Skip to content

Experts weigh in on the question “has 3D been too conservative?”

October 9, 2012

There has been a good commentary arising from the 10/2 post from 3D Focus entitled “Has 3D been too conservative?” Since feedback has come from the blog and several linkedin discussion boards, I’m consolidating and reposting them (unedited, beginning at the top). Commenters are only identified by their initials. I’ll be updating when new comments come in, so check back in occasionally. Feel free to add your own thoughts or observations!

***

RR: Thanx Phil for the article. One thing i found curious for me – is about “Puss in the Boots” animation.. you had say that there is “too much separation” … – I got s3d blueRay.. and i find only one episode – where the Beanstalk is grew up to the stars.. we have here +70pixels of parallax on the background.

All the rest shots its primary +30,+40 pixels…(original image resolution on bluray was 1920 by horizontal.)

***

RR: forgot to mention.. about +70 parallax..

On my own mind, such (really though…) huge value is consistent/match to the story line of movie… becouse its a true WOW moment in the film… stem is growing and growing and growing! upwards and upwards! beyooond the skyes ! to ….. the starss! Amazingly! So, i`m totally agree here with Captain3D view 🙂 .

and regards more technic`s things : even +70 pixels of paralalx its a one degree of eyes divergence on 43ft screen. Its close to the our`s stereo vergence limit, but its acceptable for many peoples as i can see from my (small though..) experience .

***

FR: May people from Sky3D read this !

***

FR: I think Phil is right.

I also think that sometimes you can “cross the line” and not be blocked by Sky3D rules that are in some ways too restrictive.

***

FR: @DT : you are right. It is time to shoot everything in 3D now and maybe use the 3D contents in 2D in the beginning. But at least, we will have them ready for 3DTV !

***

DT: My low cost Vizio 3D has exceeded my expectations. Some of the best big screen 3D, “Hugo”, “Titanic” and “Avengers” works perfectly on the 47″ passive system. The Olympics worked fine with no cross-talk, but the IO was pushed to give the wide shots more depth than is natural creating the doll-house effect.

I would urge all manufacturers to switch to the passive (realD) system. Agreed that active can be much better, but the glasses are a pain and they don’t demo well in big box stores since the staff just lets broken displays continue to attract and put off customers.

I am planning a reality pilot which wouldn’t normally shoot in 3D, and in fact may not even show in 3D now. But if you filmed your TV series in BW after 1965 or in standard def after 1995, your product went obsolete within a few years. Protecting the shelf life, and foreign market reach of your project is the best reason to shoot everything in 3D now.

***

PS: Mike, the problem is that the material has been barred on broadcasters. As the material was being produced in the wrong way by having much parallax. Sometimes they check in 2D measuring the distance of the difference between Left and Right. Even if the 3D is good, they complain. This is ridiculous. If the convergence and the shape of the object permit, the separation can reach 1/3 of the screen size, much more than they propose.

***

MO: I think the 3D resisters are just the same as those who once said sound will never add anything to a film, Technicolor cheapens cinematography and digital will never replace analogue image capture. I have seen films where the 3D element was poor and others where it was utterly mesmerizing. In the end, the only thing that matters is the storyline and the director’s take on using equipment and techniques to explore the narrative. Where 3D works use it. Where it doesn’t, don’t. Where critics are involved… ignore them and make up your own mind.

***

PS: I think these “rules” are being made by people who do not know enough about 3D. Sometimes they use medical problems as an excuse.

As I’ve said several times the Sansung and Sony TVS with active systems do not support a good parallax. So they’re creating rules for the 3D works in these TVS. But LG’s Cinema TVS well support any parallax. The 3D cannot get stuck by bad devices.

I present to my client a good 3D with negative parallax and let the client forces the operator to adopt other criteria. After watching a good 3D working, nobody can convince the customer about these rules nor prevent it from displaying their stuff.

***

BR: How true this article is!

Advertisements
One Comment
  1. I agree with the too narow sentiments. It’s great that modern 3D has variable interaxials and you can plan the depth to the arc of the story and such. I just saw Joe Dants’s “The Hole” in 3D and he seemed to save the big depth for a scene looking down at characters escaping up a VERY TALL ladder – a ladder from hell! It was very effective. Also, I’m looking foreward to seeing the BluRay “Dial M for Murder” on my 55″ Samsung. The WB Natural Vision camera had a fixed interaxial of 3.5″. There may be miniaturation of puppetization, but I don’t think it will be A PROBLEM! It wasn’t in theaters. In fact, the one and a half screen width viewing distance (48″ wide picture, viewed 6′ from the screen) pretty much replicates the 30′ movie screen viewed 45′ away. If you do it in 3D, plan it in 3D. Saying there’s too much depth is like saying there’s too much color, or too much contrast. Use what fits the movie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: