Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Some observations about 3D

Sorry to be a hassle but this should really be posted in the "3D" section of the forum or under the "I just saw Avatar" thread.

Having said that, 3D seems to affect people differently. I had no motion sickness personally and I thought that the film was largely lacking fast cut sequences.

The problem with fast motion in 3D is the frame rate. Whereas 24p 180 degrees shutter angle looks natural to the human eye in 2D it's not the same in 3D. 48fps would reduce motion stutter which may help your motion sickness.
 
IMHO, this was actually just the first movie I saw, where the 3D effect wasn't overexagerated.. I think it's just an example of how it should be.
There was never a moment where I thought they were pushing the limits to show off how cool stereo is... For me this was the best i've seen until now...
 
Its okay Eren it will be moved by a MOD if tough appropriate, but I guess in Off Topic everything goes :~).



3D, even so very different form the 2D motion movement, follows pretty much every single rule, as 2D, you can have back ground and or foreground out focus, just that it needs to be more carefully executed, and yes faster moving focus, will be exaggerated in 3D, shallow DOF, is also a great tool even in 3D, again it must be properly used, as just it is so in 2D, were to make sense of its use, and cause of the sense and feel of the added layers of surroundings, in 3D more caution is needed when focusing on either BG or FG, but both can be used as well as every single tool in the book.

I believe that there are times when you just shot the movie as if it was 2D and not worry about the ins and outs of 3D, and for others you must absolutely take in count the final look in 3D, as some actions and some focusing tricks will simply not work in 3D as well as they do in 2D and this is also true vice versa, so ultimately experience and trial and error teaches each what can be achieved, what should be avoided and what could be implemented and or augmented to better create original material and effects.

The field of 3D is so vast that so much room is presented to the true artist to embellish his/her story with visually intriguing effects, scenes, movements, and in and out of focus subjects and objects, as well as not only how the shot and or scene is focused by the lens, but by the two cameras are placed and or moved to achieve the shots.

3D is an art in the art, and those that do not master it, will bring to life Films that with not only be poor but will cause motion sickness and or worst.

oOn the other hand 3D does provide for magical sense of our world as we are accustom to in real life, so giving a much larger stimulus to our senses, making it more engaging, and fulfilling experience, as well as giving all of the power to our stories and our characters.

This are my opinions of 3D, possibly not well put as my language does create some barriers, her and there, and some terminologies are learned in other languages then auto translated :~) but hope I made my points on how I see 3D, but most importantly I look to bring my 3D projects to life in the way I believe people should and need to be involved and be taken deep in to the story and participate as if they were truly there, to cry, laugh, and stand in fear,a s well as share the happiness of their favorite character.
 
tillHavis said:
Slow tracking shots looked great rapid movement caused (for me) motion sickness. This seems exagerated in 3D. I do not like the jerky video style of video games and this was evident in Avatar.

This is going to be contentious, but from what I have seen 3D is actually going to be a more enjoyable for static, landscape, slow moving (for want of a better word movies) imagine the next 2001 shot in 3D. For me the excessive speed of action, rapid movement and objects flying at the camera held less impact because of overuse and caused me to be distracted and disconnected me from the movie.
Click to expand...

This issue depends on temporal resolution which is currently insufficient for 3D experience. As motion increases eye perceives unnatural lack of motion clarity, and brain looses or gets reduced depth reference points. This varies from person to person but it's unavoidable at frame rates this low. Whether it's strobing or motion blur @ 24p, it is not natural for 3D experience. Cameron wanted to shoot in high fps because he was well aware of this issue.

3D will not be that limited once frame rates go up.
 
I think 2 things are needed for 3D. Higher resolution and higher frame rates.

I like 24p. And I've never been bothered by anything more than 720p but Avatar made me want both.

I think completely going deep focus is bad because then I get double-vision and nothing blends well. Similarly really shallow focus makes it difficult for my eyes to find the focal point if it isn't obvious and that causes a bit of eye strain. So I think F/6 on a 28mm (s35) is the sweet spot.

Over the shoulder shots seem to be the most distracting coverage possible since there is a weird dark wedge in the corner of the frame drawing attention to the border.
 
Yes it was very crisp, and actually brought a very distinct sharpness to the images, I wish better glasses were given, but my Imax 3D experience for Avatar was nothing short of WOW, despite the absolutely ridiculous careless way of collecting the shades, which in turn were al scratched up and didn't allow for a true enjoying visual experience as it should have been, still, again even so it was amazing to experience.

Hopefully soon in off there will be a general agreement on the type of 3D glasses to use and we can each purchase our own pair, and take care of them and bring them with us, as to have a nice clean pair of glasses to enjoy our 3D movies with.
 
Frankly. I think the work on Avatar was pretty good. But I did not get to enjoy the 3D as much as I did on Valentine. I personally like Valentine a lot better as far as the over all experience, they manged to use the 3D in real world a lot better that made you value the 3D more. I felt like Avatar required 3D otherwise it would not have been as real, I'm tempted to see it in 2D. I felt like the depth of the 3D in avatar was very crushed where as the 3D in Valentine felt far more natural. Regardless of the use of the outties here or there, which where not overly used in Valentine, and non existent in avatar. I also think that Valentine benefited for being mostly shot on RED with far greater resolution than Avatar had even if it was finished at 1080P or 2K.

Those are my thoughts.
 
Of course, remember, we're talking about stereo here, not 3D. Stereo give an illusion of 3D, but it's not 3D....

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Of course, remember, we're talking about stereo here, not 3D. Stereo give an illusion of 3D, but it's not 3D....

Graeme
Click to expand...

I'm confused, right I agree first off, but your thought or point here? Are you suggesting that real 3D some how could be captured and displayed(some day)?
 
Graeme
Aren't you splitting hairs here? I mean, the only way we can perceive 3-d is through our stereoscopic vision. We only have two eyes and their distance from each other in the skull is pretty firmly established. True 3-d could only be created with genuine reality, where you would actually bump into things. This sounds more like a drug experience than a cinematic technique (not that I would know)...
 
There are different three dimensional ways of capture and display.

When S3D is mentioned, it is referred to for the camera rig to be located side to side, yet in this there is also a very large difference when the rig is static, which means that the two cameras once positioned at the desired Interocular distance, they will not move, as they are secured in such a position, then the other way, the absolute best way in S3D, is when the two cameras are placed side by side, on rails which allow for both Interocular movement as well as Convergence movement allowing for the point of focus to be creatively chosen by the positioning of the two axis.

3D is referred when the two cameras are placed in an "L" shape position were the image of the two camera converges in to the same beam splitter mirror, this type of set up even so not favorable for all type of shots, does have a far more control over the shooting range of positioning, especially for the close up shot.


But to me what is most interesting is how some people are starting to really focusing in saying, the do and don'ts of 3D instead of saying when to do and when to not, which for me is what the creative art of Storytelling should be all about, just that off course in both 3D and S3D this tools must be carefully used not to get any one seek, he he.
 
3D holographic projection was demonstrated in a very small way at NAB last year. That would be true 3D where moving the head would alter the view allowing you to see around objects, and they're not projected onto a flat surface, but into space.

With projected stereo although the appearance of objects is closer or further the focal plain remains on the screen, and movement of the head doesn't allow you to see around things.

I don't think it's splitting at hairs to suggest that stereo != 3d.

Graeme
 
Yes Graeme Holographic media is in deed the true 3D media, as in everything else the term 3D is been utilized in Cinema under the 30 degree left and right of the subject filmed in order to create such an illusion of three dimensionality, Holographic 360 degree points of view will be surely an other experience all together when that will be suitable for Filmmaking.
 
But Gavin is right; I watched Avatar on Monday in an Imax theatre. And I get headaches from the stereoscopic images. I was trying to find out why and my solution is the following:

With a huge image like that of an Imax screen combined with a wide screen production my eyes tend to "meander" around the frame to pick up stuff in the background or foreground, some place where the focal plane might not be at that particular moment. Then the eye tries to compensate with its lenses; and they try hard because the focus doesn't change no matter how hard they try. And THAT gives me headaches. I used to wear glasses when I was a kid (don't need them anymore) and when I forget to use them back then I got the same kind of headache in the evening when my eyes grew tired of compensating.
After an hour of the movie I was fine but before that it was annoying.

That being said I quite enjoyed Avatar. :)
 
Graeme Nattress said:
3D holographic projection was demonstrated in a very small way at NAB last year. That would be true 3D where moving the head would alter the view allowing you to see around objects, and they're not projected onto a flat surface, but into space.
Graeme
Click to expand...

Yeah but in reality, when do we ever move our heads around to see around an object? Certainly a vista of a landscape doesnt change its dimensionality when you look around. Isnt it for all intents and purposes, 3D? That is unless we intend to as an audience, walk around in the theatre... Even "3D" Theatre performances appear less three dimensional than say Avatar... Do we need true three dimensionality?
 
Well, it's more than that - it's how in reality we can shift our focus, and how objects are in different focus planes, whereas in stereo objects that are near or far all occupy the same focus plane.

Indeed, a landscape doesn't move much as we move out heads, but if we're viewing the landscape framed by the branches of a nearby tree, we should see the proper parallax shift as we move out heads. We're constantly moving our heads, and because stereo doesn't react right, it's less real, and the single focus plane is said to be the cause of eye strain in stereo viewing.

Do we need it? Nope - because normal 2d movies work just fine. However, stereo needs to be 3d so we can ditch the glasses, and focus ourselves on what we wish to, not a single plane.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top