3D 3-D for Blu-ray Is Just Around the Corner (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

Originally Posted by TravisR

^ Have you seen a new movie in 3-D? I get a headache fairly quickly from older 3-D movies but I have yet to get even the slightest headache from current 3-D movies.

Yes, I have, and after 2 hours my eyes are tired, I don't get headache's though. The only 3D film I really enjoyed was Nightmare Before Christmas.

When a film that was not intended to be in 3D is made into a 3D film, it works, so much better then these films that are intentionally made 3D where things jump out at the audience, that level of 3D is cheesy and campy and actually distracts from the enjoyment of a film.

Make 3D films without all the cheesy effects and I'm sold, otherwise I won't bother.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by Ron-P


Yes, I have, and after 2 hours my eyes are tired, I don't get headache's though. The only 3D film I really enjoyed was Nightmare Before Christmas.

When a film that was not intended to be in 3D is made into a 3D film, it works, so much better then these films that are intentionally made 3D where things jump out at the audience, that level of 3D is cheesy and campy and actually distracts from the enjoyment of a film.

Make 3D films without all the cheesy effects and I'm sold, otherwise I won't bother.

Your eyes getting tired is an understandable reaction. There's an intrinsic physiological problem with 3-D images that are not based on a holographic technique, and it's this:

When a picture element gets closer to you, you will need to cross your eyes to keep the images of it in your right and left eye at the same place. In fact that's how 3-D "works".

When you normally do this in the living world, you adjust your focussing to the closer object. Unfortunately however, in these 3-D images the actual image is still in the same plane (let's call it "the screen", not matter how they are produced), so your keys to adjust the position of your eyes and the strength of your lenses no longer match.

In other words: you look closely to make it it one image, but you need to "stare" to keep it sharp. You're forced to do something unnatural with the muscles in your eyes.

It's also no surprise that the effect is less outspoken in films that were not meant to be 3-D originally because those films will normally not have many elements that are thought to be in front of the screen (where the image is).


Cees

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Ron-P

When a film that was not intended to be in 3D is made into a 3D film, it works, so much better then these films that are intentionally made 3D where things jump out at the audience, that level of 3D is cheesy and campy and actually distracts from the enjoyment of a film.

I agree. I'm fairly certain that Up didn't start out as a 3-D movie but I thought adding 3-D to the movie was an enhancement and there was no goofy "Whoa, let me stick a pole out at the audience!!!!" shots. That being said, there are some movies (like My Bloody Valentine and probably The Final Destination) where a more tongue in cheek use of 3-D effects is the only possible reason to see the movie at all.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Just tell me what I'll need, when I can buy it and what it'll cost.

 

[RolandL]

More 3-D news:

[SIZE= smaller] http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3302[/SIZE][SIZE= larger]http://hdguru.com/panasonic-ushers-in-the-3d-hdtv-era-will-ship-3d-displays-3d-blu-ray-players-in-2010/470/[/SIZE]

 

[Ronald Epstein]

This is very exciting news -- and make no mistake about it --
this technology from Panasonic is the real deal. A group of
HTF members originally saw it demoed nearly a year ago and
Adam and I have had the chance to see it again recently. When
you compare it to the stuff that is being offered up by other
companies, this is the technology to beat.

I am so happy to learn Panasonic has got their foot in the
door in a big way here. For those of you out at Cedia next
month you will have the opportunity to see the technology
for yourself. It is impressive to say the least.

 

[GerardoHP]

Cees, that is the best explanation for 3D headaches I've ever seen. Thank you.

I have a question for anyone who cares to respond. Does all of this mean that those monitors that are being sold out there as "3D Ready" are really not going to be any good for this technology?

 

[Jack Theakston]

You know, it's a real shame to see so much misinformation being put out there on the Internet.

1. None (read: NONE) of the '50s or '80s 3D features were presented anaglyph. If you thought you saw JAWS 3D in anaglyph, you remembered wrong. Theaters running the film were obligated to run it in the Polaroid format (in other words, no anaglyph prints were made).

2. Re: headaches. There have been many scientific studies about this. Cees' explanation was well-meaning, but totally wrong. 3D films DO work the same way as your eyes do. The point of convergence behind the screen (or stereo window) is the same as if there was a procenium with no screen 15 feet (or whatever) away from you. Your eyes are converging the exact same way they do in real life.

Headaches and eye-strain are caused by bad photography-- things being poked out of the screen and forcing your eyes to converge unnaturally close (basically crossing your eyes). Disrespect for the stereo window and quick cutting with very varied points of convergence cause the headaches.
Also, out of sync and out of phase presentations will cause eyestrain and headache. This is what killed the 3D in the '50s. Systems like RealD that use alternating frames are out of phase by design. Those who are sensitive to this effect will be disturbed.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

........................................................................ Cees' explanation was well-meaning, but totally wrong. 3D films DO work the same way as your eyes do. The point of convergence behind the screen (or stereo window) is the same as if there was a procenium with no screen 15 feet (or whatever) away from you. Your eyes are converging the exact same way they do in real life.

Sorry, Jack, but you're wrong.

Not about the converging - that's OK, indeed your eyes are converging exactly like they would do in real life. That's, as I said, how 3-D projection works for you.

But the plane where you need to focus (in order to get sharp images on your retina) is NOT at the same place where it should be. So your lenses have to be focussed on another plane (the one where the screen is - that's where sharp images of both the left and the right eye view are). Of course that's no problem if the images are supposed to be close to (or behind) the screen. The focussing sharpness is affected mostly for images that are (supposed to be) close to your head.

We can rather easily do that, but it's not what naturally happens. Fortunately, the problem is NOT that the images can't be put into focus: they already are when you adapted your eyes (+ glasses or lenses you might be wearing) to the screen already.


Cees

 

[DaveF]

Cees is right. 3D movies are not the as real life binocular vision. The heart of this is the disparity is the difference between object distance and apparent distance, as Cees explains.

 

[Jack Theakston]

But the plane where you need to focus (in order to get sharp images on your retina) is NOT at the same place where it should be. So your lenses have to be focussed on another plane (the one where the screen is - that's where sharp images of both the left and the right eye view are). Of course that's no problem if the images are supposed to be close to (or behind) the screen. The focussing sharpness is affected mostly for images that are (supposed to be) close to your head.

But your eyes don't work like that. Your brain is focusing on the plane of the screen, and so long as the image in question is in focus, (or out of focus for good reason), there are no focus problems.

Which again comes back to what I said in the first place-- respect of the stereo window and not throwing things outside of it. The filmmakers from the '50s realized this and for the most part kept it behind the screen. Recent films WILL give you a headache because no one has figured this out yet.

And the point of which your eyes focus to infinity is about 20 feet (actually it's 50, but at 20, there's so little difference in muscle movement), and if you're sitting in the back of the theater (like you should for 3D), that's more than ample space for your eyes not to be working overtime.

 

[GregK]

Ten straight days of 3-D movies from sun up to sun down didn't leave me with headaches. That goes for both World 3-D Film Expos.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston ">[/url]

But your eyes don't work like that.

[/QUOTE]
Yes they do normally, instinctively and automatically. The fact that you can also focus rather easily somewhere else, doesn't change the fact that it's a deviation form the constant day-to-day practice and thus a bit of a strain. Some (like me) can do it without many problems, some tend to get a headache.

And, as [b]DaveF[/b] correctly said, it's [i]not[/i] the same as normal, real life binocular vision.

The rest of your post repeats, in different words, what I have been saying, so your earlier line

[QUOTE]Cees' explanation was well-meaning, but totally wrong.[/QUOTE]
which as you may expect was the one I was reacting to, was ... well, totally wrong.

 

[DaveF]

To some degree, we're in violent agreement

I can't speak to the headaches from physiological knowledge. But it's clear that the physical visual response is working abnormally for 3D movies. Even while your focus is at distance (approaching inifinity), your eye rotation must converge and diverge according to the apparent 3D distance. This is unnatural; the visual system is working in a while that is contrary to real life.

My understanding was that this conflicted behavior is the source of eye-strain and headaches in those that suffer them (and I've had tinges of that with some 3D movies). But maybe not; I'm open to better explanations.

But whether physically induced or psychosomatic, some people suffer visual distress from 3D movies. I've read that filmmakers have learned techniques to reduce this distress and make 3D movies more broadly enjoyable. Hopefully this is so.

 

[hampsteadbandit]

The fact that you can also focus rather easily somewhere else, doesn't change the fact that it's a deviation form the constant day-to-day practice and thus a bit of a strain. Some (like me) can do it without many problems, some tend to get a headache.

I experienced a strange phenomenon today, whilst watching the new Tarantino film "inglourious Basterds" which was in standard 2-D

a scene, involving a kitchen table, cause a flickering sensation if I focused on the main character in the shot, if I moved my focus back to the table, the flickering disappeared, every time I moved back to the character the flickering was very noticeable to my left

is this a result of my *slightly* faulty eye - i don't wear glasses 90% of the time, but only when tired as I have a minimal prescription for my left eye which was damaged (scratched) in a childhood accident

with the new 3-D films coming out (that are reported to becomed the industry "norm" for hollywood blockbusters) are people like me, with slight vision defects, going to suffer headaches from wearing polarising glasses? what about spectacle wearers? (I read about glasses manufacturers looking into offering prescription, polarising glasses for spectacle wearers)

something else that puzzles me, sorry for my ignorance, with theatres that cannot display 3-D due to lack of investment (digital projector, silver coated screen, etc.) how does the 2-D film differ to the 3-D film? for example, will Avatar only be shown on 3-D cinema theatres, or is there a 2-D version too? How do they shoot the 3-D and 2-D at the same time?

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by hampsteadbandit ">[/url]

[b]is this a result of my *slightly* faulty eye - i don't wear glasses 90% of the time, but only when tired as I have a minimal prescription for my left eye which was damaged (scratched) in a childhood accident
[/b][/QUOTE]I'm not sure - but I doubt that. It could be the rods-and-cones thing.

Did you watch an SDVD and at less than 60 fps on the screen?
If so, it could possibly be caused by an element of high contrast (was the table light to a darker background?) simply showing the flicker of the image.

The retina has rods and cones. Cones to see colour and to see sharp (highest density in the center of your retina, called the fovea), rods to see weaker light, less sensitive to colours and situated more in the periphery of your retina. The cones also tend to average out flicker much more than the rods do.

So, looking away from an old-fashioned TV set always made the flicker more visible: when you look straight at it, you don't see it as easily.

Thus, when looking directly at that table, with your cones, you may not see what your rods can see while you're looking away from it
.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

PRICE! Give me a PRICE! (An estimated date would be nice too, before I go buy a new TV that may be obsolete!)

 

[RolandL]

This question is for the 3-D experts GregK and Jack Theakston. Panasonic's 3-D system promotes 1080P for both eyes. Does the current field sequential system that works with DLP 120hz TV's only give you 240 lines for each eye from a 480i DVD?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Up was conceived for 3D from the beginning, albeit a not overly gimmicky 3D.

Originally Posted by TravisR

I'm fairly certain that Up didn't start out as a 3-D movie but I thought adding 3-D to the movie was an enhancement and there was no goofy "Whoa, let me stick a pole out at the audience!!!!" shots. ...

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden

Up was conceived for 3D from the beginning, albeit a not overly gimmicky 3D.

That's even better because they just let the 3-D add to (rather than dominate) the movie