Why I Hate 3-d (and You Should Too)

[Basil1503559642]

Yeah,but give it time,my first DVD's in the late 1990's came via mail from the States for nearly 2 Years,the local scene had Roadshow rubbish with MPEG 5.i that 99% of Receivers couldn't decode.

[Tweedledum]

Yeah,but give it time,my first DVD's in the late 1990's came via mail from the States for nearly 2 Years,the local scene had Roadshow rubbish with MPEG 5.i that 99% of Receivers couldn't decode.

There's an ominous stillness out there in TV land, I have the sneaking feeling that the format has yet to be decided fully, similar to the Beta/VHS side swipe.

Back in the 70's when the only domestic recordings were made on 1/4" open reel stuff, the mighty Grundig empire, prematurely, in an effort to grab the lead, brought out a cassette recorder, much like the present format of Compact Cassettes, but to their own design.......Phillips set the score straight and an industry standard was achieved.

Grundig never got to the finish line on that one, and the few recorders, (in glorious Mono) and their cassette tapes (max 2 per customer) that did get sold were soon only used as table top radios.

One dealer I spoke to in 1972 tried to sell the models by stating that you'd only ever want two tapes with one for spare in case you filled the first one up.....LOL....15 minutes per side....LOL.

Which is worse than the CEO of Microsoft back in the early 70's or so, making a company observation that PC's would only ever be produced in small numbers, probably for big organisations that had a use for them, where did he get his crystal ball from?

Now that plasma is largely being overlooked in favour of LCD's, but are being still made, and 46" models are going for as little as $600, who wants to pay $2000 - $3000 in 3D language, for something that has no resale value once the format takes a new direction.

With the World Football Cup and Tour D' France over, the next big excitement will be the Olympics, and without doubt watching sport on a CRT TV, no matter how big the box is, is pretty tame, compared to a HD 42" plus LCD TV display..... BTDT.

I don't know if'n it's the sheer size of say a 42" LCD TV in 16:9 mode, and I'm no particular sporting type at all, but I watched every match in the World Cup Soccer (4AM for the final), and every leg of the Tour D' France....sheer magic, blew my socks off, especially when the guy that came in first in the last leg of the Tour 'D round the Champs D' Elysses belted out at the very last few yards to pip the post.

The biggest bonus of the Tour D' was the helicopter shots of the towns and villages and the sheer magnitude of the country side laid out like a model train-set display.

In my opinion, the LCD TV display is the best bang for the buck ever, and 3D will probably surpass that too, just gotta wait for the dust to settle a bit, and the competition to click in....Hee Hee, I can wait.

Ian.

[Basil1503559642]

There's an ominous stillness out there in TV land, I have the sneaking feeling that the format has yet to be decided fully, similar to the Beta/VHS side swipe.

In my opinion, the LCD TV display is the best bang for the buck ever, and 3D will probably surpass that too, just gotta wait for the dust to settle a bit, and the competition to click in....Hee Hee, I can wait.

Ian.

I'm sure of it Ian,with 3D TV i use the analogy of Dolby PL to DD,i'm sure where only in the PL phase with the main 3D game yet to come.

[ekkieTHUMP]

I'm sure of it Ian,with 3D TV i use the analogy of Dolby PL to DD,i'm sure where only in the PL phase with the main 3D game yet to come.

Both wrong i reckon,the stillness out there is consumers have decided that 3D is not worth $1 extra to us.Unless you bundle it all up and give it to us for nothing we don't want it in it's current form.Now give me a tv that displays a superior 2D picture than the one i have now and i'll be happy to have a look at it mr salesman,until then p!ss off and stop wasting my time.

[Basil1503559642]

Both wrong i reckon,the stillness out there is consumers have decided that 3D is not worth $1 extra to us.

We'll see,nobody knows the future esp. with consumer electronics but i think your missing the point,this is early days,wait until FTA 3D cranks up in the coming years,IMO of couse..

[Tweedledum]

We'll see,nobody knows the future esp. with consumer electronics but i think your missing the point,this is early days,wait until FTA 3D cranks up in the coming years,IMO of couse..

In actual fact we're all right, technology never stands still.

The 3D of today will in 5 years time be unsaleable even to Cash Converters, so unless you have ooddles of dough and just like to keep up with it, I'd be cautious....Who would buy the first car of the range straight from the product line......the next model is glowingly described as being "vastly" improved over the previous model, too bad if'n you bought the previous model.

I reckon there should be a law that stated that if the model is improved they should replace/upgrade your "unimproved" model at a slight cost upgrade, otherwise we're just target practice.

I see reviews on a digital camera forum that constantly reviewed "improved" models with all the bugs and glitches ironed out from the previous models, and I sometimes wonder if the next models with all their upgraded firmware and functions are so wunderbar, why is it the manufacturers stop selling that model having just "perfected' the model, and then bring out a whole new range that practically takes the picture itself, as soon as some of the bugs and glitches from the new model are ironed out.

I think there were 10 different models in one year by one camera make that had varying upgrades and firmware additions to iron out the new bugs and glitches, that in the end had to be given a complete new model designation due to the "revamp and improvements" along the line.

You never get the opportunity to hand your camera in to get the upgrade fitted, 'cos the sly mnf's make a few cosmetic changes that make it impossible to retrofit.

I never wonder anymore if the current model of whatever technical gizmo I've just bought will have spare parts to make it work again 5 years down the track, (enter the throw away society), but I get the sneaking suspicion that the insides of the same mnf brands, and a lot of generic brands too,are made in the same factory and just fitted to rebadged and branded cases by whoever buys the next 6 months production output.

Ian.

[MLXXX]

I'm sure of it Ian,with 3D TV i use the analogy of Dolby PL to DD,i'm sure where only in the PL phase with the main 3D game yet to come.

Dolby Pro Logic is an apt analogy for simulated 3D. Pro Logic can simulated surround from 2 channels. Alice in Wonderland is simulated 3D, except for the animations.

Dolby Digital 5.1 used in DVDs is frowned upon by audiophiles today; they will demand a higher bitrate, or a lossless compression!

I say that if you don't like the 3D you have seen in a non-simulated 3D movie, then you may just not have acquired a taste for stereoscopic 3D. And you may never acquire a taste for it.

It's a bit like stereo sound. Some people can take it it leave it. Others would bemoan having to listen to music in mono.

[Selby Acoustics]

I never wonder anymore if the current model of whatever technical gizmo I've just bought will have spare parts to make it work again 5 years down the track, (enter the throw away society), but I get the sneaking suspicion that the insides of the same mnf brands, and a lot of generic brands too,are made in the same factory and just fitted to rebadged and branded cases by whoever buys the next 6 months production output.

Ian.

Don't even start me on the throw away society! The only reason I have not replaced my old faithful TV, is precisely that. It's still faithful. I can't throw it out, it still works. Sure, it has it's failings. It is liable to turn off whenever it feels like it, there is no remote and I can't plug anything into it. But it works. Mostly.

I have a degree in Industrial Design and it's just heartbreaking to see a perfect design be shelved because it costs to much to tool even though it uses less blank product and can be easily pulled apart for repair saving money in the long term. But who pulls things apart anymore to fix them? Has anyone tried to battle a PC printer's insides? Why bother when it's so cheap to replace?

You are right Tweedledum, a lot of parts are just sitting there waiting to be used by the various brands and a lot of designs are based on what already exists. Out of the many screens I've opened, there are so many parts that are used between them. One noticable exception was the older model Pioneer Plasma's (PDP506-8? and PDP435-8?). These panels were designed from the ground up by Pioneer and this showed in the quality of the product.

[Tweedledum]

Dolby Pro Logic is an apt analogy for simulated 3D. Pro Logic can simulated surround from 2 channels. Alice in Wonderland is simulated 3D, except for the animations.

Dolby Digital 5.1 used in DVDs is frowned upon by audiophiles today; they will demand a higher bitrate, or a lossless compression!

I say that if you don't like the 3D you have seen in a non-simulated 3D movie, then you may just not have acquired a taste for stereoscopic 3D. And you may never acquire a taste for it.

It's a bit like stereo sound. Some people can take it it leave it. Others would bemoan having to listen to music in mono.

Hi, when it comes to stereo sound, the manner in which it's presented is the key.

When the Beatles were in vogue in the 70's I listened with headphones to a cassette recording....stereo it was, or appeared to be with an amplifier and speakers, but with headphones the left and right channels were totally seperated, that is you had total voice in the left ear and total guitar etc in the right ear, very disturbing, but if you muted the right ear channel you got Johnno doing his thing totally unaccompanied.

The bitrate will always determine the quality of the output, stereo or 5.1 etc, and if you can't record with the bitrate density required you'll definately hear the difference, digital is very unforgiving and the ear is a perfect comparator.

That's one of the reasons why MP3 is considered crap by some, but when put side by side with full CD recordings, the difference is hardly discernable if at all.

Some of the CD "music" I've listened to would sound the same even if it was MP3 at a bitrate of 20 or so....LOL.

With 3D, I'd be happy if the format produced what I saw in Alice, and if the TV standard eventuates that way I wouldn't complain.

The fact that the animations are full 3D is probably because they can create the frame rate high enough for recording 3D, whereas the live recording present 3D cameras probably can't get the frame rate fast enough at present.

I know my Fuji S5700 digital still camera, in video mode, has a frame rate of 30 frames per sec with a resolution of 640 X 480, and you get continuous video straight to the mem card, but anything denser than that just wouldn't save to the SD mem card fast enough, unless you dropped the resolution to 320 X 240 or a lower frame rate, which gives a crap grainy jerky video.

Am I right in assuming the movie industry is now shooting movies with digital equipment instead of the previous film stuff, and haven't got the digital movie cameras with fast big/enough buffers for saving, so no good for shooting 3D (double the frame rate) with present equipment?

I assume you need to shoot two frames for 3D in the same time you'd shoot one in 2D movies using digital technology to get synchronisation.

Ian.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Tweedledum

[MLXXX]

With 3D, I'd be happy if the format produced what I saw in Alice, and if the TV standard eventuates that way I wouldn't complain.

The fact that the animations are full 3D is probably because they can create the frame rate high enough for recording 3D, whereas the live recording present 3D cameras probably can't get the frame rate fast enough at present.

True 3D requires two lenses spaced a distance apart to record separate Left and Right images. Probably Alice was not planned to be in 3D but was changed to 3D to cash in on the success of Avatar.

In my opinion the simulation was workmanlike, but not a patch on true stereoscopic 3D.

I know my Fuji S5700 digital still camera, in video mode, has a frame rate of 30 frames per sec with a resolution of 640 X 480, and you get continuous video straight to the mem card, but anything denser than that just wouldn't save to the SD mem card fast enough, unless you dropped the resolution to 320 X 240 or a lower frame rate, which gives a crap grainy jerky video.

3D capture does pose challenges.

Am I right in assuming the movie industry is now shooting movies with digital equipment instead of the previous film stuff, and haven't got the digital movie cameras with fast big/enough buffers for saving, so no good for shooting 3D (double the frame rate) with present equipment?

There's still a lot done with film. With 3D digital video, you often use pairs of cameras for maximum flexibility. Avatar used Panasonic digital cameras. There's a lot of postproduction tweaking the 3D and with any added animations. You need to synchronise the cameras as they are capturing.

But then the movie Street Dance had no anime; just a story of young dancers trying to make good in the dance world. Filmed in true stereoscopic 3D, it used a "Tri-Delta Prism Stereo camera adapter". That is, an image splitter for stereo photography. So single cameras creating side by side video. The final result for that movie was superb - very realistic.

[Tweedledum]

True 3D requires two lenses spaced a distance apart to record separate Left and Right images. Probably Alice was not planned to be in 3D but was changed to 3D to cash in on the success of Avatar.

In my opinion the simulation was workmanlike, but not a patch on true stereoscopic 3D.

3D capture does pose challenges.

There's still a lot done with film. With 3D digital video, you often use pairs of cameras for maximum flexibility. Avatar used Panasonic digital cameras. There's a lot of postproduction tweaking the 3D and with any added animations. You need to synchronise the cameras as they are capturing.

But then the movie Street Dance had no anime; just a story of young dancers trying to make good in the dance world. Filmed in true stereoscopic 3D, it used a "Tri-Delta Prism Stereo camera adapter". That is, an image splitter for stereo photography. So single cameras creating side by side video. The final result for that movie was superb - very realistic.

Wow , a "tri delta Prism thingy", now that's something I can relate to....making the synchro bit 100% possible for the man in the street, using a standard digi cam for video, but how was the movie viewed on screen, shutter glasses? The frame rate would have to be pretty high.

I would go on record and admit that I'm totally besotted by 3D rendition, being an old Viewmaster addict from way back.

My late camera club had a brochure on a device, (I'll have to find out from one of the previous members what it was called), that fitted to the front of your still/video camera lens, which split the subject into two images, via a prism, taking the picture by "seeing" the subject with the splitter in path about 120mm -150mm apart, and saving it as a single file with the two pictures viewed side by side.

Not sure how you'd project it, you'd probably see two images side by side on the screen for a start, but once you've got the information saved the processing can take whatever it needs to realise it, and I expect as projecting and/or TV displaying it would give you a screen shot with two pictures side by side, you'd probably need a special set of glasses to view, something that would allow you to see each half of the screen picture seperately without overlap, like a pair of opera glasses, tricky.

You could use two TV screens set apart a bit and use a pair of binoculars LOL, whatever next.

I didn't get to see the brochure fully, but something like that, provided you have a camera with at least 5-7 MP resolution or better, would be the most practical way to achieve true 3D.

In a moment of sheer indulgence, some time back, I went on Ebay and bought a "virtual 80" TV" head set to view DVD's from a DVD player, TV or whatever source, but without the need for a monitor.

It's not 3D, but it does give you two seperate 2d images that you see as one big image as if it were an 80" diagonal TV screen at 1 metre distance.

This device, although not the desirable way to go, would if modified, give you true 3D, but is hardly practical or comfortable for extended viewing, and now that I've bought the thing, I expect they'll bring out the same thing but with 3D capabiity, you (I) just can't win.

I think the 3D shutter glasses, viewing a synchroed single TV screen with alternate L/R image transmission would be the way to go, but as I've not seen a demo of any system yet that's pure speculation, but most probably at least you'd be able to see the picture 2d without glasses.

If the system gravitated to the present cinema way with simple polarised glasses as in the Alice in Wunderbar Land way on a standard TV set, I'd suscribe to that method, provided the TV set was a standard LCD one (like mine) with the transmitted image being decoded seperately by the polarised glasses.

If that were the case, then anyone not having 3D polarised glasses would see a fuzzy image, but as you'd have to have a TV that is capable of digital and HD reception anyway if'n you wanted to see digital and HD programs, it goes without saying that if some programs were sent out in 3D, it was up to the viewer to provide the necessary.

Eventually, if that format was the norm, 3D would be just another thing for the uninitiated to moan about.

Ian.

[MLXXX]

Wow , a "tri delta Prism thingy", now that's something I can relate to....making the synchro bit 100% possible for the man in the street, using a standard digi cam for video, but how was the movie viewed on screen, shutter glasses? The frame rate would have to be pretty high.

The film capture rate would have been 24fps. The cinema I went to handed out polarised glasses. The projector would have alternated between Left and Right images at 144 fps. This is the usual method these days for the cinema. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema ]

My late camera club had a brochure on a device, (I'll have to find out from one of the previous members what it was called), that fitted to the front of your still/video camera lens, which split the subject into two images, via a prism, taking the picture by "seeing" the subject with the splitter in path about 120mm -150mm apart, and saving it as a single file with the two pictures viewed side by side.

Sounds like a 3D splitting prism.

Not sure how you'd project it, you'd probably see two images side by side on the screen for a start, but once you've got the information saved the processing can take whatever it needs to realise it, ...

Exactly, capture can be with two synchronised cameras or one camera with a 3D splitter prism but both methods result in two independenr images for the Left and Righht eyes.

I didn't get to see the brochure fully, but something like that, provided you have a camera with at least 5-7 MP resolution or better, would be the most practical way to achieve true 3D.

Yes you lose half the horizontal resolution.

In a moment of sheer indulgence, some time back, I went on Ebay and bought a "virtual 80" TV" head set to view DVD's from a DVD player, TV or whatever source, but without the need for a monitor. ...

This device, although not the desirable way to go, would if modified, give you true 3D, but is hardly practical or comfortable for extended viewing, and now that I've bought the thing, I expect they'll bring out the same thing but with 3D capabiity, you (I) just can't win.

Yes a pity your unit apparently can't split a side by side 3D source into its Left and Right images.

I think the 3D shutter glasses, viewing a synchroed single TV screen with alternate L/R image transmission would be the way to go, but as I've not seen a demo of any system yet that's pure speculation, but most probably at least you'd be able to see the picture 2d without glasses.

The TV needs to be able to switch between Left and Right images at a high rate. It repeats each frame at least twice to avoid flicker. Watching such a screen without glasses reveals a somewhat blurred looking image. Closeups would look like a double image.

If the system gravitated to the present cinema way with simple polarised glasses as in the Alice in Wunderbar Land way on a standard TV set, I'd suscribe to that method, provided the TV set was a standard LCD one (like mine) with the transmitted image being decoded seperately by the polarised glasses.

Am not sure what you're saying here. From a consumer's viewpoint shutter glasses at 100 or 120Hz will yield a similar viewing experience to passive polarised glasss viewing a screen that is changing polarisation at 144Hz.

As for cost, shutter glasses cost more than passive glasses. On the other hand, 3D TV displays for viewing with passive polarised glasses are very expensive. [see for example Hyundai 46 inch Polarized 3D LCD HDTV S465D and this TV provides only half the vertical resolution when in 3D mode.]

[Tweedledum]

The film capture rate would have been 24fps. The cinema I went to handed out polarised glasses. The projector would have alternated between Left and Right images at 144 fps. This is the usual method these days for the cinema. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema ]

Sounds like a 3D splitting prism.

Exactly, capture can be with two synchronised cameras or one camera with a 3D splitter prism but both methods result in two independenr images for the Left and Righht eyes.

Yes you lose half the horizontal resolution.

Yes a pity your unit apparently can't split a side by side 3D source into its Left and Right images.

The TV needs to be able to switch between Left and Right images at a high rate. It repeats each frame at least twice to avoid flicker. Watching such a screen without glasses reveals a somewhat blurred looking image. Closeups would look like a double image.

Am not sure what you're saying here. From a consumer's viewpoint shutter glasses at 100 or 120Hz will yield a similar viewing experience to passive polarised glasss viewing a screen that is changing polarisation at 144Hz.

As for cost, shutter glasses cost more than passive glasses. On the other hand, 3D TV displays for viewing with passive polarised glasses are very expensive. [see for example Hyundai 46 inch Polarized 3D LCD HDTV S465D and this TV provides only half the vertical resolution when in 3D mode.]

Very enlightening....invention #44, CRT 3D....now all I have to do is take two CRT Tv's and turn them on their sides, arrange for a computer input to give an interlaced output to the TV's and somehow try to see the two interlaced displays at their change over point, but view the interlaced displays on different scan lines.

I realise this would give a very "liney" picture as I'm viewing half the screen resolution on each one, but...........what the heck, CRT's are dead and LCD are here to stay.....hee hee, just having a brainstorm.

Pity the technology with polorised glasses is TV dependent and expensive, but I expect someone will have a go at the shutter glasses mode and you're bound to see something on the market, until eventually like stereo sound and 5.1, the method settles down and that's it.

At the moment I'm having a go at 3D still photo's, as my Viewmaster days are still haunting me, and to that end I've bought on Ebay another Fuji Finepix S5700 camera and intend mounting them on a frame on a tripod, to give the lens end spacing at 65mm with a pivot point at the end of the lens and so allow the "convergence point" of the two cameras to be the same.

This will simulate the effect of your eyeballs swivelling inwards, as the distance to the subject decreases, and so see the two sides of the subject giving the brain the depth information it requires for stereo vision.

The mounting base will be calibrated so that each camera pointing straight ahead, parallel, will be the zero point, and as the distance to the subject decreases, the frame will synchronise the two camera movements to converge them and keep them on subject and give the two identical images but with slight left and right angle information for stero capture.

The frame will also maintain the lens end spacing at 65mm, when the lenses point inwards by about 20 degrees or so, and will allow the cameras, (attached by their tripod bushes to the frame), to pivot on a central point at the end of each lens.

Once the subject is selected, and the distance/convergence point set, both shutter buttons are pressed to first focus both cameras and then take the picture simultaneously, so solving the problem of taking 3D pictures of subject that are liable to be moving at the moment of button pressing.

Unfortunately the two cameras can't be synchronised for video as there is no cross coupling to one saving point, and without the exact synchro the 3D would just be two videos but not coherently synchroed.

If some camera manufacture, in a rare moment, brought out a black box that allowed you to mount and plug in two cheap digi cams in Webb cam mode, and the box synchroed both camera video captures, you'd have 3D for the price of a very cheap setup, unlike the Panasonic (I think it was Panasonic) 3D dedicated camera that costs around $1000....whew....some hobby....but 3d for posterity.......you can't go back and do it over once the scene is gone, and judging by the sales of video dedicated cameras there's a big market for movies, especially so for 3d movies.

Output will be dependent on the method, but as it's initially two seperate files at one moment in time......that takes a bit of synchro analysis for viewing, but I hope the ordinary LCD TV can be a part of the equation, even with shutter glasses, but preferably with simple polarised glasses.

Ian.

[tonymy01]

Dolby Pro Logic is an apt analogy for simulated 3D. Pro Logic can simulated surround from 2 channels.

It isn't "simulated" at all. It has true rear channel information matrix encoded into the front stereo pair by using phase tricks. So dolby surround technology, while using 2ch to carry the audio, was built by, and provides a 3 channel result (well, 4 channel, since centre=common/in phase L&R, rear is phase difference L-R effectively).

Regards

[MLXXX]

It isn't "simulated" at all. It has true rear channel information matrix encoded into the front stereo pair by using phase tricks. So dolby surround technology, while using 2ch to carry the audio, was built by, and provides a 3 channel result (well, 4 channel, since centre=common/in phase L&R, rear is phase difference L-R effectively).

Regards

I was aware of the above. However what I said was that the technology can simulate surround from 2 channels, which is quite true, i.e. from any ordinary stereo source not doctored/encoded for prologic. But I guess I could have been more specific.

I am not sure exactly what Basil meant when he referred to to current 3D stereoscopic movies being similar to Dolby pro logic. After all, a movie like Street Dance, shot with single cameras using a prism to obtain the displaced views for Left and Right is a pure form of capture of discrete Left and Right views, similar in audio terms to true stereo of a left hand mic and a right hand mic placed a certain distance apart. There is no "simulation" or "phase trick" in obtaining the separate Left and Right views with a true 3D movie like StreetDance. It is true stereoscopic 3D.

[Basil1503559642]

I was just comparing current 3D technology to the first sucessful surround sound technology,i feel a much more advanced 3D format for FTA TV is just around the corner as was DD & DTS when Pro Logic was starting to gain acceptance in the home.

Seems to be a breakthru nearly every week.3D Map Reading