Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

3D... SONY, SAMSUNG AND PANASONIC ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG...

Sorry guys, but some time we also need to be a little more realistic to what is available to us and what is the future... ;)

3D is here to stay, is it? Or is it not? I don't know, and I sure know that none of you guys know either he he, so why not just enjoy the moment??

I know I am, and loving it too actually, 3D is a fantastic media, and with AS or PP glasses, I enjoy it both, when is done masterfully... ;)
 
Interested but...

Interested but...

I gotta admit I am VERY curious as to what jim has up his sleeve. I agree completely that AS is NOT the future of 3D. Though to be honest, I haven't enjoyed 3D yet. I find it "immersive" for all of about 5-10 min at the beginning of the film, after which point I just get bored, irritated by the glasses, and not really all that impressed. Not that I don't think it could be amazing, but I haven't seen it. Most of the none industry people I know have actually gone out of their way to either wait for the movie to hit a 2D screen or see it at an old theatre. I am not convinced 3D is entertaining... yet. As for the high Hz TV's, get rid of the horrible vomit inducing motion flow crap. I can barely walk into an electronics shop anymore. Turn it OFF!!!!!!
 
Jannard said:
Watch here for what the future really looks like.

Jim
Click to expand...

The 'changes' thread is back! Jim is getting ready to... well we'll see.

Me, I'm a Luddite. 3D has its place, but it's going to have to get much better - totally 'transparent' for want of a better word - before I buy fully into it - think 'Star Trek holodeck' transparent. Mostly, I want to make & watch *movies*. Good old-fashioned *movies*.

Mike
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
The 'changes' thread is back! Jim is getting ready to... well we'll see.
Click to expand...

It's back up in Recon?

As for 3D...Its hard for me, I can see it having a place. I hate wearing glasses though, everything feels dark and my head hurts the whole time, no matter what kind it is. I've read some interesting things lately on how our brain interprets 3d. And how our eyes and brain together can only interpret so much, and this is why we get headaches. I'll look for a link. I'm really set on 2D for now. I'd love to shoot 3D because it can be cool in a theater environment. I'm just not sure I'd dedicate my whole future of camera gear on it. I'd focus 2D first for the time being until there are no glasses. I'm yet to see 3D without glasses though, something I'd like to see.
 
CHALLENGE: Find a 3D movie that has a great plot/story. Now if you found one, was it a franchise? But more importantly, did 3D really made the film that much better? I think no 3D is the answer, think about headaches etc...It's just too distracting, I sure don't want to wear glasses at home. I would though, once a year, in an Imax while watching something shot for the eye and not for the brain or heart. Like those Hubble movies for example. I thank Christopher Nolan for not making Inception or Dark Knight Rises in 3D, same with David Fincher and his latest films. 3D is also a nightmare for DPs, camera wait, re-alignment, changing mirrors every 3 hours...I admire RED for making the rigs considerably smaller though (just look at an Alexa 3D rig). But in the very end, I personally think it is just not worth the effort.
 
Last edited:
Jannard said:
The "consortium" announced that active glasses are in our future. Not. Samsung, Panasonic and Sony.
Click to expand...

These companies are following, not leading anymore. Just look at Panny and Sony recent camera releases.

I thought 3D was cool and promising until I saw 4K projected on RED's big screen. It's almost already there - the deep focus possibilities are amazing and not evident on my 1080 editing plasma.

Everyone goes on about 35mm sensors and shallow depth of field, but what really slays me about my RED (and now EPIC) cameras is the deep focus possibilities - the amount of detail that can be captured - the layers which are possible with these cameras between foreground and background blew me away.

The future looks most interesting - looking forward to seeing RED pull ace after ace out of their sleeves...
 
Rudi Herbert said:
...and I have to wonder out loud,

Why do people who don't care for 3D keep voicing their opinions on threads where, obviously, the value of 3D is a given, otherwise people would not bother starting such threads at all. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you hate 3D, I get it, and yeah, you are right that most of the 3D done nowadays is, frankly, crap, and you might be right that 3D might, AGAIN, not survive this latest resurgence.

But for the love of God, when people are discussing technical aspects of 3D is because those people probably have a more positive outlook on 3D than you do, so stay out of these discussions please. If you hate 3D, don't bother "contributing" with such gems. Just sit back, relax and wait for 3D's demise to come to pass, that's easy enough...
Click to expand...
Fair point Rudi. I'm certainly not in love with today's 3D, but I am always interested in what the future may bring and that is why I stay openminded about this stuff because we may see huge advances in years to come which blow our minds and change the way stories are told. It may not even be called 3D. So, there have to be stepping stones to get there, and I think that's why your point is valid. It's certainly worth discussing, and certainly worth research and development to advance the tech to a point where it becomes something revolutionary and reaches the masses. That's how progress is made.

The only point I was trying to make in my previous post is that as it stands currently, I find that many people are not sold on 3D in the home. When talking about theaters, that's much more debatable I think. They have seen some success in the theaters.
 
For me the question of 3D as the main delivery format of moving-image story telling is two-fold:

First, the technology needs to be seamless. By that, I mean, the technology must not visibly (or otherwise) interfere with the experience of consuming the content. To me, personally, its not there yet. Having to wear an external object (glasses) is the first significant obstacle. But like others have suggested (and like I have seen with my own two non-glass'ed eyes), the future of glasses-less 3d is just around the corner. Add to that whatever Jim has up his sleeve, and it is only a very short matter of time before this issue, that of the 'artifice' of the technology if you will, will be gone. As resolution and fps playback improve, I'm sure the experience will become more and more 'natural'. And thanks to RED, Element Technica, 3ality and the gang, the camera-operator's language is no longer hindered by the size and weight of the rigs.

Secondly, it is a question of language. Although motion-picture has been around for a relatively short time in terms of the history of art, we humans learn (comparatively) fast. In the last 100 years or so we have developed an incredibly sophisticated cinematic language. 3D simply does not speak the same language as 2D. Its going to take some time for our minds (as audience members) and our minds (as directors) to re-learn the language, and adapt it to that which 3D does well (ie. depth). If the trend continues, its not a question of IF, but WHEN. Unless of course you believe the Right Honourable Walter Murch, and his theory that there is an artificiality to stereography that the human mind is incapable of overcoming (to me the Jury is still out on that one... mind you, seems to me Murch has yet to be wrong on just about anything...).

Just my 2cents.

Either way, Jim and Co. seem to me determined to make the technology of the cinema industry more user AND consumer friendly, and either way, THAT is a good thing.
 
Sony Panasonic and Samsung are my 3 LEAST favorite vendors.

The coolest technology I have seen was in Siggraph 2001.. company called DEEP VIDEO IMAGING developed by a Maori in New Zealand and
was a layered sandwiched transparent LCD display... No glasses and touch screen You could bring background to front and foreground to back with a touch...

I was curious what happened to them... and turns out... IGT gaming bought the tech (or the screens
and now uses it in their VIDEO SLOT GAMES like Wizard of OZ.

Deep Video Imaging was the coolest "GLASS-LESS" Tech I have ever seen...called ACTUAL DEPTH DISPLAY

While it was actually DUAL LAYER 2D - it seemed to be a step in the right direction... if I had $1B - id look into this tech.

The inventor is a mad genius... http://www.elotouch.com/Solutions/CaseStudies/dvi.asp
 
All I know is Jim just bet his reputation on it, and I agree with him active looks good at the moment because passive cuts the resolution in half in vertical lines....but that is quickly changing :)


That and the 3D Oakleys don't work with active. :(
 
Having had a private demonstration of a VERY interesting glassless, any-position-in-the-room stereoscopic monitor prototype at NAB this year, even if Jim didn't grab that particular concept and fold it into Red's plans, I can safely say that the future of glassless stereoscopic monitors is not far away.

I imagine that the principles behind that tech might be modified to use in projection style systems as well down the line, so yeah, I'm fully with Jim on this one.

Can't wait!

Cheers from Japan,

Paul :)
 
What I don't like about passive system is the 30-42% transmission of the polarized glass that knocks the brightness of my 6500 lumen HD projectors down to DIM
especially when the screen is 16-20ft high by 26 - 35ft wide. So, it isn't just resolution- brightness SUFFER a lot.
10K -20K lumen HD projectors are still just a bit pricey.
 
There is a no excuse passive system... coming soon.

Jim
 
JVC and Sony are introducing 4k "consumer" priced displays this week at IFA and next week at CEDIA.

Current "consumer" passive displays have half the resolution of the active counterparts. Hopefully this will change with future generation displays. The head placement on the current Vizio passive displays is really poor. If your head is not locked in a vice, you are not going to get a great 3D experience. Forget about two viewers enjoying the image on a Vizio.

The active displays give me a headache and so suffer from more crosstalk, at least in the flat panel displays. The Sony and JVC projectors have much less crosstalk.
 
Hmmm, strong believer in passive for the longest time!!
Just wondering how you'll get over the the resolution and the head-tilt problems :p

Interesting to see where this goes.

Coming soon as in how soon?
Give us something to work with Jim!!!
The suspense surrounding this is killing me, like evry other announcement from Red :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top