    Unfortunately, you are certainly not the only person who has that reaction. The worst part is this is actually completely avoidable! (stay with me here, I'll try to explain this)

    It starts with what we call stereo budget, which (in technical terms) is the maximum amount of parallax we allow and is calculated in relation to screen size or viewing distance and the amount of divergence and convergence we allow.

    In regular words, that basically means this: 'Convergence' is when you go cross eyed, and 'divergence' is when you go bug eyed. When you focus (in real life) on an object thats far away, your eyes move outward, and its the opposite when things are close. You can experience this by putting your finger a few feet away and focusing on it as you slowly move it in to touch your nose.

    Now, to illustrate "parallax" put your finger a foot in front of your face. Stay focused on it, but close one eye. Now, switch eyes. You will notice your finger "jumps" in relation to the background. There is a difference in where you see your finger in your left eye and your right eye in relation to whatever is behind it. The difference between these two pictures, when overlaid on each other, is calculated by your brain as depth, and is what we refer to in 3D as parallax.

    The stereo process is making a computer act as our brain and two cameras act as our eyes. We can adjust it by moving the distance between the cameras and by adjusting the images in the computer (as long as we shoot with the cameras completely parallel). Now, once we have the DI finished, it's locked. So the distance between the two images isn't going to change.

    But here's the problem. The reason 3D works is that our eyes are processing the distances between two different images on the screen (one through each polarized lens in the glasses). The distance between our eyes never changes. But guess what? The distance we VIEW them from does. So take your finger again and place it a foot in front of your face. Now move "closer to the screen" (move your face about two inches away from your finger while continuing to focus on it).

    Hurts doesn't it? Guess what most people do when they walk into a theater? They get seats as close to the screen as they can. When you do that, you are literally going crosseyed and bug-eyed, which HURTS! Theaters should do away with seats that are within a certain distance of the screen, but that obviously wont ever happen.

    You know how you can spot a stereographer at a screening? They run for the back of the theater.

    So, in a lot of cramped theaters, this is a problem.

    The second and much bigger problem lies in editing. It takes your brain three seconds to process depth. So, if I am editing something in 3D, each cut MUST be at least three seconds long, or I must cut to a shot of equal depth with the point of focus in a similar place. Otherwise, my brain is forced to adjust to a new image before it has processed the old one. Guess which editors and directors follow this rule. Almost none. I see it all the time. I read an article today on a major release that is about to come out and was post converted, in which the editors said they didn't edit in 3D at all.

    And then of course there are the crappy dim projectors.

    If all director, editors, and cinematographers that are doing a 3D film would just take a weekend retreat to learn this stuff before they shoot, we wouldn't have these problems. You would think, with a large percentage of the world viewing their work in 3D, they would take the time. But no. They just treat it like 2D and let the post guys worry about it.

    Can't wait for Avatar 2 though, because Cameron knows more about 3D than anyone else on the planet. He had to blaze a lot of trails and figure stuff out as he went on the first film. Part 2 is gonna show you what 3D can really do.

    Oh and that's the whole point of High Frame Rate 3D btw. The more frames there are, the easier it is on your brain. I have shot HFR3D, and I think it looks incredible. (It certainly takes some getting used to though, I though it looked bizarre for the first five hours or so of shooting. Then I loved it). I think the problem people had with the hobbit was that it is a world they are already familiar with from the first three films, and not only were they adjusting to HFR, but 3D and digital as well. That's a lot to change when we've all spent 8+ hours in middle earth with the first films.
    Epic-X 1618
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Member Alec Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    96
    Sorry for the length of the post, just hoping if I can explain a bit of the tech and terminology we can all have a real discussion.

    Ivan, to your other point about only some things being 'appropriate' for 3D, I think after a few years you might change your mind. Actually, I had a producer that worked on something I shot in 3D that raved about how much he loved it. Then later, we were talking about the great gatsby and he said the 3D didn't work for him with that film.

    It made me really reexamine why I like it so much, as I though he was 100% gung-ho on 3D. And I remembered a time I had been locked in a room editing in 3D for like four days when I decided to go see a movie to clear my head. It was in 2D, and after viewing 3D for so long, the 2D looked bizarre. I was conscious of how much work our brains do to turn a 2D image into what we recognize as reality (and obviously we experience reality in 3D). It kind of clicked with me then and there that I had seen enough 3D that my brain stopped trying to process the depth. As in, I didn't notice when I was watching 3D anymore, it just seemed 'natural.' Then everything seemed appropriate for 3D because 3D felt natural.

    So, I guess my advice is lock yourself in a room for four days and watch nothing but 3D :)
    Epic-X 1618
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Senior Member Ivan Kovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    975
    Wow. Great answer.

    With HFR 3D - it took me about 10 minutes for my brain to get up to speed in the Hobbit. The dialogue looked out of sync. And the characters seemed to be walking around at a different framerate... 20FPS... like a charlie chaplin movie. There was some serious neurological clusterfucking going on in those 10 minutes. My question is - will this happen everytime I go to see HFR in 3D? I disliked the hobbit for many other reasons too, which are have probably been discussed ad nauseum on other threads (I am sure you know what I would have said... heh).

    I generally go for the middle of the theater which is what I have heard most stereographers suggest as being the sweet spot. It was once explained to me by a stereographer on a 3D Coke commercial I worked on.

    I would actually like to see somebody do a neurological study on HFR 3D with an MRI to see the effects on the human mind. If there is a way to escape the hyper-realism that the hobbit created then I am all for that. I think the Hobbit failed psychologically on many levels with their HFR experiment, but I am eager to see how Cameron takes a different approach at 60FPS.

    One interesting study placed a plasma TV with an HD image of a male octopus next to a physical fishtank containing a real male octopus.

    They played the video of the male octopus on the plasma at 24hz (or equivalent) yeh the real octopus didn't react at all. Didn;t even see it.

    WHen played at 60hz, the real octopus freaked the shit out and started attacking the plasma screen.

    I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Macau
    Posts
    2,453
    Avatar, Hugo, The Great Gatsby where the films in the middle of hundreds I've seen in this few years of post Avatar 3D madness that made the experience worthwhile. As a filmmaker and communicator I fail to see the necessity of 3D in order to make a great, commercialy successful film. Its still a good marketing hook, but not "the future". That will be 8K Projection in my view. And HFR sucks.
    Sérgio Perez

    Weapon Monstro #03294 "Amochai" in Macau

    Video Director/Creative/Producer


    http://vimeo.com/user1503556

    https://www.youtube.com/user/spzprod..._as=subscriber
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Member Alec Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    96
    From my experience, yes you will get used to HFR. However, it is only after a significant amount of viewing, which is problematic.

    If the theaters do a 'marathon' screening of the first two hobbit films before a midnight screening of the third film, by the time the third one starts I am confident you will be used to it.

    I would tell you to watch the bluray a few times, but unfortunately bluray3D can only be mastered at 24fps and 60fps (the hobbit was 48fps, so the bluray doesn't have an HFR version)

    I have spoken with some people that have worked with Douglas Trumble on his "Digital Showscan". They said he has some studies that showed the brain responding significantly to HFR 3D (he's doing 4K 120fps)
    Epic-X 1618
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Member Alec Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    96
    Honestly it's hard enough to tell the difference between 2K and 4K. As cool as 8K may be on massive screens, it probably won't really make a noticeable difference on smaller screens.

    High Dynamic Range, High bit depth color, Glasses free 60fps 3D on an ultra-bright laser 4K projector (or 8K if you REALLY have the screen size) with Dolby Atmos surround seems like a hell of a future to me.
    Epic-X 1618
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Hollywood CA
    Posts
    1,144
    We did a study a few years ago and discovered that dogs, with glasses, could actually see S3D perfectly....... in a related study we also discovered that only dogs and people with a financial interest in S3D can actually enjoy S3D but even then only for a maximum of 2 min.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Hollywood CA
    Posts
    1,144
    we did discover a good use for 3D rigs though..... about 21 stops of DR.....true motion HDR

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Member Alec Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    96
    Thanks aaron, that was incredibly helpful.
    Epic-X 1618
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Senior Member Ivan Kovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Morris View Post
    From my experience, yes you will get used to HFR. However, it is only after a significant amount of viewing, which is problematic.

    ...

    I have spoken with some people that have worked with Douglas Trumble on his "Digital Showscan". They said he has some studies that showed the brain responding significantly to HFR 3D (he's doing 4K 120fps)
    Yeh, it is problematic. If one risks a 10 minute freak out period at the start of every 3D HFR movie then this needs to be reexamined.

    I have heard of Douglas Trumble's Digital showscan system (I am not sure what the difference between 120 and 60 would be though. Apparently the brain caps out ar around 45 or so (i forget the number they settled on)... wouldn't everything beyond that be the same perceptually?

    I would like to read up on these studies he is doing at 120fps. When you say significant response, what do you mean in particular?
    Reply With Quote  
     

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