Is 3-D Dead? Slate article

[Poi Boy]

it's not glasses at all.
-A

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I really don't see it seriously changing until there is actual 3D. Not stereoscopy. But, once again, just my opinion.

I am not sure I understand you ... are you complaining about the acquisition technology, or the display technology or both?

In any case ... we differ, but hey, that's why they are called opinions.

Stereo is how we see 3D in the real world. If well executed its a good way to make a film. If you need "full 3D volume acquisition" well 3D animation sort of fits ... does that make you happier than photographic S3D?

If you are talking about displays, well I agree.

Glasses are bad, but what is really pissing off consumers in the home is these expensive active glasses. If you must have glasses ... then passive is where its at. Ideally Real3D passive, so we can use those nice Gascans Jim's other venture sells.

Ultimately we need autostereoscopic displays like the Nintendo 3DS but obviously massively larger , and with a stronger 3D effect.

But that's just my opinion.

Here is a fact that should make you think long and hard even if you agree with Mike Most 100% ... if you shoot 2D today, your film may one day be "3D-ified" and probably poorly so.

If you shoot 3D today, then because you gathered stereo data and appropriate metadata .... then no matter what the future technology, we'll be able to computationally generate a real 3D view with relatively high fidelity.

 

[M Most]

I am not sure I understand you ... are you complaining about the acquisition technology, or the display technology or both?

In any case ... we differ, but hey, that's why they are called opinions.

Stereo is how we see 3D in the real world. If well executed its a good way to make a film. If you need "full 3D volume acquisition" well 3D animation sort of fits ... does that make you happier than photographic S3D?

Actual 3D would mean that the viewer can acquire different perspectives by changing their viewing angle. That's what I mean by "3D" vs. "stereoscopy." In stereoscopy, you are using two 2D images to get the brain to perceive depth. But the viewer can only see it from the perspective that the 2D images were photographed from. Moving left or right doesn't reveal any more information because the world being looked at is still a 2D world, unlike the real world. That is why stereoscopy is not 3D, and it's also why it hurts many people to view it for any length of time. Think of what claustrophobia is. Same idea. Real 3D would require either a form of holography or some currently unknown technology that accomplishes the same thing. That's not what we have now, unless you're talking about immersive, augmented reality situations. And all of those currently require immersive goggles, and only work with CG rendered environments.

Here is a fact that should make you think long and hard even if you agree with Mike Most 100% ... if you shoot 2D today, your film may one day be "3D-ified" and probably poorly so.

If you shoot 3D today, then because you gathered stereo data and appropriate metadata .... then no matter what the future technology, we'll be able to computationally generate a real 3D view with relatively high fidelity.

I don't see the point of this kind of FUD, just as I don't really agree with the 4K FUD. You're not likely to convince anyone who isn't already interested to do 3D production because of some fear of what the future might or might not bring. This is a business, and the here and now is what most would consider a bit more important. That's why the vast majority of TV shows are being shot in HD resolution this year, and it's why the vast majority of production is still 2D. If you make it just as simple, fluid, and cheap to create 3D as it is to do 2D you might convince some, but that's just not the case today, nor is it likely to be the case in the near future. At least with 4K, there is no real difference in terms of production, which is where the larger sums of money are spent. The difference is in post production, which is far less significant money-wise, and flexible enough to forego the 4K finishing steps if they're not needed. Stereoscopy requires a lot more attention in both production and post, a very different situation.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

I'm still waiting for Uwe Boll's 3-D remake of Chinatown. Supposedly he's setting it in modern-day LA. Don't know how they'll do the water/irrigation theme, since that was 80 years ago. If I recall correctly, Jean-Claude van Damme, Jennifer Lopez, and Max von Sydow were under consideration, but that was a couple of years ago. Should be super.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Actual 3D would mean that the viewer can acquire different perspectives by changing their viewing angle. That's what I mean by "3D" vs. "stereoscopy." In stereoscopy, you are using two 2D images to get the brain to perceive depth. But the viewer can only see it from the perspective that the 2D images were photographed from. Moving left or right doesn't reveal any more information because the world being looked at is still a 2D world, unlike the real world. That is why stereoscopy is not 3D, and it's also why it hurts many people to view it for any length of time. Think of what claustrophobia is. Same idea. Real 3D would require either a form of holography or some currently unknown technology that accomplishes the same thing.

Mike, as usual, I agree with you. A couple thoughts:

DISPLAY
1. Paul Dubevec's setup with pico projectors... Imagine that instead of each pixel having one color, each pixel is actually a projector... which has different values depending on where you're looking from. Or you can simplify by making each projector responsible for a vertical slice (if you assume that horizontal 3D is all that's needed)
http://ict.usc.edu/pubs/Prototyping...ct Observation of a Video Projector Array.pdf

2. MIT's stuff with layered LCDs and interference patterns. They don't just do 2 views!
http://web.media.mit.edu/~mhirsch/hr3d/

CAPTURE
In the future, limited "real 3D" could be synthesized (probably with some artistic guidance) from stereo 3D. From the parallax info you could reconstruct the actual 3D scene / morph between the two captured views to create intermediate views to some extent. Sure there are issues, but it would be much easier starting from, say, a 48fps stereo signal than from a mono 24fps signal.

Then even current lenticular displays could show many discrete views instead of just 2, for example. Would fix some problems, for sure.

Personally, I suspect that we might move to 3 camera "tri-stereo" to shoot entertainment in the future. Since different display sizes ideally need different interoculars (portable 3D device, 3D TV and 3D cinema screen) AND since there will also be multi-view "real 3D" displays which need as much depth / parallax info as possible to recreate the full scene... why not just shoot 3D with three cameras?

eg:
[CAM A] <- short distance -> [CAM B] <- longer distance -> [CAM C]

Then you have:
short interocular: CAM A -> CAM B
mid interocular: CAM B -> CAM C
large interocular: CAM A -> CAM C

But then... shooting stereo and converting to true 3D with some 3D geometry reconstruction might turn out to be cheaper than shooting with 3 cameras.

I'm surprised stereo stock footage isn't already shot this way, to be honest. If you're shooting pyro, why not get 3 cams on it instead of 2? It'd suck to watch the playback and be like "oh damn, wish the interocular was a little closer / wider".

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Ryan Farnes]

I lament the fact that the Andy Griffith Show will never be 4K 3D.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Meanwhile, Lion King 3D absolutely dominated the box office this weekend...

I don't think 3D had anything to do with it. "Special Edition Re-Release 2D" would have done the same.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Well, Jarek, given the steep price premium of 3D or 2D, why is it that 92% of Lion King viewers watched the movie in 3D? Seems like if 3D was dying, more people would have chosen to see it in 2D, if for no other reason that to save a few bucks or avoid these much-talked-about 3D headaches?

For me, personally, I would not be going to see this film if it was in 2D. Because it's in 3D, I will actually go to the theater and see it. So, at least $12 is coming from me, so there's a difference right there!