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 :)

Is 3D dying

You are all aware that all of the live action in "Gravity" was shot in 2D and converted, aren't you? As with Avatar, the vast majority of the images on the screen are CGI, so that's less significant than it would be in a more typical picture. And, yes, the Cuaron did consider the 3D release while it was being made, but it is not a live action stereoscopic production.
 
M Most said:
You are all aware that all of the live action in "Gravity" was shot in 2D and converted, aren't you? As with Avatar, the vast majority of the images on the screen are CGI, so that's less significant than it would be in a more typical picture. And, yes, the Cuaron did consider the 3D release while it was being made, but it is not a live action stereoscopic production.
Click to expand...

Converting 2D to 3D means zero stereoscopic specular effects. Effects which can only be observed in Realistic 3D content.
No environment reflections no transparencies no sparkling and all looks like made of textured matte paper.
 
I'm aware, but to be honest I'm not really sure there was any "live action". It was almost exclusively cgi, so the choice to capture in stereo vs post convert didn't really make any difference in this case.

And to the point of this thread, I don't think it makes a difference either.
 
Alec Morris said:
I'm aware, but to be honest I'm not really sure there was any "live action". It was almost exclusively cgi, so the choice to capture in stereo vs post convert didn't really make any difference in this case.

And to the point of this thread, I don't think it makes a difference either.
Click to expand...

CGI stereoscopic 3D rendering yields perfect Realistic 3D content with all known stereoscopic specular effects in place.
 
Last edited:
Alec Morris said:
Excuse me? I was responding to Mike about post conversion. If you are going to be rude you should make sure you are correct first.

If hardly anything is captured live, it doesn't really make a difference.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. I've deleted the erroneous quote.
 
Thanks. Honest mistake.

I think I've seen pictures of the realistic 3D device you built (I'm pretty sure that was you). Do you have any stereo footage online?
 
Alec Morris said:
Thanks. Honest mistake.

I think I've seen pictures of the realistic 3D device you built (I'm pretty sure that was you). Do you have any stereo footage online?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is formatted for 30 inch screen so to see it on different screen size one need to use floating window feature AKA depth adjustment on some software players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqqbVhYrjyA
 
I saw Gravity in 3D on Friday at the Cinerama in Seattle, which, if you don't know, is an incredibly well done and simply spectacular theater. I honestly can't imagine seeing this movie any other way. Simply phenomenal, and the absolute best use of 3D I have ever witnessed!

This film is a work of art; and the 3D completely serves the story, taking it to another level entirely. I've never been a big fan of 3D, but this movie has completely changed my thinking!
 
watched it again.

simply amazing work in both CG and 3D.
 
Les Dittert said:
I watched that as 1080 ( one eye ) and it looked incredibly soft. Not even 1280 real resolution. Care to comment on what's going on ?
Click to expand...
YouTube streaming is not at original resolution. Best download the movie and then play using software or hardware S3D player.
 
Last edited:
If they keep making "event" pictures like Gravity, there'll always be a place for 3D, particularly for movies that are this spectacular and immersive.
 
Les Dittert said:
I watched that as 1080 ( one eye ) and it looked incredibly soft. Not even 1280 real resolution. Care to comment on what's going on ?
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree the footage is soft, however, it is certainly clearer in 3D. It's quite an interesting phenomenon which I believe has to do with how the brain interprets the 2 images. Try watching 4k or looking at the world with one eye closed, it looks softer compared to viewing it with 2 eyes. The perceived resolution of 1080p 3D (1920x1080 per eye) is greater than 2D 1080p. How much clearer is only speculation, but I'd have a guess and say 3D 720p (1280x720 per eye) is every bit as clear as 2D 1080.
 
If there was a one camera + one lens 3d solution I think that 3d doesn't have to die, it would be an option like subtitles or a different language thing. If you prefer to watch the thing in 3d then you switch it on or off if you don't want to?

I guess you can get easy 3d images from Light field cameras but they have a long way to shoot video..
 
Emir Aksay said:
If there was a one camera + one lens 3d solution I think that 3d doesn't have to die, it would be an option like subtitles or a different language thing. If you prefer to watch the thing in 3d then you switch it on or off if you don't want to?

I guess you can get easy 3d images from Light field cameras but they have a long way to shoot video..
Click to expand...

Self promotion, Emir?
 
3D will always be around until the idea is replaced by holographic films. Now look at the market, last year was a big 3D year. I'd say 80% of movie goers could care less though and look at this year. Much less. So we'll see films with 3D for years to come but I wouldn't expect it to consume a large portion of the market.

I happy the hype has died down.

Now what about 48FPS? When Jim said 48P is the new thing... I knew in my gut he was wrong. For sports, sure, it's fun but people have enjoyed watching feature films in 24 frames per second for a long time and will continue for a long time to come. In fact, since silent film days to now, one consistent trait of all films has been the presence of 24 frames in one second of viewing.
 
Will Keir said:
3D will always be around until the idea is replaced by holographic films.
Click to expand...

Ugh...holographic movies would totally suck. Besides the subjective point of view, which in theory is somewhat interesting, I can't imagine the eyestrain. People complain about 3d... viewing holography in a dark room for 2 hours would be unbearable.

Found this article on the subject: http://news.discovery.com/tech/holographic-3d-tv.htm

...what a bad idea
 
I see it differently. It would be like watching a live play but with all the glory, effects, and locations of films. Maybe even shown on a raked stage. Do your eyes strain in normal life? Or when you watch a play? Holograms are coming.

Matt Hall said:
Ugh...holographic movies would totally suck. Besides the subjective point of view, which in theory is somewhat interesting, I can't imagine the eyestrain. People complain about 3d... viewing holography in a dark room for 2 hours would be unbearable.

Found this article on the subject: http://news.discovery.com/tech/holographic-3d-tv.htm

...what a bad idea
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top