The Future of Cinema - 'Real' 3D 193
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.'"
RTFA, they claim to solve that (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
Re:Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:2, Informative)
And motion pictures are just a slide show. (Score:3, Informative)
The real test may be James Cameron's Avatar, which goes into production soon. Cameron has overseen the development of completely new digital cameras for shooting in 3-D, and he plans to take advantage of the format's superior frame rate as well; we're talking about sci-fi action in 60 fps or more.
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.
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" is done in games using 2D displays (either using several scrolling layers in older games, or using 3D polygons on more recent FPS. As a example of parallax effect, the wobbling of the ship in the Descent series helps illustrating the depth of the labyrinth on-screen). The depth perception is VERY sensitive to small parallax effects linked to slight head motion.
This CAN be done with head mounted displays (HMD) equiped with accelerometers (any slight motion of the head is translated into microscopic camera motion in the game world).
This CAN be somewhat done with rotation/projection systems that can be shown as 3D from any angles (if the subject moves he'll see different reflections on the rotating target corresponding to different angle).
This could be somewhat done with shutter glass, provided enough head tracking.
This is circumvented with historical stereo 3D as from the Lumière era (where the eyes are kept fixed against the binocular aperture and thus there's no motion to provoke parallax effect. BUT you lose the depth information you could get from it).
This CAN'T be done with traditional 3D cinema (because there are only 2 different image projected on the screen, they don't change as the head moves).
This CAN'T be done with current stereographic LCD pannels (when in stereomode, only 2 image are projected) unless separate head tracking is used, but it'll only work for the user holding the accelerometer, not the other viewers.
Re:Just keep your head perfectly still.. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Ah, so you mean (Score:3, Informative)
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.")