>   Arguable, yes, but in a "splitting hairs, 4:2:0" sort of way, not in actual
usable resolution (in the purest sense of the word).
>

I'm not sure what you're saying.  Yes 4:2:0 sucks ; ), but my point was
that 4:2:0 shot at full HD preserves more of the chroma detail the
sensor actually captured (before the decimation) than 4:2:0 shot at 720p.

>   Don't get me wrong, I'll use HDV over nothing any day.  But I'm also not
saying it's amazing, or comparable to anything that you or I would stand behind
in the real world of production.  ;-)
>

Sure (except I'm actually limited to HDV personally ; ).  But the
original point was, does it make sense to have 1080p as a consumer
delivery standard (yes), does it make sense if you can't shoot at your
sensor's full chroma res (yes) - and even if you can shot 720p 4:4:4
like Cesar (which as you point out isn't actually true 4:4:4 on Bayer
sensor cameras), it can still make sense to upsample the completed
footage to full HD for consumer formats, as you still preserve more of
your original chroma that way (assuming you have enough bitrate to play
with).
--
gl

An interesting find.

Looks like they're selling printed barrier screens to put over standard
laptop other screens, but it could be  lenticular sheet. So, if I'm right,
nothing magic.

I've heard of people printing their own barrier screens successfully...

Bob Aldridge


----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos" <caneta3d@...>
To: <3dtv@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:19 AM
Subject: [3dtv] 3D laptop


> anybody try this?
> iart 3D sheet?
>
>
http://www.iart3d.com/ENG/Products/Autostereoscopic%20Display/Auto3D_Order_Eng.h\
tm
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

anybody try this?
iart 3D sheet?

http://www.iart3d.com/ENG/Products/Autostereoscopic%20Display/Auto3D_Order_Eng.h\
tm

Thanks

Sorry works now It's okay, they were doing maintenance.
Cheers
           Philip

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Philip Heggie
   To: 3dtv@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:48 PM
   Subject: Re: [3dtv] Re: new 3D content portal: www.yabazam.com



   Anyone successfully purchased a movie?
   It keeps saying payment declined because card holder's
   address doesn't match billing address for me
   though I'm using my correct card holders address.
   Cheers
   Philip

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> However
> due to chroma subsampling in consumer formats
> the extra resolution actually gives you more of
> the original chroma detail

   Arguable, yes, but in a "splitting hairs, 4:2:0" sort of way, not in
actual usable resolution (in the purest sense of the word).

   Don't get me wrong, I'll use HDV over nothing any day.  But I'm also
not saying it's amazing, or comparable to anything that you or I would
stand behind in the real world of production.  ;-)


-Eric

> That's why I shoot Uncompressed Raw, when debayered to
> Uncompressed RGB, is 4:4:4 color sampling.

   Not really.  :-)

-Eric

Anyone successfully purchased a movie?
It keeps saying payment declined because card holder's
address doesn't match billing address for me
though I'm using my correct card holders address.
Cheers
           Philip

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I wanted to test out 60fps progressive on a pair of twin cams.  My idea here
was, forget the syncing.  I just cannot find an easy or cheap way to sync
cameras for video, so I give up.  The easiest way is in post and if the frame
rate is fast enough, you get pretty good results.  I got two of the cheapest
60fps progressive cameras I could find to test this concept out.  It works
pretty good.  Not only that, I think 60fps really is the way to go.  Handheld
video is always too jerky and now at least a fast framerate makes it more
tolerable.  Even when you knock that video down to just 30fps, it still looks
good.

So I used two aiptek gvs cams in the 720p 60fps mode.  First off, these cameras
are really crappy, but they do actually rip off 60fps in 720P mode.  The
resolution really is debateable, and color and contrast suck.  They cost $175 a
piece, so what do you expect.  I have to say, its the best quality 3d video I
have produced.  Its better than twin Sony v3 cams, even with sync.  Its better
than stereo data maker rigs that have no sync, like twin G9s at 640x480, and its
better than the fuji 3d camera(which I own also). Mind you, its not a still 3d
rig, just video.  Stills are best by any of those other 3d rigs mentioned.

Here is a short clip.  You can see how fast 60fps is.  You may need a serious
machine to play this clip back.  Its downsized to 1920x720ish and is at 60fps
progressive frames.  The clip should play smooth as glas or your machine may
have an issue, it wont be the clip.

http://home.comcast.net/~scstudios/test/60fps.avi

Sorry the clip isnt longer.

I got these cams as destroyable cams for a project and was a bit surprised at
how good they performed as 3d cams due to the 60fps.  A big downside is, you can
only get 50mm focal length for 720p60 video.  Other video modes are wider, but
not by much.  I would have loved a solid 35mm focal length, but no dice.  This
worked so well, I am debating twin Sanyo FH1 cams for 3d video.

This is very true.  The first time I saw a Zalman monitor it was on a  low
table and I was above it.  This was at a nightclub stereo event in Los
Angeles.  There were several Zalmans playing and a huge big screen  projecting
Real D.  One of the Zalmans was on a low table and I was  towering above it.
The image looked pseudo to me.  When I told this  to the person
demonstrating the screen, he crouched down in front of it and said  "It looks
fine to
me".
JEH


In a message dated 11/9/2009 11:44:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stereoscope3d@... writes:

I  guess the problem there is lack of knowledge. From the great feedback
>  here I know that you have to be in a narrow vertical zone with the
>  line-polarized displays. If a sales guy doesn't know that and sees it
>  for a few rushed seconds in a trade show, from the wrong angle, it
>  probably would have looked terrible to  him.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was lucky to get the last Zalman monitor they had in stock at the Burbank
  store.  Although the 15" Zalman was listed in their catalogue, I was told
that it had been discontinued.
JEH


In a message dated 11/9/2009 10:42:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stereoscope3d@... writes:

I was  at the same Fry's a few weeks ago, John, and the monitor was
>  displaying 3-D just fine.
> JEH
>
> I am sure. This is  typical. This was likely an excuse the particular
> salesperson made  because he couldn't get it working himself. But the
point
> was, that  they are discouraging the use of  3D.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, gl <gl@...> wrote:

> The only exception I see is if you're lucky enough to shoot at the full
> chroma res your sensor allows, then I guess 720p can be spectacular.
> But that's not possible on consumer gear, nor can you deliver full
> chroma on consumer playback codecs.
> --
> gl
>




That's why I shoot Uncompressed Raw, when debayered to Uncompressed RGB, is
4:4:4 color sampling.


CR.

Ha fantastic. Made me laugh...phil

--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Deren" <eric_list@...> wrote:
>
>
> Skip ahead in the video about 55 seconds and they do
> a "countdown to 3D":
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y
>
> They should really try sticking some more
> stuff into the camera.
>
> -Eric
>

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM, gl <gl@...> wrote:

>
>
> I guess the problem there is lack of knowledge. From the great feedback
> here I know that you have to be in a narrow vertical zone with the
> line-polarized displays. If a sales guy doesn't know that and sees it
> for a few rushed seconds in a trade show, from the wrong angle, it
> probably would have looked terrible to him.
> --
> gl
>
>   TThe narrow vertical viewing angle certainly has been discussed here.
>  However, not to the general public.   I feel that the people
>  manufacturing, distributing, and selling these are doing themselves as well
> as potential customers a disservice by not pointing this out, very
> obviously, in their store displays.  The typical retail store has a
> situation where the typical person is standing up when they see these, or if
> seated may be of different heights.  If they do not have a salesperson to
> guide them, they should have a large sign clearly stating this, and showing
> them the correct viewing position (or instructing them how to tilt the
> screen, when feasible).
>

One advantage of the laptops, is that the screen is usually "within arms
reach" for tilting at the optimum angle.  As separate monitors get larger,
they are often placed further away, which makes adjusting them less
convenient.  Also, while most desktop monitors have adjustable bases or
mounts, this is not always the case with wall mounted television screens.

I mounted small mirrors on the frame edges, positioned to "converge" at my
viewing distance.  Then, when I open the laptop, I glance at the mirror.  If
I can see my eye in the mirror, I know that it is at exactly the optimum
angle.

JR

> _._,_.___
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> something similar happened to me some days ago: I went into a well known big
electrnics market here in Germany and asked for the Acer 3D notebook - the
answer was: "no we do not sell it - I have seen it at a fair and the quality was
too bad - no we do not sell any 3D components and will not do in the the future"
> I turned around and went out of this store...
>

I guess the problem there is lack of knowledge.  From the great feedback
here I know that you have to be in a narrow vertical zone with the
line-polarized displays.  If a sales guy doesn't know that and sees it
for a few rushed seconds in a trade show, from the wrong angle, it
probably would have looked terrible to him.
--
gl

> Again, NOT everything should be measured by resolution ALONE.
>

I agree with you on that, however when you take the other points I made
into account, it's still better to shoot & work in full HD where possible.

The only exception I see is if you're lucky enough to shoot at the full
chroma res your sensor allows, then I guess 720p can be spectacular.
But that's not possible on consumer gear, nor can you deliver full
chroma on consumer playback codecs.
--
gl

You did not miss much John, I saw an IZ3D monitor at a Fry store in LA too (I
don't recall what location) and the 3D effect wasn't the greatest.

It was full of ghosting.....

I like the Zalman 3D monitor better (they sell it there too.)


CR.




--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, JR <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
>
> I was in the local Fry's (Burbank, California) to buy a hard drive, when I
> saw a rather impressive display with an iZ3D monitor and a pair of glasses.
>  The monitor was not turned on.   I asked the salesperson if he could turn
> it on.   He said "oh, sure", and pressed the button.   After boot up, the
> monitor came on, with a 2D picture.   I asked him if I could go into the
> menu and switch it to 3D.  He said, "We don't allow customers to do that",
> even though people were fiddling with numerous 2D computers and monitors all
> over the floor.  He then played around with the menu himself, and said.  "it
> doesn't work.   You don't want 3D anyway.   I can get you a much better
> price on a 2D monitor".    I asked him why they were displaying a product
> that didn't work.   He said "The guy from the company came in and set up the
> display.  He didn't leave any instructions or tell us how to run it.  None
> of us have been able to get it to work.   You sure you don't want to look at
> a good normal monitor?    3D isn't any good.   2D is much better.   And
> cheaper."   As I was already late for an important appointment, I didn't
> have time to hang around and discuss it further.
>
> JR
> --
> stereoscope3d@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Pixels size in such consumer camcorders is very small.....(less than 3 micron
pixels)

With that, 3 problems come to my mind right now:

1-Low sensitivity

2-Usually high levels of Noise

3-Lens diffraction at small lens aperture (usually above f8 in those tinny
sensors)


Again, NOT everything should be measured by resolution ALONE.

CR.





--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, gl <gl@...> wrote:
>
>
> >   In the end, a 720p delivery is
> > probably a closer fit to the actual
> > resolution of these cameras, as with
> > most cameras in this category.
> >
>
> That's probably true from a pure luma resolution perspective.  However
> due to chroma subsampling in consumer formats (unless you record
> uncompressed via HDMI) the extra resolution actually gives you more of
> the original chroma detail (this of course is also true for consumer
> delivery formats like Bu-ray).
>
> And then when you apply sharpening in post, higher res = fewer
> artifacts.  And if you choose to add some grain, you actually increase
> the high frequency information, where a higher res = better again.  So
> altogether it makes sense to work in full HD (or anamorphic HDV) until
> the final conversion to whatever format (and then due to chroma
> subsampling, larger = better again).
>
> And all this assumes consumer-level gear, it sounds to me like many
> people here have access to better equipment, so I would hope they shoot
> in full HD if they can.
> --
> gl
>

> that they are discouraging the use of 3D.

something similar happened to me some days ago: I went into a well known big
electrnics market here in Germany and asked for the Acer 3D notebook - the
answer was: "no we do not sell it - I have seen it at a fair and the quality was
too bad - no we do not sell any 3D components and will not do in the the future"
I turned around and went out of this store...

Werner





JR schrieb:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, <movies3d@...> wrote:
>
>
>> I was at the same Fry's a few weeks ago, John, and the monitor was
>> displaying 3-D just fine.
>> JEH
>>
>> I am sure.  This is typical.   This was likely an excuse the particular
>> salesperson made because he couldn't get it working himself.  But the point
>> was, that they are discouraging the use of 3D.
>>
>>
> JR
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, <movies3d@...> wrote:

>
>
> I was at the same Fry's a few weeks ago, John, and the monitor was
> displaying 3-D just fine.
> JEH
>
> I am sure.  This is typical.   This was likely an excuse the particular
> salesperson made because he couldn't get it working himself.  But the point
> was, that they are discouraging the use of 3D.
>
JR


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>   In the end, a 720p delivery is
> probably a closer fit to the actual
> resolution of these cameras, as with
> most cameras in this category.
>

That's probably true from a pure luma resolution perspective.  However
due to chroma subsampling in consumer formats (unless you record
uncompressed via HDMI) the extra resolution actually gives you more of
the original chroma detail (this of course is also true for consumer
delivery formats like Bu-ray).

And then when you apply sharpening in post, higher res = fewer
artifacts.  And if you choose to add some grain, you actually increase
the high frequency information, where a higher res = better again.  So
altogether it makes sense to work in full HD (or anamorphic HDV) until
the final conversion to whatever format (and then due to chroma
subsampling, larger = better again).

And all this assumes consumer-level gear, it sounds to me like many
people here have access to better equipment, so I would hope they shoot
in full HD if they can.
--
gl

I was at the same Fry's a few weeks ago, John, and the monitor was
displaying 3-D just fine.
JEH


In a message dated 11/9/2009 9:42:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stereoscope3d@... writes:

I was  in the local Fry's (Burbank, California) to buy a hard drive, when I
saw a  rather impressive display with an iZ3D monitor and a pair of  glasses



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was in the local Fry's (Burbank, California) to buy a hard drive, when I
saw a rather impressive display with an iZ3D monitor and a pair of glasses.
  The monitor was not turned on.   I asked the salesperson if he could turn
it on.   He said "oh, sure", and pressed the button.   After boot up, the
monitor came on, with a 2D picture.   I asked him if I could go into the
menu and switch it to 3D.  He said, "We don't allow customers to do that",
even though people were fiddling with numerous 2D computers and monitors all
over the floor.  He then played around with the menu himself, and said.  "it
doesn't work.   You don't want 3D anyway.   I can get you a much better
price on a 2D monitor".    I asked him why they were displaying a product
that didn't work.   He said "The guy from the company came in and set up the
display.  He didn't leave any instructions or tell us how to run it.  None
of us have been able to get it to work.   You sure you don't want to look at
a good normal monitor?    3D isn't any good.   2D is much better.   And
cheaper."   As I was already late for an important appointment, I didn't
have time to hang around and discuss it further.

JR
--
stereoscope3d@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> full HD progressive sensors

> (ie. it's true resolution, not
> interpolation), see the sample here:


It would be interesting to see what these
cameras do with actual resolution
tests vs. counting sensor pixels:

http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/photo-test/pics/lens-tests.html

   In the end, a 720p delivery is
probably a closer fit to the actual
resolution of these cameras, as with
most cameras in this category.


-Eric

> In fact some of us have discovered that they actually have 4:3 sensors
> of at least 2048x1536, as that is one of the still picture modes which
> gives you a wider image than video frame (ie. it's true resolution,
> not interpolation), see the sample here:

I should have said 'taller' (barely wider, 1920 vs 2048).
--
gl

> HD consumer camcorders are either 540x960 pxs (progressive) or 1080x1440 pxs
(interlaced)...and the acquisition codec is in par with current "delivery" ones.
>

I don't think this is correct for all of them.  The Canon HV20/30/40 for
example are claimed to have full HD progressive sensors (I own an HV20,
at the time is was repeatedly voted camera of the year, mainly for its
image quality).

In fact some of us have discovered that they actually have 4:3 sensors
of at least 2048x1536, as that is one of the still picture modes which
gives you a wider image than video frame (ie. it's true resolution, not
interpolation), see the sample here:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/440734290_aa541ff496_o.jpg
--
gl

Cesar's attempt at such difficult problems are a good result of a well rounded
education,he sees it as a whole.Lots of us get cornered into using
blinders.Whatever the final output is for now,the best one can do is to record
in the highest quality one can afford and archive well for future upgrades.

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Cesar Rubio <rubiocesar83@...> wrote:

> From: Cesar Rubio <rubiocesar83@...>
> Subject: [3dtv] Re: Notes on 3D Blu-ray from The Digital Bits...720p 3D
cameras.
> To: 3dtv@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 11:41 PM
>
>
>
> Ged:
>
> I shoot in full HD 1080p with my Bayer sensor cameras.
>
> But to get the best resolution and detail, then I
> down-convert to 720p.
>
> Like I said before, I have projected 720p footage in a 18
> feet screen (almost 6 mts) with "cinema quality" spectacular
> results.
>
> I am NOT against 1080p at all, but I don't think that we
> need it for home viewing given the added complications from
> capture to delivery.
>
> We need to think in a solution that takes into account all
> aspects of 3D content creation...not just the display side
> of things.
>
> A 720p 3D workflow is the best for home viewing IMO.
>
> I am looking into these 3 CCD cameras for 3D production
> right now:
>
>
> http://www.jai.com/EN/CameraSolutions/Products/Pages/AT-200CL.aspx
>
>
> With extra pixels to have room for cropping in 3D editing,
> a final descent 720p 3D footage can come up of these little
> fellas.....
>
> CR.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com,
> Ged <gedburnell@...> wrote:
> >
> > 2009/11/7 Cesar Rubio <rubiocesar83@...>
> >
> > >
> > > 1080p 3D delivery for the home doesn't make any
> sense at all right
> > > now...(probably in 25 years or so could be ok)
> > >
> > >
> > Affordable 1080p projectors are coming on the market
> now, so I can't think
> > why you'd want to wait 25 years?!  Your 1080p
> footage from a MVC doesn't
> > look that bad, so if you've got the means to show in
> FullHD then I'd shoot
> > in FullHD.
> >
> > Ged
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Groups Links
>
>
>     3dtv-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Exactly Ged, that's the problem, COST.

HD consumer camcorders are either 540x960 pxs (progressive) or 1080x1440 pxs
(interlaced)...and the acquisition codec is in par with current "delivery" ones.

The only full 1080p cameras that are affordable enough are the Sony EX-1/3 line.

But they have a delivery codec quality for capture as well.


I probably would consider such cameras, only if recording uncompressed RGB to an
external computer...or at least with a Nano flash recorder at 220 Mbits. (Max
quality).

But that would be if I liked beam splitter rigs for 3D. But I DON'T.

I don't see manufacturers bringing CineAlta camera or heads ( 3-CCD 2/3" full
raster 1080p chips) in less than a $30K price range anytime soon.

They could if they wanted of course, but they don't.

Professional markets are just a very small percentage of consumer markets in
terms of quantity of cameras sold.

And the tech support, R&D, distribution channels and sales departments are
usually very costly. And they want to make a profit to continue making such
professional cameras......

I am aiming for 3D acquisition quality good enough for HDTV, with REASONABLE
costs, and without cutting corners with lesser consumer or prosumer quality
equipment.

Guess what? Most people instead of spending the BIG bucks in top of the line
1080p cameras, they will go with less costly (and with less quality) ones...and
at the end we will be watching a LOT of sub par "1080p" footage at home anyways.

Can you see my point in all this?

If not, I am afraid that this discussions is getting no where.

Thanks for your time anyways.

Cesar Rubio.





--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, Ged <gedburnell@...> wrote:
>
> >2009/11/9 Cesar Rubio <rubiocesar83@...>
>
> > I am NOT against 1080p at all, but I don't think that we need it for home
viewing given the added complications from capture to delivery.
>
> I neither own a FullHD 1080 camcorder nor any means to show Full HD
> yet, I have every intention when the price is right.  But, I wouldn't
> have thought FullHD any more difficult to capture and present than
> regular SD.  The biggest barrier is probably the cost, to my pocket at
> least.
>
> I've personally seen Barry Aldous's set up, See:
> http://www.aldous.net/photo/project10.htm and he hasn't had to 'jump
> through anymore hoops' than I do with my current SD setup.
>
> > A 720p 3D workflow is the best for home viewing IMO.
>
> I don't see why you should compromise quality, assuming your display
> device and codec compression is sufficiently large enough to
> appreciate the extra resolution.  The FullHD 3D 103" Panasonic Plasma
> was awesome.
>
> Ged
>

Skip ahead in the video about 55 seconds and they do
a "countdown to 3D":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y

They should really try sticking some more
stuff into the camera.

-Eric

>2009/11/9 Cesar Rubio <rubiocesar83@...>

> I am NOT against 1080p at all, but I don't think that we need it for home
viewing given the added complications from capture to delivery.

I neither own a FullHD 1080 camcorder nor any means to show Full HD
yet, I have every intention when the price is right.  But, I wouldn't
have thought FullHD any more difficult to capture and present than
regular SD.  The biggest barrier is probably the cost, to my pocket at
least.

I've personally seen Barry Aldous's set up, See:
http://www.aldous.net/photo/project10.htm and he hasn't had to 'jump
through anymore hoops' than I do with my current SD setup.

> A 720p 3D workflow is the best for home viewing IMO.

I don't see why you should compromise quality, assuming your display
device and codec compression is sufficiently large enough to
appreciate the extra resolution.  The FullHD 3D 103" Panasonic Plasma
was awesome.

Ged

Ged:

I shoot in full HD 1080p with my Bayer sensor cameras.

But to get the best resolution and detail, then I down-convert to 720p.

Like I said before, I have projected 720p footage in a 18 feet screen (almost 6
mts) with "cinema quality" spectacular results.

I am NOT against 1080p at all, but I don't think that we need it for home
viewing given the added complications from capture to delivery.

We need to think in a solution that takes into account all aspects of 3D content
creation...not just the display side of things.

A 720p 3D workflow is the best for home viewing IMO.

I am looking into these 3 CCD cameras for 3D production right now:


http://www.jai.com/EN/CameraSolutions/Products/Pages/AT-200CL.aspx


With extra pixels to have room for cropping in 3D editing, a final descent 720p
3D footage can come up of these little fellas.....

CR.












--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, Ged <gedburnell@...> wrote:
>
> 2009/11/7 Cesar Rubio <rubiocesar83@...>
>
> >
> > 1080p 3D delivery for the home doesn't make any sense at all right
> > now...(probably in 25 years or so could be ok)
> >
> >
> Affordable 1080p projectors are coming on the market now, so I can't think
> why you'd want to wait 25 years?!  Your 1080p footage from a MVC doesn't
> look that bad, so if you've got the means to show in FullHD then I'd shoot
> in FullHD.
>
> Ged
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>