3D Another Look at Dolby Glasses Free Display (February 2014) (1 Viewer)

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Yes but does that slider cause exaggeration of the effect rather than normal 3D, by that i mean have they built it to have pop out on movies where there is none or do you get pop out on the normal type of 3D, so where there is pop out it comes out normally and not looking poor, is the quality great, is there crosstalk, are there any other issues, i'd love to know.

Exactly why we need someone like Ron to look for us. IMO, a slider at 100% should render 3D for a moive as intended by the director.., The director may have used 200% exaggeration to get an object to appear in front of the face, but at least we know that the potential for ability of the glasses-free technology is there.

 

[SFMike]

I haven't had the pleasure to seeing the Dolby 3D display so I'm really wondering if it actually can do pop-out. It thought it worked with some sort of lenticular barrier and you can have pop-out using lenticular so I wonder what the famous potato fish would look like on this set.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I haven't had the pleasure to seeing the Dolby 3D display so I'm really wondering if it actually can do pop-out.

Mike, it can't. The Dolby rep confirmed that.

However, even before I first laid my eyes on the glasses-free display,
I knew it could not be done.

Think about an image actually projecting towards your face --- exactly
as the cod fish in Under The Sea does -- without the use of any eyewear.

It just can't happen. That eyewear is needed to complete the effect.

You'll only see that kind of glasses-free effect happen in the second Back
To The Future movie (Jaws billboard).

I don't think technology even exists that allows such an effect to be done
without some sort of go-between.

This is why anything being proposed as a glasses-free solution is already
inferior to what we enjoy now.

I have no problem with the technology that Dolby or Ultra-D UHD is proposing.
I truly understand there are people who don't like the glasses. For them, I think
this could be a way to enjoy "lukewarm" 3D without the strain.

I am all for something that compliments the current 3D technology. I start to
worry when companies look to replace it with something that is dumbed down.

The only problem I actually have is with the ad that Dolby uses (the sea turtle
image) to promote its technology as being able to do something it clearly cannot.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Mike, it can't. The Dolby rep confirmed that.

However, even before I first laid my eyes on the glasses-free display,
I knew it could not be done.

Think about an image actually projecting towards your face --- exactly
as the cod fish in Under The Sea does -- without the use of any eyewear.

It just can't happen. That eyewear is needed to complete the effect.

Why? Seriously why not? The only thing required for an object to appear in front of the screen is for the object in the left eye to appear farther to the right and the right eye farther to the left (or is it reverse?). Lenticular lenses allow the left eye to see one image and the right eye to see another without glasses so what is the problem here? My Pirates of the Caribbean 4 lenticular cover clearly has the skull in the center and the two people in the lower right in front of the plane of the cover. I can see it being less effective or not as sharp but stating that it simply cannot be done seems incorrect and marketing speak for "It takes too much effort to do it well and the result isn't awesome so therefore 'It can't be done at all'"

 

[FoxyMulder]

I would think it's to do with the viewing angle, it must be very difficult to create pop out on these displays without very restrictive viewing angles, the solution is simple, have depth without glasses but make the display compatible with 3D glasses and let viewers who want pop out and depth use glasses and those who dislike the glasses and want depth only can view without any glasses, that would be a win-win for all, well it would be a win-win if the studio's and directors actually gave us pop out these days.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Why? Seriously why not? The only thing required for an object to appear in front of the screen is for the object in the left eye to appear farther to the right and the right eye farther to the left (or is it reverse?).

Chuck,

What I am talking about here is imagery that leaps off of the screen or page,
coming seemingly inches from your face.

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'Merriweather Sans', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]You are not getting that with the Blu-ray cover of Pirates of The Caribbean. What [/color]
you are seeing are raised images. That cover is exactly what Dolby glasses-free TV
looks like. It looks like a lenticular Blu-ray cover with minimally raised imagery and
a slight sense of depth.

....but when have you ever seen a televised 3D image or that which appears on a
Blu-ray lenticular cover come right at you without the need for glasses? Remember,
I am talking about exaggerated levels of 3D like you would see in Under The Sea or
in a Disney theme park attraction.

Even slightly lesser exaggerated levels of pop-out such as in Despicable Me 1 & 2
cannot be reproduced in the same manner/degree on a glasses-free display.

I am confident we do not have the technology to do it glasses-free. It does not exist.

Some people really need to see the 3D Blu-ray of Under The Sea to understand
exactly what is being talked about here.

I will even ask our 3D experts, Bob Furmanek or Greg Kintz to look at this thread if
you want and give their thoughts on the matter.

 

[GregK]

When Bob and I were shown the Dolby 3-D auto-stereoscopic demo in September of 2012, a number of warning signs popped up.

The demo was a loop played off of a special disc or hard drive from Dolby. Many clips had notably less of an overall 3-D effect (pop out or not) when compared to seeing these same clips when played from 3-D bluray on other 3-D displays. Clips in the loop that I had seen previously included the TITANIC 3-D trailer, a variant of the Dolby theatrical 3-D intro, along with TRANSFORMERS III and HUGO. There were other non-theatrical clips, but I had no point of reference for their original stereoscopic compositions.

It was clean some type of manipulation was done (either pre-processing to the demo loop before hand, or done on the fly by the 3D display itself) where the original parallax .. aka: the amount of 3-D.. had been reduced. The TITANIC conversion has a number of deep shots in the original 3-D trailer, but it was notably shallower on the Dolby glasses-free Display. TRANSFORMERS III barely had a feeling of depth to it at all, and was reduced enough where one could often see it in the wrong viewing angle (reversed 3D) and not be bothered. By far the worst clip was the opening of HUGO. The opening titles seemed essentially flat, with not one single snowflake breaking the stereo window. Only when the opening sequence went into the train station was there a return of some type of 3-D effect. But when this same open is viewed on other 3-D displays played off the 3-D bluray, including the Panasonic demo during the same 2012 HTF trip, the opening of HUGO is peppered full of snowflakes which "pop out" of the 3-D screen.

It's worth noting the Dolby display, like many auto-stereoscopic displays, can actually show a flip-flopped 3-D image when viewed at the wrong viewing angle. This is when your left eye sees the right eye image & vise versa for the right eye. Depending on the 3-D content shown, flip flopped / reversed 3-D can make for a very irritating viewing experience. Was Dolby trying to avoid this scenario by reducing the amount of (3-D) parallax shown? Or does higher parallax cause serious issues with their display? At this point, I just don't know. Bob and I would have both loved to preview a 1950's Golden Age 3-D title or material from our collection for a better evaluation. I had really hoped what we had seen with the Home theater Forum in 2012 was more of a prototype display. But based on Ron's latest report, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Greg Kintz
Technical Director
3-D Film Archive
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Brian - One thing to know about conversions is that many films that are intended to be 3D are still done conversion for ease of shooting - Gravity is meant to be 3D but was converted. The conversions when done right are pretty much as good as dual camera these days, the key is picking the right angles that will work in depth, not necessarially using 2 cameras.Ron - I think the simple fact about showing 3-D in a flat print ad requires showing things coming off the screen, if they didn't do that what shows you that it's 3-D in a shorthand sort of way? I guess I'm in the minority here in that I don't love stuff coming off the screen at me. It's fine but it does suddenly feel like a gimmick, a carnival trick. The interest to me as a filmmaker in 3D is in the depth going into the screen where I feel like I'm looking at a real place, and so for me the current trend in 3D is good - though I'd love to see even stronger depth going into the screen. I'd really like to see a small intimate drama film use depth to tell their story so that people could get the idea that it's not just something useful for spectacle and action films.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Ron - I think the simple fact about showing 3-D in a flat print ad requires showing things coming off the screen, if they didn't do that what shows you that it's 3-D in a shorthand sort of way?

You know what? I'll buy that explanation, though you must admit, it does
tend to mislead consumers into thinking their display does something it can't.

However, knowing Dolby and their reputation, I don't feel they intended to
mislead consumers with that ad. I just think they could have used something
different to advertise their 3D technology.

I guess I'm in the minority here in that I don't love stuff coming off the screen at me. It's fine but it does suddenly feel like a gimmick, a carnival trick.

No, I don't think you are in the minority. I think you are in the majority, actually.
Filmmakers aren't using the gimmickry. There are members on this forum that
have expressed the same opinion as yours.

I actually feel as if my opinions are the minority.

I just tend to feel that 3D is failing because it isn't giving the public the WOW
factor that they perhaps expect when paying $$$ more for a movie ticket.

Personally, I am not asking for carnival gimmickry in every 3D movie I see.
I can understand many adults being turned off by the gimmickry. One member
of this forum explained that he gets taken out of the film experience every time
it is used. I can understand that.

However, who is the biggest audience for 3D gimmickry? Well, besides Ron
Epstein, there are KIDS. KIDS LOVE 3D GIMMICKRY. Yet, animators (and Disney
animators are the biggest culprits these days) won't even use it in their films that
lend to out of screen experiences.

The animators of DESPICABLE ME and A TURTLES TALE understood their target
audience. You want want to get a kid addicted to 3D? Just show them any one of
those movies.

I am just saddened that there seems to be a losing interest in 3D. Yet, we aren't
using the format to its fullest potential.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Brian - One thing to know about conversions is that many films that are intended to be 3D are still done conversion for ease of shooting - Gravity is meant to be 3D but was converted. The conversions when done right are pretty much as good as dual camera these days, the key is picking the right angles that will work in depth, not necessarially using 2 cameras.Ron - I think the simple fact about showing 3-D in a flat print ad requires showing things coming off the screen, if they didn't do that what shows you that it's 3-D in a shorthand sort of way?I guess I'm in the minority here in that I don't love stuff coming off the screen at me. It's fine but it does suddenly feel like a gimmick, a carnival trick. The interest to me as a filmmaker in 3D is in the depth going into the screen where I feel like I'm looking at a real place, and so for me the current trend in 3D is good - though I'd love to see even stronger depth going into the screen. I'd really like to see a small intimate drama film use depth to tell their story so that people could get the idea that it's not just something useful for spectacle and action films.

I feel exactly the same way and you're not alone!

 

[Robert Crawford]

You know what? I'll buy that explanation, though you must admit, it does
tend to mislead consumers into thinking their display does something it can't.

However, knowing Dolby and their reputation, I don't feel they intended to
mislead consumers with that ad. I just think they could have used something
different to advertise their 3D technology.





No, I don't think you are in the minority. I think you are in the majority, actually.
Filmmakers aren't using the gimmickry. There are members on this forum that
have expressed the same opinion as yours.

I actually feel as if my opinions are the minority.

I just tend to feel that 3D is failing because it isn't giving the public the WOW
factor that they perhaps expect when paying $$$ more for a movie ticket.

Personally, I am not asking for carnival gimmickry in every 3D movie I see.
I can understand many adults being turned off by the gimmickry. One member
of this forum explained that he gets taken out of the film experience every time
it is used. I can understand that.

However, who is the biggest audience for 3D gimmickry? Well, besides Ron
Epstein, there are KIDS. KIDS LOVE 3D GIMMICKRY. Yet, animators (and Disney
animators are the biggest culprits these days) won't even use it in their films that
lend to out of screen experiences.

The animators of DESPICABLE ME and A TURTLES TALE understood their target
audience. You want want to get a kid addicted to 3D? Just show them any one of
those movies.

I am just saddened that there seems to be a losing interest in 3D. Yet, we aren't
using the format to its fullest potential.

That's me, I think!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Out of sheer curiosity, and just for the fun of it, I created this poll.

Please take a moment to vote.

Would be interested to see how such a scenario would play out.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Ron you hit the nail on the head, we need more of a WOW factor with our 3D and Hollywood isn't providing it.

No wonder the audience for 3D is dwindling, i'm bored by the amount of 3D material out there that is all depth, it's the same for sound, if a modern horror or action movie is a front heavy mix i get disappointed because you can do so much to create atmosphere with sound and often they don't do it, ( i remember how the Friday the 13th re-make mix disappointed me ) they don't use the rear speakers enough to create tension or an involving sound mix, i love aggressive sound mixes and i love aggressive 3D.

 

[Ejanss]

I am suddenly coming to the realization that purists like myself don't have the ability to alter the future and stop movie makers and display manufacturers from ruining the future of 3D. And perhaps, with that being said, maybe we purists have been looking at this whole 3D technology from the wrong perspective.
After all, what popularized 3D in the 1950s and decades later in theme parks, was the ability for images to seemingly pop off the screen, coming mere inches from the faces of viewers. Those were the moments which caused audible gasps from audiences, and remained burned in their memories long after leaving the theater.
Lately, it seems that most 3D filmmakers shy away from such gimmickry, even cautious to use it sparingly. Many argue that the use of pop-out lends to taking the viewer out of the film experience entirely. Such an argument certainly helps manufacturers like Dolby and Philips who have teamed up on creating Glasses-Free display technology for the home.

Which is the frustration that glasses-friendly fans feel: "Look, why blame a lot of gullible 'depth' filmmakers on me?...I didn't like Avatar!!"

I am confident we do not have the technology to do it glasses-free. It does not exist.

I put it in the same category as self-driving cars: It might be possible, every developer is falling over themselves to be the one to make it possible and a lot of people want it to be possible so they don't have to do a lot of hard work themselves for the reward. But there are a few....PROBLEMS with being lazy.

 

[StephenDH]

Brian - One thing to know about conversions is that many films that are intended to be 3D are still done conversion for ease of shooting - Gravity is meant to be 3D but was converted. The conversions when done right are pretty much as good as dual camera these days, the key is picking the right angles that will work in depth, not necessarially using 2 cameras.Ron - I think the simple fact about showing 3-D in a flat print ad requires showing things coming off the screen, if they didn't do that what shows you that it's 3-D in a shorthand sort of way?I guess I'm in the minority here in that I don't love stuff coming off the screen at me. It's fine but it does suddenly feel like a gimmick, a carnival trick. The interest to me as a filmmaker in 3D is in the depth going into the screen where I feel like I'm looking at a real place, and so for me the current trend in 3D is good - though I'd love to see even stronger depth going into the screen. I'd really like to see a small intimate drama film use depth to tell their story so that people could get the idea that it's not just something useful for spectacle and action films.

I suggest you take a look at Thomas Jane's "Dark Country". Most of the action takes place inside a car but still manages to get a lot of mileage from its 3D. Shot in 3D with some 3D fx post production and supervised by 3D veteran Ray Zone.
It didn't exactly set box office records and wasn't widely shown in 3D but it's definitely worth a look.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

sounds great, thanks!

 

[3-DIY]

For what it's worth, the Dolby 3-D TV is essentially a rebranding of the same 3-D technology that Phillips has been demonstrating since 2008. There is little new about it, save for the increased resolution of the underlying TV.

Auto-stereoscopic displays of this size operate differently than a standard 3DTV, in that they use a lens system similar to a lenticular postcard to allow the viewers eyes to see left and right views simultaneously. These TVs do not just present left and right pairs - they require multiple images in between the extremes to essentially fill the area under each lenticule. The inherent problem with this method is the limited viewing angle of the lenses, which leads to the limited "sweet spots" from which the 3-D can be viewed. The wider the viewing angle of the optics, the wider the sweet spot, but at the same time, more images are needed to create the spread from left to right. And lenticular displays DO have limitations on the amount of parallax that they can accurately present before the image degrades and can no longer be seen correctly in 3-D. Very deep 3-D, both in positive (into screen) and negative space (off screen) is impossible with the current tech.

The current wave of auto-stereoscopic TVs have a dirty little secret that isn't well publicized - in order to create the multiple views, the manufacturers are throwing away the original stereo and synthesizing new depth from a single view. In some cases, this means preparing new content ahead of time, as in Dolby's demo, which featured Dolby's in-house conversions of 3-D content within the parameters that work for their TV - and I have spoken with several of the content creators who are disgusted that Dolby has destroyed their stereoscopic intent without noting that the 3-D has been modified from it's original format. In the case of some other glasses-free TVs, they are using an "on the fly" conversion algorithm to take the left eye from a 3-D BluRay and synthesize a new right eye with interpolated in between images. Again while there is depth, the original artists choices are "thrown out" with the right eye view.

Ultimately, glasses-free 3-D television is not ready for consumer use, and is still many years away from practically presenting original 3-D content as the filmmakers intended. There is some great research being done, and I have seen several experimental displays that utilized arrays of projectors (between 75 and 250 HD projectors) to create screen-spanning 3-D with no sweet spots, but these only work with rendered CG content. Computing power may eventually reach a point where 75 discreet views can be encoded/decoded/and synthesized from each frame of a media file, but its not happening in 2014.

 

[Ejanss]

I'd really like to see a small intimate drama film use depth to tell their story so that people could get the idea that it's not just something useful for spectacle and action films.

Wait, are you saying you DIDN'T buy "Dial M For Murder"??

 

[FoxyMulder]

Wait, are you saying you DIDN'T buy "Dial M For Murder"??

I love 3D and i love Hitchcock films but i never got into Dial M and i have seen it twice in 2D, so i passed on it.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I love Dial M, and it's the reason I got the 3-D add ons for my DLP set.But Dial M has what, TWO big pop out moments? (The hand and the key). It's a fantastic example of depth staging and camera placement, not pop out gimmicks, and the two moments where it does go out and totally motivated and don't remove you from the story the way like a paddleball would.