3D is not without problems

[icester]

You must be a lucky man or have really long arms. I certainly can’t do that and I have very good eye sight, I guess everybody is a bit different, or maybe I'm becoming a bit short sighted spending too much time at a computer terminal posting on red 3d forum!.

If you have very good site then why are you saying that it is not possible to focus on a thumb finger that you hold in front of your nose. I am sure that almost anybody in the World can do that.

Mathew Orman

For state of the art stereoscopic vision systems with: eyestrain free, distortion free and realistic immersion stereoscopic experience contact me
at:
http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/

 

[Eric Lange]

Epilinear geometry supports arbitrary camera position in a scene but still fails on lighting effects regardless of the algorithm used. The ruins are mostly covered with dull specular textures and any 3d reconstruction method woks fine on it. Also such structures
are not in human everyday vision menu so if there are errors and or artifacts the human brain will most likely ignore it or assume as normal shapes of damaged structure.
There is no problem to apply stereoscopic texture on a model, but how do you get correct model from stereo pair in the first step. Also if you do that with CG models then the lighting geometry will conflict with specular effects in stereoscopic textures.
I guess the example with original plus normalized parallax would be a prove that your concept works.

Mathew Orman

For state of the art stereoscopic vision systems with: eyestrain free, distortion free and realistic immersion stereoscopic experience contact me
at:
http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/

When you see it you’ll get it. You are making extrapolations about technology that you don’t YET understand, and have not seen. But probably in the not too distant future you certainly will, probably on both counts. No big deal really. But I think you'll like it becuse it puts most of the things you are, or have been "complaining" about to bed. If you don't like it after that, then I doubt there will be much to please you at all (my good man!).

 

[Eric Lange]

If you have very good site then why are you saying that it is not possible to focus on a thumb finger that you hold in front of your nose. I am sure that almost anybody in the World can do that.

Mathew Orman

For state of the art stereoscopic vision systems with: eyestrain free, distortion free and realistic immersion stereoscopic experience contact me
at:
http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/

As far as the thumb thing goes, I was of course referring to your statement:

”When you focus on horizon the thumb in front of your nose is out of focus, but when you focus on your thumb all background including horizon is in perfect focus….Check it out…” [ICESTER]

That is, a thumb held out at arms length, and one fixes one’s gaze upon that, that you claim that you can simultaneously see the background horizon also in sharp focus at the same time. I was saying I cannot do that i.e. simultaneously perceive a sharp infinity focus while focusing and converging on my thumb held at arms length (even in bright sun light) all at the same time. That was the technical point that you were trying to make?

Interestingly I find if I close one eye and look at my thumb then the horizon is sharper, but with binocular fusion, fixing my gaze on the thumb, the background is pretty blurry. It maybe that your natural diopter is equivalent to a “hyperfocal” distance for the human eye perhaps, I really don’t know.
I am sure that there are loads people reading this thread that would love to chime in on this….

In the mean time, roger, over and out.:emote_popcorn:

 

[icester]

As far as the thumb thing goes, I was of course referring to your statement:

”When you focus on horizon the thumb in front of your nose is out of focus, but when you focus on your thumb all background including horizon is in perfect focus….Check it out…” [ICESTER]

That is, a thumb held out at arms length, and one fixes one’s gaze upon that, that you claim that you can simultaneously see the background horizon also in sharp focus at the same time. I was saying I cannot do that i.e. simultaneously perceive a sharp infinity focus while focusing and converging on my thumb held at arms length (even in bright sun light) all at the same time. That was the technical point that you were trying to make?

Interestingly I find if I close one eye and look at my thumb then the horizon is sharper, but with binocular fusion, fixing my gaze on the thumb, the background is pretty blurry. It maybe that your natural diopter is equivalent to a “hyperfocal” distance for the human eye perhaps, I really don’t know.
I am sure that there are loads people reading this thread that would love to chime in on this….

In the mean time, roger, over and out.:emote_popcorn:

Cross-eye viewing is also a prove that when you focus on imaginary cross-point the images on the screen are in perfect focus regardless of the screen distance.

Mathew Orman

For state of the art stereoscopic vision systems with: eyestrain free, distortion free and realistic immersion stereoscopic experience contact me
at:
http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/

 

[Eric Lange]

Cross-eye viewing is also a prove that when you focus on imaginary cross-point the images on the screen are in perfect focus regardless of the screen distance.

Mathew Orman

For state of the art stereoscopic vision systems with: eyestrain free, distortion free and realistic immersion stereoscopic experience contact me
at:
http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/

??????

 

[Eric Lange]

Mathew you still crack me up;

Are you sure you don’t own a bear that you drive around in an ice cream van?

OK just to help you out and perhaps re-frame the discussion to something interesting and useful. I think some of the points you raise, (all be it in a rather abstract and abrupt fashion, are indeed interesting).

Looking at some of the other threads you have posted on including this one, (it seems), your main plank is that EVERYBODY must use “natural geometry”. I and others put forward the idea that “Natural Geometry “ in a cinematic environment is a nice idea but not practical or desirable. The main argument I put forward is that “natural geometry” is not really possible when you are projecting onto a flat screen (for large ranges of parallax and corresponding distances). I and many others on the lists here believe that nice and engaging stereographic presentations are the goal, that are also safe, pain free and do not push the limits. The other point I put forward is that because one uses a large flat screen, that a narrower range of parallax has to be used compared to the range of parallax the human visual system would naturally handle when viewing the real world. One of the main reasons for this, is if you present the same much wider ranges of parallax on screen then this means that there will be parts of the imagery that will be un-fusable, and hence cause very uncomfortable eyestrain and headaches. I think it’s a really bad idea to put stereo imagery that has stereo corresponding features that the audience cannot resolve within the context of other elements that they can (i.e. painfull double images in the forground or back ground). With natural binocular convergent viewing in the real world with real 3d objects disposed at various distances, then unresolved stereo images (for example in the back ground, are not a problem (as previously discussed)). Herein lies the difference between stereo viewing of real objects in a real 3d world vs. stereo viewing on a large flat screen. Not to mention the very basic and well known conflicts that a flat screen can cause in terms of view accomodation vs convergnece. The only %100 cure for that is a volumetric screen/space in an essentially holographic environment.

This does therefore raise the question whether shooting scenes with a very shallow depth of field (but not using a long lens) produces acceptable back ground blurrs? I.e. what degree of blurriness can be induced until the human visual system does not want to stereo fuse or sense a conflict. I.e. with controlled uniform back grounds these do not interfere with the foreground subject (from a parallax point of view), but I wonder what degree of blurred backgrounds with some vague features at infinity you can get away with. I think this is the real killer for most good stereo, a foreground subject with backgrounds that go to infinity (or are at least hard to deal with).

Mathew I would offer you the opportunity to set down “on paper” i.e. on this list, what exactly ARE the specifications and criteria that YOU suggest MUST be used for stereo cinematography and “natural stereo geometry”. If you set these down as a clear list of requirements, then I think we can start to understand what it is that you are essentially pressing for or demanding. As it may be, that what you are essentially asking for may already be employed to some degree by what you would describe as “pseudo stereographers”. A set of specs and criteria would bring real focus to the discussion. If it’s solid and unique we can call it the Orman Condition.

Very Best,

Eric

P.S. Just as a hint (Mathew), I think one of the things you may be driving towards is to use convergent camera geometry, rather than parallel. In photogrammetry convergent camera geometry is routinely used (for decades), but the backgrounds HAVE to be controlled. Unresolvable crossed over backgrounds with large parallaxes on a flat screen are not cool for comfortable cinematic viewing, but I guess it all depends on what you are doing, and HOW you are doing it! It's that damned flat screen again! I don't think lateral keystoning (from convergent camera geometry) should be a problem if you crop in but I'm sure others would dissagree.

 

[Robert McGee]

I know Avatar didn't come without it's share of problems and look at it now. 2.6 Billion dollars, no movie does that

 

[Eric Lange]

I know Avatar didn't come without it's share of problems and look at it now. 2.6 Billion dollars, no movie does that

Very good point. That's the flick business, it does make money! (or is supposed to...)

OK , here’s a stupid question probably for a different thread, but how much would AVATAR have made if it was a 2D projected movie?

I wonder how many years people will put up with problematic or painful viewing S-3d environments, until they start saying, “Dude I’m seeing the 2D version cause I don’t want to carry my eye balls home in a glass…”. I work with a lot of stereo, and I am somewhat fearfull, or a bit of a chicken when it comes to 3d movies cause I KNOW ITS GONNA HURT! (so I choose not to see them unless I really have to!). [I know that’s a bit off message but on topic].

Cheers,

Eric