3D: tech and content

[Paroxysm]

I think its a fair assesment.
conveying actual depth-information on a regular basis imhjo will be as "standart" as colorscreens are now, and i imagine the customers of that will look at 2d pictures the same way we look at black and white now.


Bullshit. Show me one example of how 3d ads to the cinematic language. What possibilities does 3d allow? It's a fun gimmick now and then but comparing it to the b&w to colour transition is ridiculous.

[Pansa]

Bullshit. Show me one example of how 3d ads to the cinematic language. What possibilities does 3d allow? It's a fun gimmick now and then but comparing it to the b&w to colour transition is ridiculous.
i don'T know about the cinematic language, but i argue that 3d in itself is a technique that will make whats happening more viceral and relateable.

And i would argue that in the beginning stereo didn't add much in terms of changing how music was done, but still had a huge impact on the listening experience.

Later with "artificial" mixing it was elevated from "enhanced realism" to editing tool to create nonreal experience and change the way music was created.
I believe the same will happen with 3D.

I would agree that the 3d expirience and 3d media aren't revolutionizing what movies are right now, but this is just the beginnig. In hindsight 2d vs 3d will be equaly of impact as mono to stereo or b&w to colour.

Even with B&w to colour i would argue that in the beginning it was "just" an added level of realism, later followed by more ideas how colours would change moods aso.

I gave an example where 3d would greatly change the limits, and that would be psychadelic art instalations, there is a huge difference in impact of 2d animations vs 3d volumetric virtual exibitions.

But we won't see much experimentation until the hardware will be more mainstream.

If you can see the unquestionable impact that 3d displays will have in engeniering jobs or medical procedures or even visual representation of Data, you should be able to agree that 3D in visual art will be important to convey visual information better and more comprehensibly.

[Paroxysm]

An actual 3d display is a totally different thing to a stereoscopic movie and could lend itself to totally revolutionary artworks and applications like your examples. The illusion of 3d on a 2d plane however is utterly pointless aside from having a laugh when they start juggling apples towards the camera (Friday the 13th 3D).

[Pansa]

An actual 3d display is a totally different thing to a stereoscopic movie and could lend itself to totally revolutionary artworks and applications like your examples. The illusion of 3d on a 2d plane however is utterly pointless aside from having a laugh when they start juggling apples towards the camera (Friday the 13th 3D).

I disagree on a significant difference between a "true 3d display" whatever that is.

Additionaly i disagree with the definition "illusion of 3d on a 2d plain"
Id name it a 2d byproxy to send a 3d signal to your eyes. Yes the screen is a problem with lensefocus. (essentialy like a mirror)

Maybe you mistook my argument, i didn't argue that THIS movie will singlehandedly revolutionise everything over night.
I just pointed out that we haven'T even REALY started with 3D, and i believe it will be the mainstream in a couple of years, and kids growing up that way will look at colour 2d the way we look at b&w. some of them are great, but boy that was a limitation.

The way sometimes old movies seem to slow or new to hectic, 3D will be "normal" and 2d "well its a great old movie, but they'd do that differently today"

most people listen to mono sound or watch B&W despite of their limitations, some even BECAUSE, but its never realy a question whether they are generaly better. in specific cases it may be the better suited way, but we use them as statments for a specific effect.

lastly, i disagree that its only for "throw something at the audience" gags.
Thats a gross understatment to what even the new systems can achieve, actualy they don'T realy work for me for those.
But what goes on beyond the silverscreen is just amazing, if done right.
It can literaly be the window into a real strange different world.
Its not JUST a gag, unless implemented as such, the panicing masses in "monsters and aliens" where "different" in 3d as in 2d, so where the aircombat scenes. (not that it saved the movie, but i only went there for the 3d, so.. (was the first that i could catch over here)

think about 3d sportscoverage?

[Paroxysm]

I disagree on a significant difference between a "true 3d display" whatever that is.

A true 3d display is something that creates a virtual object. Like a hologram.


I just pointed out that we haven'T even REALY started with 3D, and i believe it will be the mainstream in a couple of years, and kids growing up that way will look at colour 2d the way we look at b&w. some of them are great, but boy that was a limitation.

They have tried to push 3d for the last few decades and it never goes mainstream. Why? Because they still can't come up with a good argument for its actual usefulness.


lastly, i disagree that its only for "throw something at the audience" gags.
Thats a gross understatment to what even the new systems can achieve, actualy they don'T realy work for me for those.

Eh I've seen a lot of 3d movies and I've still seen nothgin to convince me of any other untapped potential.

[But what goes on beyond the silverscreen is just amazing, if done right.It can literaly be the window into a real strange different world.

Not without head tracking it can't. It's just a incredibly limited illusion. And I'm not suggesting that as something that would benefit cinema.

think about 3d sportscoverage?What about it? Sporting events are shot wide with the only consideration being capturing the broad action. 3D would add almost nothing

[Paroxysm]

It's silly of me to be so ranty about things that haven't happened yet though. I can't know. It just pisses me off :P

[Pansa]

A true 3d display is something that creates a virtual object. Like a hologram.
Which will have its own limitations and except for the removal of the contradiction of the focusplane imho no actual benefit, if at all for things close to you, and i question wether that will be a tech possible.
Imho giving your eyes two virtual pictures or creating an "object" that supplys you brain with two images is virtualy the same.
granted the now used tech has some issues, but it is close enough to push the whole thing.

They have tried to push 3d for the last few decades and it never goes mainstream. Why? Because they still can't come up with a good argument for its actual usefulness.

Thats because due to the hassle of creating one, and the lack of broad audience brought up by very view possibilitys to do it without optic desrupting colour-glasses nobody realy bothered except for the novelty-gags.

In abstract thought its an additional dimension, additional information stored within the media to experience.
One could argue that our brains are pretty handy in "inventing" 3d information where non is on basis of timesensitive movement (when he moved in time x from a to b hes probably z away) and stuff, but actualy seeing something in 3D is something entirely else.

Additionaly with the rise of cgi as content creation its become encreasingly easier to create 3d imagery,

Eh I've seen a lot of 3d movies and I've still seen nothgin to convince me of any other untapped potential.

I have seen ONE (since it never took of over here), and while i found all the novelty gags to not matter and be gimmicky, i caught glimpses at situations where just being 3D instead of "creating a special 3d effect for the audience" enhanced the viewing expirience vastly.

Monsters vs aliens had a typical "independence day" aerial fight stand-off, which massivly gained by being 3D, not because cool stuff came out of the screen, but because the looming fortress of doom didn'T "just" look "far away" but it seemed like realy a specific long way away.

additionaly i experimented with the revelator back then, and appart from the fact that almost no games where DESIGNED for 3D, which made 99% fall into the "o wow , we didn'T think 2d objects would make a problem" eliminating the use of crosshairs , huds aso. making it impossible to actualy PLAY most ofg the games, the visual effect itself was STUNNING.


Not without head tracking it can't. It's just a incredibly limited illusion. And I'm not suggesting that as something that would benefit cinema.

What about it? Sporting events are shot wide with the only consideration being capturing the broad action. 3D would add almost nothing

1. With headtracking you almost need no 3d screen anymore, if you enable headtracking and alter 2d imagry acordingly to the calculated 3d model, you expierience 3D. even without supplying to sets of pictures.

like here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

ANd for sporting events, almost any "object" sport (ballsports, pucs, spears...) there will be moments where the object is "untangled" from its background, making trajectory calculation (in your head, not with math) a hell of inacurate, this happens because you may not be able to qualify which way the thing actualy moves.
is it flying flat and fast more to the left or is it higher slower and more straight? things like flanking in soccer, high long passes in american football, long hits in baseball aso aso.

3d can fix that.
thats my point, the moment 3d filming is "as easy/complicated" as filming 2d, and the consumer can WATCH that created 3d content without massive monetary expension, it will come, and it will push alot.

I understand your frustration about the whole stuff, but i argue that nobody realy TRIED to create 3d content beyond "look its 3d we throw balls at you".
Thats not the same as "3D can't push anything because it hasn'T yet"

And i don'T mind the tone the discussion has right now ^^ As long as we don'T insult each other^^

[Theonewayman]

They have tried to push 3d for the last few decades and it never goes mainstream. Why? Because they still can't come up with a good argument for its actual usefulness.


usefulness? And if i say you that ever since i saw my first 3D stereo movie all the other movies look bland by comparation, 3d to me makes the movie much more involved much more immersive, imo all movies could come in 3d.

[Paroxysm]

I'd say give it some time. It's still fresh and exciting for you. I bet your buzz will wear off. See how much difference it makes for you in non spectacle based films.

[Pansa]

I'd say give it some time. It's still fresh and exciting for you. I bet your buzz will wear off. See how much difference it makes for you in non spectacle based films.

Well, how many films actualy NEED colour? ANd how many people argued back then that the whole "colour" thing was just a folley.
A gimmick only needed by sensationalists, because true dialog needs no colour.
Not to forget the problems with actors skincolours maybe? (analog to the skin hdd discussion that was had back a bit).

Thats the problem here.
You argue that its just a gimick, and it will wear of, my argument is thats its an additional layer of information, and that i personly was more impressed with the subtle effects of 3D than with the gimicky screaming ones.
Especialy with the way objects relate to each other much better in that virtual space, making any scene more believable from that perspective.

Imho the question is not "what movies can you do with 3d that can't be done else?" but "what does it add to any movie?" Of course 3D is not "essentiel" hours and hours of produced media without prove that, but from that argument i'D make a case that colour was overated as well.

[Crosma]

I got to play around with a parallax-barrier-based 3D TV (developing content and the like). It's rubbish. Looks terrible and you can't focus on anything (because your eyes get so confused that they start pulsating).

All current 3D technology is rubbish. Until we've got proper holograms, why bother?

[Pansa]

I got to play around with a parallax-barrier-based 3D TV (developing content and the like). It's rubbish. Looks terrible and you can't focus on anything (because your eyes get so confused that they start pulsating).

All current 3D technology is rubbish. Until we've got proper holograms, why bother?
Because even holograms will be limited in its use, and will have focus issues.
They automaticly enter into it, the second you don'T display something where it realy is, so holography would only work better for a short radius, limiting the illusion to the holgraphic box.

The only thing that REALY circumvents all these issue is the Matrix ^^. (bypassing the occulus completly).

As i said, what i liked most about the new polarisation based technique, and the media for it, is what 3D does to landscapes and mountainranges and generaly "placing" things in a more viciral "position" in the fictinous world.

[Orochi Avlis]

All current 3D technology is rubbish. Until we've got proper holograms, why bother?
Progress? It doesn't happen overnight. There are plenty of babysteps leading up to it.

I see it like the 3d games between 1999 and 2002, ugly characters made out of rudimentary polygons, but now, it's matured nicely. And we wouldn't be where we are today if not for that intermediate step.

[Paroxysm]

Well, how many films actualy NEED colour? ANd how many people argued back then that the whole "colour" thing was just a folley.

Considering how quickly colour became an essential component of cinematography (and yes essentially all films use colour directly as part of the cinematic language. Even pre colour films chose hues to develop the film in that would influence the tone of the work) not many nay sayers held up for long. 3d films have been around for over 50 years and they've yet to get a holding in film language at all. Forgive me if my skepticism remains.

[Pansa]

Considering how quickly colour became an essential component of cinematography (and yes essentially all films use colour directly as part of the cinematic language. Even pre colour films chose hues to develop the film in that would influence the tone of the work) not many nay sayers held up for long. 3d films have been around for over 50 years and they've yet to get a holding in film language at all. Forgive me if my skepticism remains.
edith: at the end is a tl,dr version for paroxy

My point is that this skepticism is build on a superstition, that builds on a niche that was basicly the only thing you could do with it. Fostered by a lack of endconsumer technology, which destroyed the need for media and mass investment.
If you can't sell it on DvD or sell to the networks, its bound to be a niche entertainment.
That is ignoring the whole tech-limit pre polarisation (colourshift).

The whole coloured glasses and tinted glasses (light/dark glasses 3d effect by movement and the trick that bright is registered faster thus delaying the dark eye thus creating 2 pictures) is more like the "recolour" phase of B&W.
It was a MESS of work, and due to that it was seldom done, because there was no need. And that worked with "regular" projectors.

The problem 3D faces isn't "that its just a gimmic" its that people believe that the cheap throw away gags of 3D is all 3D has to offer.
ANd i believe that people with 1 eye realy miss something in the world.

All the talk about holograms, holograms are limited as well, especialy if you talk about the "star wars" concept of it.

And i still don'T understand what you mean with "film language".
Or maybe you could explain to me where stereo and 3d audio have changed it. 2 things that imho have had a major influence on how we "percieve" content.
Of course you can ask "how has cinema reacted to stereo and created movies that werent possible before" but imho thats the wrong question.
Any tech that creates an expierence in a more holistic way will change our perception about it, its unnescesairy to revolutionise filmlanguage...

my point was, the hyperbole isn'T realy one.
the way people ignore theatre and go to the movies, the way less people read and more people watch tv, the way black and white scenes are extinct except for VERY specific causes (and then only to point out NOT to have colour, or to imply age), the way Mono music isn't done anymore.

In that sense, 2d in hindsight will be something "was done because they couldn'T do it right yet".
It will possibly extend the scale of our special effects, since with additionaly depth perception it will be easier to interpret the images content, allowing for more things to happen with less confusion.

Set asside if they start creating 3d effects that are utterly unreal (in the sense that artificial stereo can sound unreal, or 3d audio can produce unreal effects (as in "listening to a concerto with every instrument running wild through the room and around while playing").

But thats all tommoros news, until its not limited to non-suported PC-games and major cineplexes.
I personly await the day the REAL experimentation starts.
But thats not until widespread tech AND media has arrived.
i personly think it will push actors harder, because i believe we are better to judge with a nonreduced set of senses.

imagine a film soly based on the concept of 2d in 3d as an artstyle actualy viewing that in 3d opens up a new visual sensation beyond short films like "flatworld"


Oh, adding smells will be a big thing as well ^^.

tl,dr:
i believe you are arguing historical, im arguing logical progression.
I don't believe the historical one to be correct, because it means people would be smart.
i see the argument like "we don't need electric cars, and they will be a toy, since its been over 20 years and we still havent got them, and the ones they showed where gimmicky".
actual development has nothing to do with potential and impact, but only human decision and supersticion and aditional irrelevant pressures.

logical progressionwise, sometime in the future 3d will be the standart, since it will be as easy to produce, and 2d will be a specific artstyle at that point people WILL look at 2d the way they look at B&w right now.
I concede, a sholar might point out that colour came to the market harder and faster than 3D, but imho the impact will be the same, after the fact.

[Crosma]

Because even holograms will be limited in its use, and will have focus issues.
Note that I'm referring to Star Trek style holograms here, where the objects are created using light in an actual three dimensional space. No focusing issues with a set-up like that. We're still a long way off.

The current focusing issues make 3D content uncomfortable to look at for long periods (in my opinion), although it is appealing in a gimmicky sort of way in short bursts.

Non-glasses 3D displays (like parallax-barrier) are very jarring, because your eyes inevitably pick up multiple-angle versions of the image each, and your brain hates having to parse what ends up being a complicated mess. Various TV companies (like Sky) are trying to push parallax-barrier as the next evolution. Current parallax-barrier TVs are lower resolution than standard-definition too, so you're in for a brain-bustingly bad time. It was fun to work with, but I wouldn't want to watch a programme in that format. Yuck.

Not sure why I'm talking about parallax-barrier displays in this thread. Not very relevant, is it?

[Pansa]

Note that I'm referring to Star Trek style holograms here, where the objects are created using light in an actual three dimensional space. No focusing issues with a set-up like that. We're still a long way off.


thats not entirely true, it removes focus-issues "inside" the hologram, but everything beyond the border of the room still creates the issues.
(things like "what if the holodeck had a window", or better the illusion.)
unless it is proposed that the hologram can be indefinetly big. And THAT poses the question where do you show the fight for helms deep on a 1:1 scale with an apropiatly sized hologram, and what will the neighbors think.


the issue ALWAYS arises when things aren'T where they supposed to.
But on the other hand since other "linked" muscle movement can be supressed as well, i guess its just a matter of time until people can focus their lenses without changing eyeposition.

The current focusing issues make 3D content uncomfortable to look at for long periods (in my opinion), although it is appealing in a gimmicky sort of way in short bursts.

Non-glasses 3D displays (like parallax-barrier) are very jarring, because your eyes inevitably pick up multiple-angle versions of the image each, and your brain hates having to parse what ends up being a complicated mess. Various TV companies (like Sky) are trying to push parallax-barrier as the next evolution. Current parallax-barrier TVs are lower resolution than standard-definition too, so you're in for a brain-bustingly bad time. It was fun to work with, but I wouldn't want to watch a programme in that format. Yuck.

Not sure why I'm talking about parallax-barrier displays in this thread. Not very relevant, is it?
well maybe we should open up a special thread for this. preverably in the media section, because the hardwaresection is usualy a place to send a topic to die ^^

personly the only thing straining my eyes with the glasses are things poping up from the screen, and i think THAT is a gimmick and overused, and imho pushed to far to be realy working. things that only come out a bit are great, but the typical "in your face" stuff doesn'T work well for me, and its boring as well.

LOVE what the tech does to backgrounds and "overview" kind off shots.

well maybe we should open up a special thread for this. preverably in the media section, because the hardwaresection is usualy a place to send a topic to die ^^

[Pansa]

Since the Avatar thread is starting to get derailed by this, i thought i open up an apropiat thread.

Note To moderators: thx
Note to anyone else: the first posts have been cut from the Avatar thread, since they where offtopic

This thread is about 3D movies, hardware and games (like nvidias shuttersystem, not just 3d rendered).

What have you seen? Which part where noteworthy? (effects you noticed beyond the usual "throw stuff at audience") What annoyed you?

I personly will go to see coraline next week i guess, im very keen on finding out how non cgi looks.

[peoplessi]

Why bother with anything? What a stupid remark. How do you think things would advance if people wouldn't bother? Are you so sure that holograms is the way to go?

[Crosma]

Why bother with anything? What a stupid remark.You could easily have read it in context, given that that's where it was. Why bother to make content in 3D when it looks bad/wrong with current tech? I think that once people have got past the gimmick, they'd rather watch a 2D version. Yes, holograms are the way to go until they can plug something straight into your brain.

[Pansa]

You could easily have read it in context, given that that's where it was. Why bother to make content in 3D when it looks bad/wrong with current tech? I think that once people have got past the gimmick, they'd rather watch a 2D version. Yes, holograms are the way to go until they can plug something straight into your brain.

I disagree, first, because i believe that even the current pola tech can create great 3d imagery, and the gimicky nature is due to the content created (again, the protruding effects mostly are that, and because of that i wont see final destination btw, since they seem to have opted for these tricks instead of the stuff that made the first ones fun)

And secondly since i don'T believe holograms will be a possibilty for anything other than stageplays or locked room murder movies.
Either interpretation of holograms have massive theoretical boundaries.
The "on the table" kind can'T believably create backgrounds nor fast spaces and the "startreck holodeck" idea still has massive focusissues concerning backgrounds.

Again, the "techissues" with 3D are often fundamental, our eye is not made to focus on illusions emanating from a different popint as their content suggests, and this will trouble EVERY 3d medium except 1:1 reproduction, which isn't feasable in any tech.

At the moment i feel the current tech works MARVELS on content virtualy behind the screen, but is missused for the throwaway gags concerning protusion. This is not a techissue its a designfailure in hollywood right now.

And i believe should this stop, and the content focused on subtle 3D to JUST create a window instead of objects crossing the frame, people will get used to seeing everything in spacial relation and 2d will be "flat"