Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is 3D definitely dead ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dpalomaki
    replied
    Brings to mind the 3D scans the dentist makes when documenting for a crown, or the foot scan the podiatrist takes to make a shoe insert. But I believe these are scans that result in 3D solid models rather than a pair of 2D moving images relying on parallax. The article from 12 years ago is interesting - the mix of unbridled optimism and skepticism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim N
    replied
    For applied applications in research environments where I work there's no doubt stereo TV reveals more information in video than 2D. The ability to discern relative depth and better understand positional relationships can be important when recording technical subjects. Evolution equipped us with stereo vision cause it made us better hunters. There are things going on in our brains in terms of image perception with stereo that depth cues from 2D cant match! For me it's a big shame this area is not a big enough market.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Lewis
    replied
    Ive still got my TD10 maybe in 5 years time i can fire it up again. Fortunatly its a dam good 2d hd camera as well ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry
    replied
    Believe it or not, Porn utilization drives the industry. That's how VHS beat Beta and BluRay beat HD-DVD.
    If it catches on in Porn it somehow influences the industry. 3D just didn't catch on.
    https://www.networkworld.com/article...-3d-video.html

    Leave a comment:


  • dpalomaki
    replied
    Canon developed a 3D lens for their L2 Hi8 camcorder in the 1990s, it never really hit the market place, at least not in the USA.. Saw it demoed at a trade show in NYC with VR headset. Interesting, but quality was not great. I do believe it works better for near subjects. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't caught on in the adult entertainment business.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry C
    replied
    Originally posted by BernH View Post

    I don't have a problem with elements being pulled in front of the screen. I have issues when it is excessive to the point where it doesn't feel real, causing size and perspective to get thrown off, or when it is used as the afore mentioned "poke you in the eye" gimmick (by that I litterally something coming out of the screen trying to poke you in the eye).
    Agreed. When used well it adds, when used poorly, it's more something which might still appeal to kids, teenagers, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • BernH
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry C View Post
    Hi Bern,
    In regard to increased depth with content in front of the screen- negative parallax- I generally have no problem with it depending on why it is being used. In fact, when used in the PROPER CONTEXT it can tremendously add to the realism and immersive experience.
    I don't have a problem with elements being pulled in front of the screen. I have issues when it is excessive to the point where it doesn't feel real, causing size and perspective to get thrown off, or when it is used as the afore mentioned "poke you in the eye" gimmick (by that I litterally something coming out of the screen trying to poke you in the eye).

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry C
    replied
    Definitely agree, for it to ever be successful again for TV viewing, glasses free viewing will be essential. Not holding my breath tor that to happen. However, it is definitely alive and quite possibly soon to substantially grow in the VR headset world. Personally, I think for those things to ever look really good, 8K will probably be required.

    Leave a comment:


  • DigitalDave
    replied
    Originally posted by BernH View Post

    I will also add, that my take on 3D, just like most things, is best summed up by a favorite saying of mine.... Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
    Cue Leonard Cohen singing Hallelujah.
    From a UK TV perspective, as opposed to Cinema, I witnessed lots of lemmings that were going to produce 3D content for Weddings and corporate from, lets face quite basic kit. Now whilst a 3D Go Pro rig might be fun to play with and a £1000 3D camera might give a level of results it was always going to have limitations or be pretty inferior.
    More importantly, there are the limitations and inconvenience of wearing 3D specs, not to mention well documented papers that showed one in four people suffered headaches. I corporate work, are you going to hand out 500 pairs of specs to watch the conference Kick Off video- I think not. You arrive at the HQ of a multi-national company and there are screens in the impressive reception area...collect your specs from the reception desk- I think not!
    Sky were doing a lot of 3D Music Festival coverage but if I recall 30% could be 2D. WTF? Within 2 years or so they pulled the plug, the BBC trials including Wimbledon Tennis had also come to nothing and soon a 3D TV in a retailer Joined the ranks of Dodos and Dinosaurs. Al the "must have" customers basically had nothing to watch.
    3D may not be dead in the Cinema but on a domestic TV of course it is until new technology produces SpecFree -Headache Free viewing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry C
    replied
    Hi Bern,
    In regard to increased depth with content in front of the screen- negative parallax- I generally have no problem with it depending on why it is being used. In fact, when used in the PROPER CONTEXT it can tremendously add to the realism and immersive experience.

    Several years back, I recall some intense exchanges on another 3D content creator forum with those whom I characterized as "3D purists." They were very much hung up on the traditional dogma that 3D content MUST ALWAYS stay behind and never in front of the screen window, and that "windows violations" were sacrilege. I, of course, disagreed. Most of my experience shooting 3D has been underwater. It took a couple of years to really perfect a good 3D workflow which was intended to maximize the immersive experience of actually being underwater in a three dimensional environment. This at times meant swimming in schools of fish where some of them were a foot or so from the lens. Or, being very close to sharks doing close swimmbys. When watching later in 3D, the subjects were often well in front of the screen plane at times where you felt like you could actually reach out and touch them. This, of course, created a much more realistic presentation of what it was like actually being down there. If I had followed the purists dogma, the viewing experience would have been more like a trip to the aquarium- looking at them through a window, rather than being with them.

    Again, just my own opinion, but I STRONGLY believe after reading comments and talking to a lot of people, that one of the main reasons 3D flopped- besides the obviously flawed rollout issues in both hardware and content- was not because there was too much "popout," to use the layman's term, but because there was too little. Rightly or wrongly, the general public wanted their 3D movie experience to be more 3Dish, and not less.

    Leave a comment:


  • BernH
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry C View Post
    I think it can add a lot to some films. ...... However, there are also some films where it really wouldn't matter much.
    Agreed Barry, I am not a lover of 3D most of the time because it is usually nothing more than a gimmick used to get asses in the seats of the theaters or a "novelty" used to drive sales of TV's and Blu-Rays.

    Most dramas, comedys, actions, kid's movies, etc. don't really benefit from 3D, in that it doesn't do anything to really add to the story or experience. I can see it's benefit in some fantasy/sci-fi, maybe some action, and some documentary work if trying to immerse the viewer in the environment is the goal, but I actually find it distracting the way it is used a lot of the time, because the depth is often over exaggerated or they are trying to use those "poke you in the eye" gimmicks. Essentially my view is that if it adds to the experience or helps immerse me in the story I'm ok with it. Over exaggerated depth and gimmicks that are trying to poke me in the eye don't immerse me in the story, but instead throw me out of it.

    The best 3D example I ever saw was at the Sony booth at NAB one year when 3D was on one of it's resurgences. I can't remember who was doing it, but he showed what good 3D should be like, adding just enough depth to make it look natural and feel real. He then contrasted it with the way most are using it, where the depth is exaggerated, and I must say the "real" setup was comfortable to look at and felt right, while the common setup made the brain work a little too hard to make sense of it because it didn't look natural.

    I will also add, that my take on 3D, just like most things, is best summed up by a favorite saying of mine.... Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry C
    replied
    I think it can add a lot to some films. Last night, my son and I started watching the extended,-extra scenes- version of Avatar, on a bluray I just bought. We've watched the 3D version several times on our projector, 10' screen home theater. We both agreed that it was weird to see it in 2D, as it looked flat as day old beer. ? It was nowhere near as enjoyable of an experience as watching it in 3D. Huge difference!! Cameron designed and intended the movie to be a 3D experience. He was right! I can also say- IMO- underwater films are MUCH BETTER, when properly filmed' in 3D. It's a much more realistic and immerse experience. I dove for almost 50 years and made underwater films, and 3D greatly adds to the viewing experience. However, there are also some films where it really wouldn't matter much.

    Leave a comment:


  • dpalomaki
    replied
    I went to the Disney demo at EPCOT in the 1970s. Fun to see the butterfly landing on one's nose. The 1950s experiments in theaters didn't last, nor did the red/blue line attempts in comic books. But one of the B&W grade B horror films extended the gimmick a bit. Not 3D on the screen but 3D in the theater; a skeleton came out of a coffin at the side of the stage and was pulled over the orchestra on a wire then returned to the box. Thus they could claim 3D action. DIdn't the NFL experiment with some technique to add "depth" to the 2D flat screen image 15 or so years back? Having seen a few recent 3D on the big screen it is OK, but IMO not necessary to enjoy a good film.

    Leave a comment:


  • rackaouy
    commented on 's reply
    It would work but it writes on a memory card, not in a file like AVHD 3D exporter Plug In...

  • JohnnyD
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry C View Post
    It's not dead, but back in hibernation. About every 15 or 20 years or so, it comes out of hibernation for awhile.
    Maybe in 10 years from now 3D will come roaring back- for a year or two. ?
    Another 3D luddite here! Started with it in the 1970s with a 35mm 3D Realist.
    Yep, had Realist too. I later shot 35mm and had 4 Ektagraphics 2+2 with polarizers in front of the lens,, all sync with AVL dissolve units..It was my art form. A client saw it and he wanted to use 3D on a big dancing show in a Atlantic City hotel. Jeff Kutash Dancing Machine. Fun days.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X