Slashdot Log In
The Future of Cinema - 'Real' 3D
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Apr 30, 2007 03:35 AM
from the shark-still-looks-fake dept.
from the shark-still-looks-fake dept.
GunSlinger writes "The IGN movies site is running a story on an old movie concept seeing a resurgence. 3D movies are making a cinematic comeback via new, more sophisticated techniques. Yes, you still wear glasses. No you don't get a headache. Yes, the effect is fantastic. This story looks at the technology, past and future projects, and why just about every major studio is now planning in three dimensions. 'There is indeed a revolution in cinema taking place. It's quietly slipped under the radar of most technophiles, beginning its assault on the way we consume media clothed in thoroughly unassuming garb -- the Disney Digital 3-D film, Meet the Robinsons ... no, we don't blame you for being skeptical. Most people in their mid-20s or later think of 3-D movies from the old school perspective -- goofy red and blue coloured glasses, strained eyes, possible migraines. And most importantly, a so-so 3-D effect. No more.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
3D is boring (Score:4, Funny)
When is it going to plug directly in to my head already?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Call me when you can give me 3d that I can walk around.. aka white light holograms.
RTFA, they claim to solve that (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm talking about the fact that when I am in two different physical location, what I see is different. I'm talking about poking my head around a corner to see what is coming.
Parallax is NOT solved (Score:3, Informative)
Another factor which is order of magnitude more important in depth perception is the parallax effect : When you move the coordinates of the point of view (be it because you made a step on one side OR because you slightly turned you head and your eyes aren't at the same position down to the milimeter), the object that are neerer in your field of view appear to "move" much more than those that are farther away.
It's how the sensation of "depth"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Parallax is NOT solved (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, it doesn't even do that. If you tilt your head, the images of the movie your eyes get will still be shifted horizontally in respect to the ground, instead of in respect to your head (after all, there are only those two images, and the camera doesn't know about your head movement). Since stereo seeing in your brain works through the horizontal displacement in respect of your eyes, tilting your head will make the 3D effect go away.
Now you might argue that the 3D effect won't go away if you don't tilt your head too much, but then, in that case you also don't get noticeable wrong-eye images with linearly polarized light.
Parent
Re:Parallax is NOT solved (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I've got a way to get round this. How about having actual objects that the audience watch, a real set, and real actors performing the storyline?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, right: porn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But totally doable, if you had the money.
[ My PhD is in holography, and I work for a that prints digital holograms ]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The most impressive hologram technology I've ever seen was, strangely, at the Genomics display at the NYC Museum of Natural History. They had a holographic plate of a vial (the kind you stick needles into) which you could try to pick up with your bare hand and it would pass through like a ghost. Had nothing to do with the exhibit of course, but it was damn cool.
Re:Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Call me when you can give me 3d that I can walk around.. aka white light holograms.
The illusion isn't lost, but the experience is as if the universe in front of you just got skewed a little.
Cinematographically speaking, having a fixed set of pictures for you both eyes is a LOT , A LOT better for a movie than a "3d that I can walk around.. aka white light holograms", as it means the moviemaker has control over depth of field
Re:Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You're hinting at the fact that people think of theatre as some sort of 3D cinema? Wow, how shallow and misunderstood
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me up when a 3D film wins an Oscar for Best Picture.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those glasses are indeed plastic, and not paper. They seem like they're built to withstand a bit of punishment. However, that in itself presents several other problems. As more and more people wear those glasses, they get grimier and dirtier. When I went to the Superman Returns IMAX showing, they had some "3D" scenes that were based on this technology, as far as I can tell by RTFA. The glasses handed to me were full of crap, and I
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Wake me up when a 3D film wins an Oscar for Best Picture.
The first even movie was simply a moving train and people moving.
Then lots of years of news reports and gimmicky comedies followed (Chaplin anyone? I'm not sure his work is Oscar worthy but..).
First comes tec
Copy protection through obscurity (Score:2, Interesting)
They are hoping it will be somehow harder to copy 3D movies. It's not. So if that's the motivation behind this push then they can forget it.
I'm skeptical. (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, so you mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While we are able to perceive 3D, it's not something we're really used to, and perhaps that's where the headaches are induced. I know every time I see one of these films, I end up taking the glasses off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3D sends the wrong visual cues. (Score:5, Interesting)
When 3D is added, all this breaks down. An actor in close up suddenly becomes a giant. Everything changes size radically from shot to shot.
3D might be great for large vistas, but if you just insert 3D into a normal film, then you detract much from the visual language of film that we've gotten used to, as many of the shots become so disturbing.
Another drawback with 3D is that your eyes will attempt to focus at out of focus areas because the depth cues are there, but of course the focus is fixed
and cannot be changed and fatigue is the result. In a 3D generated film, it's possible to keep everything in focus at the same time, but for live action this is simply not practical.
Re:3D sends the wrong visual cues. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a few years back, but when I saw one of the Imax 3D movies (some girl goes back in time and sees a bunch of dinosaurs) I realized that some new conventions would be needed for 3D films. When you're looking at a 2D movie, all the action is in one plane, and your eyes can easily focus on that distance.
But a cross-fade in 3D broke my brain. I couldn't figure out where to focus as some objects were getting transparent and fadi
Don't second guess if you haven't seen the movie! (Score:5, Informative)
Shoddy glasses?
The glasses were not paper/cardboard. They looked like plastic sunglasses.
Already wearing glasses?
I wear corrective glasses and the 3d glasses fit fine over them.
Can't move your head?
No, you don't have to keep your head still. You can turn your head without bluring or motion sickness.
The 3d effect is stunning. This is miles beyond the old cardboard red/blue glasses.
--McVerne
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Each eye sees a different image on the screen. If you close one eye, it's just like closing 1 eye in real life. You get that image only.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem I had was that at the very beginning, after getting the instructions to put the glasses on, the first 3D stuff was a trailer for a Tim Burton animated Halloween movie - this scared the crap out of my kids (aged 5, 5, and 4, this being the first time they experienced 3D), with all sorts of nasties reaching out of the screen at
Grasping at straws (Score:3, Insightful)
movie theaters catch up to the Amiga! (Score:3, Informative)
Only two real problems:
digital movies are at pathetic resolutions, and 3D won't be better, so I don't go to theaters that use them.
theaters are full of stupid and/or inconsiderate people continually distracting me from the movies, and the theater owners/managers won't do anything about it, so I don't go to theaters.
Oh, and the movies are almost all terrible, anyway, but for a couple of bucks to watch at home, it doesn't bother me so much.
No "strained eyes, possible migraines?" No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, these guys may have developed a better way to deliver and display a stereo graphic image, but in the end, it's the same old crap we've seen for decades. You're still wearing stereo glasses. You put some glasses on, your right eye sees one image, your left eye sees another image, your brain converges the two images, but you can't focus on the depth of your choosing. Focus is predetermined by the film.
Human stereoscopic vision relies upon two mechanisms, convergence and accommodation. This cinema tech doesn't account for the latter. With this tech you still can't focus on depths of your choosing... as you would with a volumetric image or a real 3D object in the real world. These guys are trying to skirt around accommodation by limiting shots to particular ranges of depth. While this may help to minimize the problem, it doesn't eliminate it.
All in all... move along, nothing new to see here.
Explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
What the system does is alternate projections of the left and right eye images using the same DLP projector. They said 144 frames per second, which I think means that each film frame (of which there are 24 per second) is projected 3 times for each eye, this means each eye sees the image flickering at 72 times a second, which is above the threshold for most people to see flickering. The real technology is a special lcd screen that is put in front of the lens of the projector that changes it's polarization 144 times per second so each image is polarized differently.
The real advantage of this is that the same DLP projector used for non-3D films can be reused, just put the lcd in front of the lens when showing 3D. Any other system would require a second projector, which not only adds the cost of the projector, but the cost to mount it and add another aperture in the theatre wall. (actually another system would be shutter glasses with lcd lenses that turn on/off so each eye sees one side, but handing each customer an item that costs 10 or more dollars is probably out of the question) Also this system allows perfect alignment so that things that should appear at the screen plane really appear there, and high-contrast things like the credits can be projected at that distance with no ghosting.
It does appear fortunate that they can run at 144 frames per second, though if they were like consumer ones with a maximum of 90 or 100 it would still be an acceptable flicker rate of 45 or 50 (classic film projectors flickered 48 times a second due to having 1 extra vane on the shutter).
Clarification on IMax 3D. (Score:4, Informative)
The first is the polarized glasses, this is used for films that have not been filmed in 3D but they then process and setup multiple projectors to give a 3D look. They glasses look like sun glasses but and from my limited experience they just barly fit over the glasses of existing wearers. This is the kind of technology the article is refering to.
Then you have the full Imax 3D with just plainly rocks!!!! It consists of a full head gear which fits over your head and easily over existing glasses, it comes with built in speakers to add to the theater sound and uses signals from the projector to flip the lens to give the 3D illusion. If you have not seen one of theses they are a must see. Even the dopey films are impressive just for the 3D effects. My personal favorite is the _Deep Sea_ it is really funny to lift the head sets and see people attempt to grab the fish as they swim up to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...polarized glasses, this is used for films that have not been filmed in 3D but they then process...
I think the use of the headset -vs- polarized glasses is not based on how the movie was filmed. I've seen several IMAX movies at the Baltimore IMAX theater, some filmed in 3D and some not, but they all used the polarized glasses. I've never seen the head gear. This includes Deep Sea 3D, African Safari 3D, and Beauty and the Beast. The first two are native 3D, the last is not. I suspect that the headset -vs- glasses decision is made by each theater, rather than being dependent on how it was filmed.
If you want real 3D (Score:5, Funny)
Technique overview (Score:4, Informative)
Frame sequential
_This uses a single projector or screen with a high framerate, 120Hz or higher. Each frame alternates between a left and right eye view. The viewer wears a pair of LCD 'shutter glasses' which are synchronized to flicker and allow only the correct frame through per eye. Thus, a 120Hz output becomes a 60Hz image stream to the viewer. Unfortunately, the glasses are expensive and not easy to deploy to a large audience. This technique also often causes headaches after extended viewing.
Head mounted display
_Funky goggles are used to provide a dedicated image for each eye in close proximity. Advantages include the ability for head tracking which provides parallax shift and real immersion. The units are also localized to the wearer, so you can have them in small spaces like cockpits. Disadvantages: relatively low resolution and expensive for large deployments.
Linear polarization
_Using 2 projectors (usually DLP) which have linearly polarized filters in front of the lenses, one has left-right polarization for one image and the second an up-down polarization for the other eye. The user wears paper glasses with lens orientation corresponding the the projector output. This technique is easiest to deploy to large audiences since the paper glasses are relatively cheap. However, the 3D effect can be broken by rotating the head.
Circular polarization
_Similar as the linear approach, filters are used in front of 2 projectors creating left-right images. The filters used for the projectors and glasses are circularly polarized which allows head rotation, but suffers from 'ghosting' or 'image bleed' since the circular polarization does not block all light intended for the other eye.
Chromatic filtering
_Similar to the old red and blue glasses from yesteryear, this technique uses spectrum filtering to restrict certain wavelengths from reaching each eye. When used with filters in front of 2 projectors, dedicated left-right images can be created. The newer techniques use more controlled filtering so that the color aberrations are minimized.
Lenticular
_Using a special vertically banded lenticular lens in front of a back-projection screen or TFT/Plasma, this technique creates 'zones' in which 3D images can be seen without any hardware required on the viewer. By shifting your head left or right, you fall into viewing 'sweet-spots'. This is based on the fact that a human's eyes are generally spaced the same distance apart. One of the great things about this approach is that since there are images from multiple camera angles being displayed simultaneously, you can actually get a little parallax before falling out of a sweet-spot. You'll see this technique more and more at trade shows and in public advertisements.
Our studio makes actual 3D content for 3D visualization systems.
Fatal: a) Limited sweet spot, b) new film language (Score:4, Informative)
Oddly enough, exactly the same problems exist in 2D, but they are nowhere near as disturbing, presumably because 2D does look like 3D in the first place.
The second issue is that the cinematographer is limited to a single focal length. In effect, the location of the "sweet spot" depends on the lens. With a long lens, the sweet spot is toward the back of the house; with a wide-angle lens, toward the front. In practice, only a normal lens gives the real "you-are-there" 3D effect. Anything else looks distorted. What this means is that to make a 3D film the filmmakers have to throw out most of their lenses and a century of film grammar.
A third issue is that 3D photography is unflattering to actresses, because with 3D you can see the actual three-dimensional contours of their faces, which in 3D cannot be hidden or concealed with makeup, at least not in a closeup. (I'm using sexist language because for the most part a smoothly contoured face is still considered much more important for actresses than for actors). For a good example of this, see the 1950s 3D movie "Kiss Me Kate."
These fatal flaws will continue to restrict two-image 3D to a limited set of special applications: animated features and movies in which spectacle is important.
All of this, incidentally, is exactly what happened with Cinerama in the 1950s. It was not a true 3D process but was spectacular, beautiful, and pleasant to view--superior to present-day 2D Imax. The fatal flaw was not the three-projector system, although that was a problem. The fatal flaws were exactly the ones that two-image 3D has: the real Cinerama experience was only to be had from seats in the center of the house; telephoto lenses couldn't be used; and it was a challenge to use it for film storytelling (of about ten films made in Cinerama, only two--How the West was Won and The Wonderful Tales of the Brothers Grimm--had real story lines, the others were basically travelogues. Of course, to call a Cinerama film "basically a travelogue" is like calling Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue "basically a medley.")
Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wear glasses already.... (Score:4, Funny)
Chris Mattern
Parent
And motion pictures are just a slide show. (Score:3, Informative)
The real test may be James Cam